[LSJ] Pulled Fangs + Rot + TT (was TT+Uncancelled press)

The TT thread has got a bit muddled so I'm starting a new one to pull this question and response into one place as I'm responding to bits in a bunch of posts. I agree that this is pretty cornercase but that doesn't mean it can't be settled ;) (and I think it's quite interesting) Notes are at the end. Scenario 2 & Note #4 raise other questions that might actually matter at some point. Scenario 1 Vampire A (with AUS; controlled by Meth A) is blocked by Vampire B (Meth B) after playing Dawn Operation. Both vampires remain ready in the press step. An uncancelled press occurs (played or environmental) ..but vampire B has somehow satisfied the conditions to play Pulled Fangs. (note #1) Vampire B plays Pulled Fangs. (inflicting 1 agg dmg on A) Meth A declines to play any effect. (note #2) Meth B plays Rotschreck <Rot> on Vampire A. Question: Can Vampire A then play TELEPATHIC TRACKING (AUS version) to mitigate the Rotschreck and continue combat? There are a number of issues here. 1) TT has text "combat is about to end (with no uncancelled press to continue)". The 'no uncancelled press' condition is not met in this case but it is in brackets -is it a condition or just reminder text? (note #3) 2) The damage from the Pulled Fangs -A has an unprevented 1 agg damage - is it still ready? Before the Rotschreck could be played, A could have prevented the PF damage and declined to do so. HOWEVER it is clear that the damage had not yet resolved as that would preclude the Rot. a) Rotschreck resolves completely immediately when it is played -there is no reason to suppose that an ordinary game mechanic such as damage resolution would interrupt this. b) There is no reason to suppose that the Rot would cancel the damage (see Scenario 3). c) Telepathic Tracking can be played to interrupt the effects of Rot. If (1) allows the play of TT then my judgement woud be that the Pulled fangs damage would be resulved immediately at the beginning of the new round of combat (and might or might not send A to torpor at that time ending combat again). Scenario 2 If TT can't be (or isn't) played then A goes to torpor with an unresolved 1 agg damage. How does that work? What if A can still treat the agg damage as normal? a) Vamp A has no blood -it is in torpor but not wounded -it burns? b) Vamp A has blood -presumably it can burn one to not be destroyed? c) Vamp A can treat agg damage as normal -can a vampire in torpor heal normal damage? Can normal damage burn a vampire in torpor (as opposed to a wounded one on the way to torpor)? (note #4) d) If normal damage doesn't burn a vampire in torpor, can vampire in torpor choose not to heal normal damage (even though it has blood)? e) If normal damage *does* burn a vampire in torpor, can the avmpire in torpor choose not to heal the damage? (and burn allowing you to bring out another copy) Scenario 3 (really very cornercase indeed) Meth A is playing Malkavians with Out-of-turn Rush and Rotschreck and pulls the PF+Rot trick (scenario 1) on Vampire B. When can vampire B prevent the damage? Can Vampire B use combat cards to do so? Notes #1) The most obvious way to achieve this would be for A to play Skin of Night and B to prevent all damage though there are other possibilities. #2) Not completely certain about the ordering here. Vampire A definitely gets this 'window' to play effects but since B still has a 'window' to play Rot it is clear that, although Pulled Fangs resolves immediately, the PF damage has not yet been inflicted (or resolved) and so cannot yet be prevented. I have assumed for the rest of the post that A could have prevented at this point but I'm not certain that that is correct -if A could not prevent at this point then clearly A must get another option to prevent after the Rot 'window'. #3) Most bracketed text on cards is 'reminder text' that may not apply in certain circumstances -eg (D) actions when directed at your own minions. #4) This could also apply to a vampire blocked coming out of torpor (but not diablerised) and dealt damage by the Neighborhood Watch Commander. Can a NWC be used to deal damage to your own vampires?

