[LSJ] Garotte, Baal's Bloody Talons, Fame

The following scenario came up in our game last night. Meth A has a vampire with Fame in his ready region. Meth B enters combat with that minion, strikes with Garrote for three agg damage via Baal's Bloody Talons, and burns the Garotte to burn Meth A's vampire. Does Fame trigger before Meth B's vampire burns? We ruled that it does, due to card text on Garotte, which implies that the vampire must enter torpor before the Garotte can be burned to burn the vampire. However, I just found an explanation which contradicts this: http://tinyurl.com/msc7g Is this still true? Garotte seems to be strangely worded, if so ("going to torpor" would make more sense than the current text). John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] As far as I know, the garotte does not trigger the fame because the text on fame really means "if this vampire ends up in torpor". That is why all burning effects like decapitate halt the Fame triggering - including a player who can somehow manage to burn their own vampire with a Fame on it. For example a vampire with 0 blood gets hit for 1 hands (hoping to torpor it) and he plays burst of sunlight ... he will take the normal damage first (going to torpor) but burn due to the sunlight. Fame will not trigger. Hope that helps.

In message <1153877391.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, quetzalcoatl <da...@vega.id.au> writes: > >invisibl...@gmail.com wrote: >> http://tinyurl.com/msc7g >> >> Is this still true? Garotte seems to be strangely worded, if so ("going >> to torpor" would make more sense than the current text). >> >> John Eno > >As far as I know, the garotte does not trigger the fame because the >text on fame really means "if this vampire ends up in torpor". > >That is why all burning effects like decapitate halt the Fame >triggering - including a player who can somehow manage to burn their >own vampire with a Fame on it. There is no blanket ruling on burn effects such as you imply. A burn effect could be worded such that the vampire had to go to torpor first. However, LSJ has ruled (per the TinyURL above) that Garrote is played at the same time as Decapitate or Amaranth, both of which are clear that you step in before the vampire goes to torpor. "Only usable when the opposing vampire should go to torpor. Diablerize the opposing vampire instead." and " Burn the opposing vampire instead of sending that vampire to torpor." The opposing vampire never goes to torpor for Amaranth or Decapitate, because their card text says so. Given Garrote's wording seems to imply the vampire goes to torpor first, this is a bit weird - but this is the ruling on it. >For example a vampire with 0 blood gets hit for 1 hands (hoping to >torpor it) and he plays burst of sunlight ... he will take the normal >damage first (going to torpor) but burn due to the sunlight. Fame will >not trigger. No, this isn't how the damage rules work. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=rulebook 6.4.6. Damage Resolution If a vampire cannot heal all the damage (i.e., more damage is inflicted than he has blood with which to heal), he burns blood to heal what damage he can, and the unhealed damage leaves him wounded. A wounded vampire is moved to torpor after the remaining damage is handled (see Torpor, sec. 6.5). The hand damage, in your example, wounds him. However, being wounded does NOT move you to torpor until after the remaining damage is handled, per the above section of rules. The remaining damage, in this case, causes the vampire to burn - and being in the ash-heap trumps being moved to torpor. There is no "going to torpor" first, and zero confusion with Fame. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

quetzalcoatl wrote: > invisibl...@gmail.com wrote: > > The following scenario came up in our game last night. > > > > Meth A has a vampire with Fame in his ready region. Meth B enters > > combat with that minion, strikes with Garrote for three agg damage via > > Baal's Bloody Talons, and burns the Garotte to burn Meth A's vampire. > > Does Fame trigger before Meth B's vampire burns? > > > > We ruled that it does, due to card text on Garotte, which implies that > > the vampire must enter torpor before the Garotte can be burned to burn > > the vampire. However, I just found an explanation which contradicts > > this: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/msc7g > > > > Is this still true? Garotte seems to be strangely worded, if so ("going > > to torpor" would make more sense than the current text). > > > > John Eno > > As far as I know, the garotte does not trigger the fame because the > text on fame really means "if this vampire ends up in torpor". Correct. Garrote triggers if the vampire is sent (started on his way) to torpor in the strike resolution step.

In MtG this would be called a replacement effect. The Garrote effect replaces the goes into torpor step and thus negating any effects that would come from entering torpor...maybe that's a nice technical term that could be used here too? LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ]

I thought that the controlling player could choose to let his vampire hit torpor first (and thus triggering the fame effect and maybe be able to play parity shift or something) and then let it burn, or to burn it straight away without going to torpor.

In message <1156231806.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] It would help if you included in your reply the text that prompted your train of thought. However, there is a long-standing ruling that is similar to what you describe: # If an event both burns and torporizes a vampire, the controller decides whether the vampire will go into torpor before being burned. [RTR 19960708] The example given in the Rules Team Ruling is Return to Innocence with a Day Operation - the RtoI wanted to burn the vampire, the Day Operation wanted to torporize him. The Rules Team Ruling is essentially saying "When two effects would occur at the same time, the vampire's controller chooses which goes first." This is pretty similar, by the way, to two effects going off "During your untap phase" or something like that. The acting Methuselah gets to choose which he deals with first. Why does that not apply to a card like Decapitate or Garrote? Because it's not two separate effects going off at the same time. Decapitate effectively says "Okay, if you would go into torpor, burn instead of going to torpor." Garrote says something similar, about the strike it applies to. The point here is that it's not "Go to torpor AND get burned." It's "Get burned INSTEAD of going to torpor." So the Rules Team Ruling isn't relevant here because one of the effects is explicitly quashing the other, unlike the situation with Return to Innocence. [ quoted text not captured ]