Riposte question

OK... A Toreador vs. blue blood(ventrue) the Toreador plays a "Riposte" the blue blood playes a "Majesty" Question: Does the "Riposte" do the 1(2) damage to the blue blood? Magnus Giritzlehner

a94m...@student.his.se (Magnus Giritzlehner) writes: [ quoted text not captured ] I'd guess "yes", since the damage from riposte is somehow (not yet explained) granted immunity from the termination of the strike resolution phase (as caused by Riposte). It must, therefore, be immune to further terminations of the strike resolution phase. Of course, the "damage unpreventable" text on Riposte combined with the lack of a strike resolution phase in which to inflict damage should lead a casual reader to determine that Riposte's damage is done after the "Combat Ends" effect - that is, after the combat is ended. If this were the official case, the resolution of the dilemma presented above would be trivially obvious. However, the Rules Team prefers the inconsistency of dealing damage in a phase which no longer exists. This will lead to some strange situations. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Working here is a nightmare. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | I'd quit but I need the sleep. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

Magnus Giritzlehner wrote: > > OK... A Toreador vs. blue blood(ventrue) > the Toreador plays a "Riposte" > the blue blood playes a "Majesty" > Question: Does the "Riposte" do the 1(2) damage to the blue blood? > > Magnus Giritzlehner I would assume that everything is simultaneous. The Majesty and Riposte take effect at the same time. The Riposte Ends Combat and deals 1 damage, and the Majesty Ends Combat. The result is a wounded Venture and a Very-Ended Combat. -- +-------------------------------------------------------+ | Assamite | | (assa...@inlink.com) | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | http://www.angelfire.com/pages0/assamite/index.html | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | If there were a Cell Z, I'd be a member of it... | +-------------------------------------------------------+

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >a94m...@student.his.se (Magnus Giritzlehner) writes: >>OK... A Toreador vs. blue blood(ventrue) >> the Toreador plays a "Riposte" >> the blue blood playes a "Majesty" >>Question: Does the "Riposte" do the 1(2) damage to the blue blood? [edited] >Of course, the "damage unpreventable" text on Riposte >should lead a casual reader to determine that Riposte's damage is >done after the "Combat Ends" effect - that is, after the combat is >ended. If this were the official case, the resolution of the >dilemma presented above would be trivially obvious. And so it should be. It says "damage not preventable", therefore its cardtext overrides the Majesty strike:combat ends. Also, the toreador played Riposte FIRST, thus making any other strikes played non-effective. That can be taken right out of the rulebook on how strike:combat ends works. Page 30 in the V:tes, page 36 in J:TES >However, the Rules Team prefers the inconsistency of dealing damage in a phase >which no longer exists. This will lead to some strange situations. Agreed, the mix of the rules in everyone's head is no doubt causing lots of confusion. Do you follow my lead in pointing out the definition of Strike:Combat Ends? In this case, it doesn't matter if someone played Majesty or any other strike. The acting vampire pulled a Riposte and that was all she wrote. gra...@gol.com -- Graham H. Watt gra...@gol.com http://www.portal.com/~graham J/V:TES(mtg)(ote) (Misawa, Japan) 40.40N Lat. 141.20E Lon.

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:30:35 GMT, refp...@best.com (Rory) wrote: >On Sun, 23 Jun 1996 10:58:27 GMT, a94m...@student.his.se (Magnus >Giritzlehner) wrote: > >>OK... A Toreador vs. blue blood(ventrue) >> the Toreador plays a "Riposte" >> the blue blood playes a "Majesty" >>Question: Does the "Riposte" do the 1(2) damage to the blue blood? >>Magnus Giritzlehner > > >Who was the acting minion? >The Ref at refp...@best.com > Should it REALLY matter!?! I mean a strike is a strike is a...

gra...@gol.com (Graham) writes: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >>a94m...@student.his.se (Magnus Giritzlehner) writes: >>>OK... A Toreador vs. blue blood(ventrue) >>> the Toreador plays a "Riposte" >>> the blue blood playes a "Majesty" >>>Question: Does the "Riposte" do the 1(2) damage to the blue blood? >[edited] >>Of course, the "damage unpreventable" text on Riposte >>should lead a casual reader to determine that Riposte's damage is >>done after the "Combat Ends" effect - that is, after the combat is >>ended. If this were the official case, the resolution of the >>dilemma presented above would be trivially obvious. >And so it should be. It says "damage not preventable", therefore its >cardtext overrides the Majesty strike:combat ends. Also, the toreador >played Riposte FIRST, thus making any other strikes played >non-effective. That can be taken right out of the rulebook on how >strike:combat ends works. Page 30 in the V:tes, page 36 in J:TES That is how it used to be when S:CE resolved the moment it was played (since the acting minion announced his strike first). But now, the two S:CE resolve at the same time (during strike resolution). They are the same effect, so neither has precedence. The section (page 30 in the V:tES rulebook) is a reworking of the rules attempting to clarify the earlier mis-rule from Jyhad - that the blocker doesn't announce a strike if the acting minion plays a S:CE. It is badly worded enough to yield "the acting minion's S:CE is superior to the blcoker's S:CE", but this should obviously not be the case. S:CE resolves beofre any other type of strike, but precedence is never given to the acting minion's strike resolution, only to the acting minion's strike declaration. Suppose both minions announce "strike: steal 2 blood" as their strikes. Does the acting minion's Strike: steal blood resolve prior to or simultaneously with the blocking minion's Strike: steal blood? TOM? Is it the intention of pg. 30 in the V:tES rulebook to make the acting minion's strike resolve first (or can we have a little errata to remedy the loophole)? [ quoted text not captured ]

Rory (refp...@best.com) wrote: : Well if the acting minion plays a combat ends strike then the Reacting : minion cannot play a strike card for effect but only to cycle thier : hand should they so desire. : Of course this is a pretty specific issue and I may have forgotten a : ruling here. : I know there was one on this issue but don't remember what it was : exactly. : Rory : The Ref at refp...@best.com This is not entirely true. For example, a blocking minion on combat could play superior majesty in response to a similar strike by the acting minion in order to untap. A better way to look at it is that since the strike resolution phase is skipped, _most_ strikes available to the blocking minion would be ineffective and useful only to cycle cards. Riposte would be an exception similar to superior magesty, since its damage is dealt in some mysterious strike resolution phase which comes before all the ones which were cancelled by the strike: combat ends. Wallpaper Paste -for all those useless cards