Timlagor wrote: > The TT thread has got a bit muddled so I'm starting a new one to pull > this question and response into one place as I'm responding to bits in a > bunch of posts. > > I agree that this is pretty cornercase but that doesn't mean it can't be > settled ;) (and I think it's quite interesting) Glad you did this summary/review, I thought about doing it myself but figured it was to much work. ;) > Notes are at the end. Scenario 2 & Note #4 raise other questions that > might actually matter at some point. > > Scenario 1 > Vampire A (with AUS; controlled by Meth A) is blocked by Vampire B (Meth > B) after playing Dawn Operation. > Both vampires remain ready in the press step. > An uncancelled press occurs (played or environmental) > ..but vampire B has somehow satisfied the conditions to play Pulled > Fangs. (note #1) > Vampire B plays Pulled Fangs. (inflicting 1 agg dmg on A) > Meth A declines to play any effect. (note #2) > Meth B plays Rotschreck <Rot> on Vampire A. > > Question: Can Vampire A then play TELEPATHIC TRACKING (AUS version) to > mitigate the Rotschreck and continue combat? > > There are a number of issues here. > 1) TT has text "combat is about to end (with no uncancelled press to > continue)". The 'no uncancelled press' condition is not met in this case > but it is in brackets -is it a condition or just reminder text? (note > #3) Looks like reminder text. > 2) The damage from the Pulled Fangs -A has an unprevented 1 agg damage - > is it still ready? > Before the Rotschreck could be played, A could have prevented the PF > damage and declined to do so. HOWEVER it is clear that the damage had > not yet resolved as that would preclude the Rot. A didn't have the chance to prevent the PF damage yet. Rotschreck is played on the *attempt* to inflict damage. After A declines to prevent the damage is successfully inflicted and it's too late for Rotschreck. I think. > a) Rotschreck resolves completely immediately when it is played -there > is no reason to suppose that an ordinary game mechanic such as damage > resolution would interrupt this. Correct, effects resolve completely unless another effect's timing explicitly interrupts it. > b) There is no reason to suppose that the Rot would cancel the damage > (see Scenario 3). By itself, no, but see the note on Scenario 2. > c) Telepathic Tracking can be played to interrupt the effects of Rot. > > If (1) allows the play of TT then my judgement woud be that the Pulled > fangs damage would be resulved immediately at the beginning of the new > round of combat (and might or might not send A to torpor at that time > ending combat again). Agree. > Scenario 2 > If TT can't be (or isn't) played then A goes to torpor with an > unresolved 1 agg damage. How does that work? What if A can still treat > the agg damage as normal? LSJ has stated that ending combat interrupts damage resolution. The only reason I see to keep that ruling is that damage prevention cards can't be used outside of combat, so the damage would become effectivelly unpreventable. > a) Vamp A has no blood -it is in torpor but not wounded -it burns? Good question, but I guess a vampire in torpor is always 'wounded', regardless of how it got there. > b) Vamp A has blood -presumably it can burn one to not be destroyed? Yes. > c) Vamp A can treat agg damage as normal -can a vampire in torpor heal > normal damage? Vampires in torpor can heal damage just fine (as long as they have blood). > Can normal damage burn a vampire in torpor (as opposed to > a wounded one on the way to torpor)? (note #4) No, normal damage can never burn a vampire, regardless of it's status. > d) If normal damage doesn't burn a vampire in torpor, can vampire in > torpor choose not to heal normal damage (even though it has blood)? No, burning blood to heal damage is mandatory. > e) If normal damage *does* burn a vampire in torpor, can the avmpire in > torpor choose not to heal the damage? (and burn allowing you to bring > out another copy) Moot. > Scenario 3 (really very cornercase indeed) > Meth A is playing Malkavians with Out-of-turn Rush and Rotschreck and > pulls the PF+Rot trick (scenario 1) on Vampire B. > When can vampire B prevent the damage? Can Vampire B use combat cards to > do so? Under current rulings, the damage doesn't carry outside of combat. If it did, vampire B would have a real hard time finding any way to prevent the damage (combat cards can't be played outside of combat). > Notes > #1) The most obvious way to achieve this would be for A to play Skin of > Night and B to prevent all damage though there are other possibilities. > #2) Not completely certain about the ordering here. Vampire A definitely > gets this 'window' to play effects but since B still has a 'window' to > play Rot it is clear that, although Pulled Fangs resolves immediately, > the