another batch of questions :)
> Effects that prevent "up to X" or that prevent "X" damage have the same effect -- they prevent as much damage as possible, up to the maximimum (X) specified. [RTR 20041202]
Am i forced to prevent *every* damage if i play a card with "prevent up
to X" ? Can't i let one damage through to play, say, lessons in steel ?
:)
> If an event both burns and torporizes a vampire, the controller decides whether the vampire will go into torpor before being burned. [RTR 19960708] Seems to contradict this : A vampire burned in combat does not pass through Torpor. [RTR 19941109]
or is it still valid in some cornercase things, like "Julius with a
fame eating a kiss of ra stuff can chose to trigger the fame to lose
the pool and avoid a parity shift" ?? :)
thank you.
r.
In message <1169425046.3...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Reydax <Rey...@gmail.com> writes:
>another batch of questions :)
>>> Effects that prevent "up to X" or that prevent "X" damage have the
>>same effect -- they prevent as much damage as possible, up to the
>>maximimum (X) specified. [RTR 20041202]>
>Am i forced to prevent *every* damage if i play a card with "prevent up
>to X" ?
The ruling says "they prevent as much damage as possible", which doesn't
mean "prevent less damage than is possible."
>> If an event both burns and torporizes a vampire, the controller
>>decides whether the vampire will go into torpor before being burned.
>>[RTR 19960708] Seems to contradict this : A vampire burned in combat
>>does not pass through Torpor. [RTR 19941109]>
>or is it still valid in some cornercase things, like "Julius with a
>fame eating a kiss of ra stuff can chose to trigger the fame to lose
>the pool and avoid a parity shift" ?? :)
Undead Persistence + Caiaphas Smith seems like a workable, if unlikely,
scenario. UP wants to send you to torpor "after combat", Caiaphas wants
to burn a blocking vampire "after the combat". You choose which happens
first.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
> > Effects that prevent "up to X" or that prevent "X" damage have the same effect -- they prevent as much damage as possible, up to the maximimum (X) specified. [RTR 20041202]
>
> Am i forced to prevent *every* damage if i play a card with "prevent up
> to X" ? Can't i let one damage through to play, say, lessons in steel ?
> :)
If you played an effect that prevents that much damage than the ruling
above does in fact force you to prevent all of it. The only two cards
I can conceive of this mattering for are Resilience and Soak. In both
cases you could choose to play them at basic, in which case you might
end up having to take 2 damage instead of 1, and if you're taking 2
damage than Soak at basic will prevent all of it. For cards like Skin
of Rock you could just play it to prevent 1 instead of 2. It doesn't
matter so much for Hidden Strength either, since noone is forcing you
to pay the extra blood to prevent more damage.
The only situation where I can see this being even remotely relevent
would be if you top-decked Lessons in the Steel off of a damage
prevention card. Otherwise you can always just choose to prevent less
damage by playing the card at basic, or not at all.
Why does this bother you? It sees pretty intuitive to me. By the same
token, you can't get +1 bleed from Conditiong (for whatever reason
you'd want to do that, and I could make up a few contrived examples).
> > If an event both burns and torporizes a vampire, the controller decides whether the vampire will go into torpor before being burned. [RTR 19960708] Seems to contradict this : A vampire burned in combat does not pass through Torpor. [RTR 19941109]
>
> or is it still valid in some cornercase things, like "Julius with a
> fame eating a kiss of ra stuff can chose to trigger the fame to lose
> the pool and avoid a parity shift" ?? :)
There used to be some confusion surrounding Fame and minions being
burned by aggravated damage in combat. At a certain point I remember
people thinking that a minion did in fact pass through torpor on its
way to the ash heap, but the above rulings contradicted that.
I'm pretty sure though that if a Famoous Julius is torporized then his
controller does take the damage. His text reads: "If Julius goes into
torpor, burn him." as opposed to "If Julius would go to torpor, burn
him instead." The former (actual) wording indicates to me that he does
take a trip to torpor, and burns as soon as he gets there. Again, this
seems pretty irrelevent, as I've never seen Julius in play--ever--and I
don't expect that record to change.
Are these questions that concern you for some important reason, or are
you just trying to pick at a weird nit?
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1169425046.3...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Reydax <Rey...@gmail.com> writes:>> another batch of questions :)
>>>>> Effects that prevent "up to X" or that prevent "X" damage have the
>>> same effect -- they prevent as much damage as possible, up to the
>>> maximimum (X) specified. [RTR 20041202]>> Am i forced to prevent *every* damage if i play a card with "prevent up
>> to X" ?>
> The ruling says "they prevent as much damage as possible", which doesn't
> mean "prevent less damage than is possible."
>>>> If an event both burns and torporizes a vampire, the controller
>>> decides whether the vampire will go into torpor before being burned.
>>> [RTR 19960708] Seems to contradict this : A vampire burned in combat
>>> does not pass through Torpor. [RTR 19941109]>> or is it still valid in some cornercase things, like "Julius with a
>> fame eating a kiss of ra stuff can chose to trigger the fame to lose
>> the pool and avoid a parity shift" ?? :)>
> Undead Persistence + Caiaphas Smith seems like a workable, if unlikely,
> scenario. UP wants to send you to torpor "after combat", Caiaphas wants
> to burn a blocking vampire "after the combat". You choose which happens
> first.
Correct.