Newbie questions [help, LSJ!]

I just read through LSJ's revised rules posted a few days ago and had a bunch of questions - oh, btw, if it matters, we play with a 4CL house rule (makes everyone happy) - 1. Regarding withdrawing from the game, there's a conflict between what's written in the online revised rules (victory point for successful withdrawal) and the Sabbat rules insert (forced withdrawal, no VP involved). Which rule is to be followed? 2. When exactly does your grand-prey become your prey? Is it immediately after you oust your prey or immediately after your turn is over? For example, can I (without the use of D-bleeds) bleed out my prey with one vampire (ousting him) then bleed the next player with another vampire? Or do I have to wait till after my turn before my grand-prey becomes my "official" prey? 3. Regarding contesting cards with yourself, I want to see if my interpretation is correct. I have Igo#1 in play. I bring another Igo(#2) in play and this results in both being contested. My following turn, I pay one pool to keep Igo#2 and yield Igo#1 by burning it. I get control of Igo#2 at the beginning of my next turn, and not immediately, correct? 4. When do you replace votes dropped from your hands (called "push votes," I believe) - immediately after the vote or at the end of the current minion phase? Can you use these political cards as votes in all types of referendums (vote to burn Elysium, Blood Hunt, etc.)? I realize that a Blood Hunt is not an action so no Reactions or Modifiers are allowed, but are push votes allowed? 5. I read the section on hand damage vs. damage from weapons based on hand damage. Does this mean that Torn Signpost and Brass Knuckles can't work in conjunction? 6. Am I correct in assuming that the wording on V:tES cards overrules the wording on the corresponding Jyhad cards? 7. Does a Dodge prevent Steal Blood Strikes? 8. I read through the aggravated damage and am now thoroughly confused. Are these online rules the most recent ruling on the matter? Let me see if I have this straight, according to these online rules: Situation A - 1 pt. of agg. on a vampire with at least one blood. Result - vampire in torpor with the same blood total. Situation B - 1 pt. of agg. on a vampire with no blood. Result - vampire in torpor with no blood. Situation C - 2 pt. of agg. on a vampire with x blood, where x is greater than or equal to 1. Result - vampire in torpor with x-1 blood. Situation D - 1 pt. regular, 1 pt. agg. to vampire with 1 blood. Result - vampire burned. Situation E - 1 pt. regular, 1 pt. agg. to vampire with 2 blood. Result - vampire in torpor with 1 blood. If A, B, C, and E are true, we've been playing the game all wrong. :( 9. A card question on Blood to Water. My interpretation was that a vampire would burn 3 blood at basic (or all if it had 3 or less blood) and an ally or such would be burned. Is my interpretation correct? 10. Ten is a nice round number, so I just want to thank everyone in advance. I think I know the answers to most of these, but I want to be sure with this tournament coming up. It's also really hard for someone new like me to get straight answers without knowing where to go and if any current, up-to-date standardized rules exist (see my question regarding the conflict between Sabbat inserts and online docs) and who has the final say on things. Any help on this matter is much appreciated. Thanks again for your time!