PF damage has not yet been inflicted (or resolved) and so cannot yet > be prevented. I have assumed for the rest of the post that A could have > prevented at this point but I'm not certain that that is correct -if A > could not prevent at this point then clearly A must get another option > to prevent after the Rot 'window'. As stated above, Rotschreck must be played before the damage can be prevented. > #3) Most bracketed text on cards is 'reminder text' that may not apply > in certain circumstances -eg (D) actions when directed at your own > minions. > #4) This could also apply to a vampire blocked coming out of torpor (but > not diablerised) and dealt damage by the Neighborhood Watch Commander. > Can a NWC be used to deal damage to your own vampires? Yes. Flux

Flux wrote: > Timlagor wrote: >> Scenario 1 >> Vampire A (with AUS; controlled by Meth A) is blocked by Vampire B >> (Meth B) after playing Dawn Operation. >> Both vampires remain ready in the press step. >> An uncancelled press occurs (played or environmental) >> ..but vampire B has somehow satisfied the conditions to play Pulled >> Fangs. (note #1) Ah, yes. The still-unanswered "easy" portion of the puzzlers from that thread. :-) >> Vampire B plays Pulled Fangs. (inflicting 1 agg dmg on A) >> Meth A declines to play any effect. (note #2) >> Meth B plays Rotschreck <Rot> on Vampire A. >> >> Question: Can Vampire A then play TELEPATHIC TRACKING (AUS version) to >> mitigate the Rotschreck and continue combat? Yes. >> There are a number of issues here. >> 1) TT has text "combat is about to end (with no uncancelled press to >> continue)". The 'no uncancelled press' condition is not met in this >> case but it is in brackets -is it a condition or just reminder text? >> (note #3) > > Looks like reminder text. Yes. >> 2) The damage from the Pulled Fangs -A has an unprevented 1 agg damage - >> is it still ready? >> Before the Rotschreck could be played, A could have prevented the PF >> damage and declined to do so. HOWEVER it is clear that the damage had >> not yet resolved as that would preclude the Rot. > > A didn't have the chance to prevent the PF damage yet. Rotschreck is > played on the *attempt* to inflict damage. After A declines to prevent > the damage is successfully inflicted and it's too late for Rotschreck. I > think. Correct. >> a) Rotschreck resolves completely immediately when it is played -there >> is no reason to suppose that an ordinary game mechanic such as damage >> resolution would interrupt this. > > Correct, effects resolve completely unless another effect's timing > explicitly interrupts it. Correct. >> b) There is no reason to suppose that the Rot would cancel the damage >> (see Scenario 3). > > By itself, no, but see the note on Scenario 2. Correct. >> c) Telepathic Tracking can be played to interrupt the effects of Rot. >> >> If (1) allows the play of TT then my judgement woud be that the Pulled >> fangs damage would be resulved immediately at the beginning of the new >> round of combat (and might or might not send A to torpor at that time >> ending combat again). > > Agree. Unclear. On RT list. Currently (from prior usage), it is "lost". (Not that it matters, since the method for getting PF played is too cornercase to come up in practice). >> Scenario 2 >> If TT can't be (or isn't) played then A goes to torpor with an >> unresolved 1 agg damage. How does that work? What if A can still treat >> the agg damage as normal? > > LSJ has stated that ending combat interrupts damage resolution. > The only reason I see to keep that ruling is that damage prevention > cards can't be used outside of combat, so the damage would become > effectivelly unpreventable. This is also unclear and on the RT list. Currently, the damage is lost. The answers below assume that it is not lost: >> a) Vamp A has no blood -it is in torpor but not wounded -it burns? > Good question, but I guess a vampire in torpor is always 'wounded', > regardless of how it got there. Correct. >> b) Vamp A has blood -presumably it can burn one to not be destroyed? > > Yes. Correct. >> c) Vamp A can treat agg damage as normal -can a vampire in torpor heal >> normal damage? > > > Vampires in torpor can heal damage just fine (as long as they have blood). Correct. >> Can normal damage burn a vampire in torpor (as opposed to a wounded >> one on the way to torpor)? (note #4) > > No, normal damage can never burn a vampire, regardless of it's status. Correct (barring additional effects to burn the vampire upon that damage, of course). >> d) If normal damage doesn't burn a vampire in torpor, can vampire in >> torpor choose not to heal normal damage (even though it has blood)? > > No, burning blood to heal damage is mandatory. Correct. >> e) If normal damage *does* burn a vampire in torpor, can the avmpire >> in torpor choose