Prevent Damage from a Strike

I was just looking at an LSJ ruling and saw that it said that the damage I do to msyelf from a strke (eg Bomb, Burst of Sunlight and so forth) cannot be prevented by a "Prevent all damage from a strike" effect. Why? If, when someone else opens the window, I could prevent all the sunlight damage with my fortitude, can I not do it if I open the window? I mean, I'm likely to be prepared for it because I know what I'm going to do. A bomb is going to do as much damage to me as my opponent at close range, but he can prevent it with one card and I have to play lots (Skin of Rock, Skin of Rock etc.) I also note that some cards from the Sabbat specifically note the opponent's strike - Rolling with the Punches at superior - but that others don't - Superior Mettle at inferior. Can we have a clarification of this ruling? -- James Coupe (remove .nospam to reply by e-mail) If you find you are falling into madness - dive

James Coupe <ja...@obeah.demon.co.uk.nospam> wrote: > I was just looking at an LSJ ruling and saw that it said that the damage > I do to msyelf from a strke (eg Bomb, Burst of Sunlight and so forth) > cannot be prevented by a "Prevent all damage from a strike" effect. > > Why? If, when someone else opens the window, I could prevent all the > sunlight damage with my fortitude, can I not do it if I open the window? You can if you use Skin of Rock. You can't use Skin of Steel to prevent it for the same reason that you can't use Skin of Steel to prevent damage from a Wolf Companion. Namely: card text and the definition (ruling) of "damage from a strike". It doesn't have to make sense - cf. Skin of Rock can prevent damage from a Wolf Companion. > I mean, I'm likely to be prepared for it because I know what I'm going > to do. A bomb is going to do as much damage to me as my opponent at > close range, but he can prevent it with one card and I have to play lots > (Skin of Rock, Skin of Rock etc.) You only have to play one: Hidden Strength. > I also note that some cards from the Sabbat specifically note the > opponent's strike - Rolling with the Punches at superior - but that > others don't - Superior Mettle at inferior. Hmm. There's a lack of uniformity in card texts. How odd. :-) -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

In article <8761398...@dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com says... > James Coupe <ja...@obeah.demon.co.uk.nospam> wrote: > > I was just looking at an LSJ ruling and saw that it said that the damage > > I do to msyelf from a strke (eg Bomb, Burst of Sunlight and so forth) > > cannot be prevented by a "Prevent all damage from a strike" effect. > > > > Why? If, when someone else opens the window, I could prevent all the > > sunlight damage with my fortitude, can I not do it if I open the window? > > You can if you use Skin of Rock. > > You can't use Skin of Steel to prevent it for the same reason that you > can't use Skin of Steel to prevent damage from a Wolf Companion. > Namely: card text and the definition (ruling) of "damage from a strike". Where is this ruling about the definition of damage from a strike? I've never seen it. > > It doesn't have to make sense - cf. Skin of Rock can prevent damage > from a Wolf Companion. I thought damage from a Wolf Companion could not be prevented at all. Or has someone reversed the original Jyhad ruling on this card? > Hmm. There's a lack of uniformity in card texts. How odd. :-) But incredibly frustrating and a source of enormous arguments while playing. Really, WotC should proof their cards more carefully. It also seems to me that the revision of card texts from Jyhad to Vampire created more problems than it solved, imho. -- Joseph W. Alfred j-al...@uiuc.edu

: > You can't use Skin of Steel to prevent it for the same reason that you : > can't use Skin of Steel to prevent damage from a Wolf Companion. : > Namely: card text and the definition (ruling) of "damage from a strike". : : Where is this ruling about the definition of damage from a strike? I've : never seen it. I believe the exact ruling of this was that if card says that it "prevents all damage from a strike", it can only be used against a strike played by an opponent, as opposed to by the minion itself. : I thought damage from a Wolf Companion could not be prevented at all. Or : has someone reversed the original Jyhad ruling on this card? AFAIK, there never was such a ruling. You may be confused because you can't use Skin of Steel to prevent Wolf Companion damage since the WC isn't a strike, and SoS specifically says it prevents damage from strikes. : But incredibly frustrating and a source of enormous arguments while : playing. Really, WotC should proof their cards more carefully. That's all well and good, but we have to deal with the cards that are already out, as they are, and if there _ever_ is another expansion (I'd say there's about a 1% chance of that), then it's an issue to bring up, but complaining about the card texts doesn't get us anywhere. At least we have an active net-rep now. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "I didn't play D&D for all those years without learning a little something about courage." -- Blaine Faulkner, "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space'", X-Files

Joseph W. Alfred wrote: > In article <8761398...@dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com says... > > You can't use Skin of Steel to prevent it for the same reason that you > > can't use Skin of Steel to prevent damage from a Wolf Companion. > > Namely: card text and the definition (ruling) of "damage from a strike". > > Where is this ruling about the definition of damage from a strike? I've > never seen it. Referred to in RTRs (note the use of "strike damage"): 4/18/95: Q: Dragon Breath Rounds in a Zip Gun: Do the rounds add +2 aggravated damage to just the strike, or do they also add it to the damage done to the bearer of the zip gun? A: Dragon Breath Round just add to the strike damage. 2/21/96: Q: Do Dragon Breath Rounds add to the damage I take from a Zip Gun, or just the damage it does as its strike? A: Ammo cards just add to the damage the Zip Gun does with its strike. And Tom noted that even Bomb's extra damage was "side effect" stuff: From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: Re: Zip Gun and End Of Combat Date: 19 Sep 1995 07:17:36 GMT Weapons which do something as a side effect of being used only do that something if the strike resolves successfully (this includes Bomb as well, for example). But these are all just piecemeal rulings - they don't state the mechanism at work. The fully worded ruling didn't come out until recently (because no one asked for it until recently, I suppoose): Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:21:09 -0600 From: LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> Subject: Re: Skin of Steel Q (LSJ) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Message-ID: <8753047...@dejanews.com> "damage from a strike" only includes the damage dealt by the strike to the opposing minion. It does not include side-effect damage, like from Burst of Sunlight or from a Zip Gun. > > It doesn't have to make sense - cf. Skin of Rock can prevent damage > > from a Wolf Companion. > > I thought damage from a Wolf Companion could not be prevented at all. Or > has someone reversed the original Jyhad ruling on this card? Damage from a Wolf Companion has always been preventable. There has never been a ruling to the contrary. > > Hmm. There's a lack of uniformity in card texts. How odd. :-) > But incredibly frustrating and a source of enormous arguments while > playing. Really, WotC should proof their cards more carefully. It also > seems to me that the revision of card texts from Jyhad to Vampire created > more problems than it solved, imho. I agree on all points, not that my agreement is worth much. [ quoted text not captured ]