not to heal the damage? (and burn allowing you to >> bring out another copy) > > Moot. > >> Scenario 3 (really very cornercase indeed) >> Meth A is playing Malkavians with Out-of-turn Rush and Rotschreck and >> pulls the PF+Rot trick (scenario 1) on Vampire B. >> When can vampire B prevent the damage? Can Vampire B use combat cards >> to do so? > > Under current rulings, the damage doesn't carry outside of combat. If it > did, vampire B would have a real hard time finding any way to prevent > the damage (combat cards can't be played outside of combat). Correct. >> Notes >> #1) The most obvious way to achieve this would be for A to play Skin >> of Night and B to prevent all damage though there are other >> possibilities. Ding! >> #2) Not completely certain about the ordering here. Vampire A >> definitely gets this 'window' to play effects but since B still has a >> 'window' to play Rot it is clear that, although Pulled Fangs resolves >> immediately, the PF damage has not yet been inflicted (or resolved) >> and so cannot yet be prevented. I have assumed for the rest of the >> post that A could have prevented at this point but I'm not certain >> that that is correct -if A could not prevent at this point then >> clearly A must get another option to prevent after the Rot 'window'. > > As stated above, Rotschreck must be played before the damage can be > prevented. It is also not "clear" that the PF damage is not inflicted when PF is played. It would seem that the opposite is clear, in fact. >> #3) Most bracketed text on cards is 'reminder text' that may not apply >> in certain circumstances -eg (D) actions when directed at your own >> minions. Some parenthesized text is reminder text, some is not. "(round down)", for example. The (D) symbol is not usually parenthesized. >> #4) This could also apply to a vampire blocked coming out of torpor >> (but not diablerised) and dealt damage by the Neighborhood Watch >> Commander. >> Can a NWC be used to deal damage to your own vampires? > > Yes. Correct. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:40D2C7FC...@white-wolf.com... > Flux wrote: > > Timlagor wrote: > >> Scenario 1 > >> Vampire A (with AUS; controlled by Meth A) is blocked by Vampire B > >> (Meth B) after playing Dawn Operation. > >> Both vampires remain ready in the press step. > >> An uncancelled press occurs (played or environmental) > >> ..but vampire B has somehow satisfied the conditions to play Pulled > >> Fangs. (note #1) > > Ah, yes. The still-unanswered "easy" portion of the puzzlers from > that thread. :-) I thought it went without saying. The Skin of Night from A + damage prevention from B is pretty obvious (if unlikely). :-) > >> Scenario 2 > >> If TT can't be (or isn't) played then A goes to torpor with an > >> unresolved 1 agg damage. How does that work? What if A can still treat > >> the agg damage as normal? > > > > LSJ has stated that ending combat interrupts damage resolution. > > The only reason I see to keep that ruling is that damage prevention > > cards can't be used outside of combat, so the damage would become > > effectivelly unpreventable. > > This is also unclear and on the RT list. Currently, the damage > is lost. The answers below assume that it is not lost: I do think it's fairly sensible for damage to be lost when combat ends via Rotschreck. On the one hand, it agrees with what happens in the most common method for combat to end (S:CE); on the other, for Rotschreck to allow the aggravated damage attempt to resolve would usually be an unwarranted increase of the power of Rotschreck (I think). If it only applied to Pulled Fangs + Rotschreck (rather than, say, Breath of the Dragon + Rotschreck) it would be less of a power increase but still probably not (again IMO) worth doing. Josh yeah i keep a glock 'case you like to leak a lot

Joshua Duffin expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] There is a fundamental distinction here between damage that has been inflicted and strikes that have yet to resolve. In the case of S:CE and Rotschreck before strike resolution no damage is done at any point so there is nothing to lose. I reckon that the Rot requiremenet of an "attempt to inflict aggravated damage" means that it would have to be played to interupt the PF and thus the PF damage would not be around to be lost. Alternatively you could easily decide that this was not possible, Rot could not be played on PF and combat could therefore not end with an uncancelled press to continue :D [barring some even more improbable scenario] ..then again A definitely gets a chance to prevent the damage so there must be a point at which the damage hasn't been inflicted and cards can be played... It is clear that the PF damage is not inflicted "as it is played" because it is preventable. We seem to have invented interrupts.

"Timlagor" <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.1b40f1dad...@news.eclipse.co.uk... > Joshua Duffin expounded: > > I do think it's fairly sensible for damage to be lost when combat ends > > via Rotschreck. On the one hand, it agrees with what happens in the > > most common method for combat to end (S:CE); on the other, for > > Rotschreck to allow the aggravated damage attempt to resolve would > > usually be an unwarranted increase of the power of Rotschreck (I think). > > If it only applied to Pulled Fangs + Rotschreck (rather than, say, > > Breath of the Dragon + Rotschreck) it would be less of a power increase > > but still probably not (again IMO) worth doing. > > There is a fundamental distinction here between damage that has been > inflicted and strikes that have yet to resolve. I don't think it's all that fundamental a difference. And actually, it may be possible to play Rotschreck during the strike resolution step on an aggravated-damage strike - I know you can wait until both strikes are declared (you don't have to play Rotschreck as soon as the "attempt to inflict aggravated damage" strike is declared), but don't see at first glance a ruling saying whether or not Rotschreck can be played as late in the round as strike resolution (before the aggravated damage actually sends the victim to torpor, of course). > In the case of S:CE and Rotschreck before strike resolution no damage is > done at any point so there is nothing to lose. > > I reckon that the Rot requiremenet of an "attempt to inflict aggravated > damage" means that it would have to be played to interupt the PF and > thus the PF damage would not be around to be lost. Alternatively you > could easily decide that this was not possible, Rot could not be played > on PF and combat could therefore not end with an uncancelled press to > continue :D [barring some even more improbable scenario] > > ..then again A definitely gets a chance to prevent the damage so there > must be a point at which the damage hasn't been inflicted and cards can > be played... > > It is clear that the PF damage is not inflicted "as it is played" > because it is preventable. > > We seem to have invented interrupts. Interrupts, at least in some sense, have existed in VTES since Sudden Reversal was printed. The fact that Pulled Fangs is preventable does seem to mean that it has its own "damage prevention + damage resolution" phase outside of normal strike resolution, yeah. It would also be possible to make Pulled Fangs + Dawn Op a non-Rotschreckable situation, sure. That seems unlikely though, as you say, since damage prevention is certainly legal in that same time frame. Josh attempting to strike: leave newsgroup and get some stuff done

> > There is a fundamental distinction here between damage that has been > > inflicted and strikes that have yet to resolve. > > I don't think it's all that fundamental a difference. And actually, it > may be possible to play Rotschreck during the strike resolution step on > an aggravated-damage strike - I know you can wait until both strikes are > declared (you don't have to play Rotschreck as soon as the "attempt to > inflict aggravated damage" strike is declared), but don't see at first > glance a ruling saying whether or not Rotschreck can be played as late > in the round as strike resolution (before the aggravated damage actually > sends the victim to torpor, of course). > During strike resolution, the damage is dealt and the minion is no longer *attempting* to inflict the Aggravated Damage.