In article <19981011014353...@ng31.aol.com>, Mangaser <mang...@aol.com> writes >1. Regarding withdrawing from the game, there's a conflict between what's >written in the online revised rules (victory point for successful withdrawal) >and the Sabbat rules insert (forced withdrawal, no VP involved). Which rule is >to be followed? > The Sabbat rules are *highly* optional. It is suspected that Wizards introduced it to try and speed up the game, maknig it more like Magic. Bad move. :( In general, the online revised rules are best AND the official rules. However, if you want to play the Sabbat Rules (or anything else you care to use) you are quite welcome to. >2. When exactly does your grand-prey become your prey? Is it immediately >after you oust your prey or immediately after your turn is over? Immediately after you oust your prey. Your prey is always the player to your left. When you oust your current prey, the player to your left is your previous grand prey. To be honest, I've never seen why people have a problem with this one. > For example, >can I (without the use of D-bleeds) (D) bleeds can only be directed at your prey unless there is card text which specifies otherwise. >bleed out my prey with one vampire (ousting >him) then bleed the next player with another vampire? Yes, you can. Players A, B, C in a circle. The moment player B is ousted, player A can bleed player C normally because they are now their prey. > Or do I have to wait >till after my turn before my grand-prey becomes my "official" prey? Why are they not your official prey now? > >3. Regarding contesting cards with yourself, I want to see if my >interpretation is correct. I have Igo#1 in play. I bring another Igo(#2) in >play and this results in both being contested. My following turn, I pay one >pool to keep Igo#2 and yield Igo#1 by burning it. I get control of Igo#2 at >the beginning of my next turn, and not immediately, correct? Correct. (I think). Check with LSJ. > >4. When do you replace votes dropped from your hands (called "push votes," I >believe) - immediately after the vote or at the end of the current minion >phase? The rules have changed on this. You may only throw down 1 political card to "push" a vote. This is designed to limit Weenie Vote Push (an evil deck archetype). If you called the vote with a political action card (ie NOT using a card in play like Elysium) then that political card IS your one political card. The idea was to make political decks need more thought and require cards like Bewitching Oration, The Mausoleum, Power Structure and so forth, or permanent votes from vampires. Because of this change to something more sensible, they are replaced at the end of the vote. >Can you use these political cards as votes in all types of referendums >(vote to burn Elysium, Blood Hunt, etc.)? Yes. >I realize that a Blood Hunt is not >an action so no Reactions or Modifiers are allowed, but are push votes allowed? Push votes - no, since push votes implies throwing more than 1 political card down from your hand. However, you (like any other Methuselah) are entitled to throw down 1 political card to vote on the vote. > >5. I read the section on hand damage vs. damage from weapons based on hand >damage. Does this mean that Torn Signpost and Brass Knuckles can't work in >conjunction? No, they will. Torn Signpost sets your hand damage to 2/3. Brass Knuckles then adds to that AND THEN makes it melee weapon damage. This means that other cards, which alter the other properties of your hand damage, won't work on the Brass Knuckles. Something like Wolf Claws: For the remainder of the round, this vampire's hand damage is aggravated. won't work with Brass Knuckles because the vampire is now dealing melee weapon damage, not hand damage. But, a weapon will take the amount of hand damage you do and add to that, yes. Otherwise a Bastard Sword would only do 1 damage, and not two, because it wouldn't add to your in built 1 hand damage. > >6. Am I correct in assuming that the wording on V:tES cards overrules the >wording on the corresponding Jyhad cards? > In general, yes. And Sabbat over-rules them. However, check the errata because sometimes the V:TES text is fluffed or has been changed for whatever reason. Errata/Rulings/Clarifications have the final word. >7. Does a Dodge prevent Steal Blood Strikes? > Prevent in the sense of "I lose no blood" then yes. >8. I read through the aggravated damage and am now thoroughly confused. Are >these online rules the most recent ruling on the matter? Let me see if I have >this straight, according to these online rules: > >Situation A - 1 pt. of agg. on a vampire with at least one blood. >Result - vampire in torpor with the same blood total. > Correct >Situation B - 1 pt. of agg. on a vampire with no blood. >Result - vampire in torpor with no blood. > Correct. >Situation C - 2 pt. of agg. on a vampire with x blood, where x is greater than >or equal to 1. >Result - vampire in torpor with x-1 blood. > Correct. >Situation D - 1 pt. regular, 1 pt. agg. to vampire with 1 blood. >Result - vampire burned. > Incorrect. Result: vampire in torpor with 0 blood. >Situation E - 1 pt. regular, 1 pt. agg. to vampire with 2 blood. >Result - vampire in torpor with 1 blood. > Correct. >If A, B, C, and E are true, we've been playing the game all wrong. :( > No, the rules were errataed to prevent Ivory Bow et al being so powerful. In Jyhad, it was almost impossible to burn a vampire with them. In V:TES, it became too easy. >9. A card question on Blood to Water. My interpretation was that a vampire >would burn 3 blood at basic (or all if it had 3 or less blood) and an ally or >such would be burned. Is my interpretation correct? Correct. If a vampire had only 2 blood, it would burn it all but would not be burned. > >10. Ten is a nice round number, so I just want to thank everyone in advance. >I think I know the answers to most of these, but I want to be sure with this >tournament coming up. It's also really hard for someone new like me to get >straight answers without knowing where to go and if any current, up-to-date >standardized rules exist (see my question regarding the conflict between Sabbat >inserts and online docs) and who has the final say on things. LSJ, in all cases, has the final say on things. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

mang...@aol.com (Mangaser) wrote: >I just read through LSJ's revised rules posted a few days ago and had a bunch >of questions - oh, btw, if it matters, we play with a 4CL house rule (makes >everyone happy) - >1. Regarding withdrawing from the game, there's a conflict between what's >written in the online revised rules (victory point for successful withdrawal) >and the Sabbat rules insert (forced withdrawal, no VP involved). Which rule is >to be followed? The general thought process is that, since Sabbat is also a stand-alone expansion, the Sabbat rules for withdrawal are only compulsory if you are playing in a Sabbat-exclusive environment (i.e. Sabbat sealed deck, which while expensive, is very enjoyable...) Standard (including DCI) V:TES games, or games played with a mix of Sabbat and V:TES, follow the original rules for withdrawal. >2. When exactly does your grand-prey become your prey? Immediately after ousting your current prey. >3. Regarding contesting cards with yourself, I want to see if my >interpretation is correct. I have Igo#1 in play. I bring another Igo(#2) in >play and this results in both being contested. My following turn, I pay one >pool to keep Igo#2 and yield Igo#1 by burning it. I get control of Igo#2 at >the beginning of my next turn, and not immediately, correct? Correct >4. When do you replace votes dropped from your hands (called "push votes," I >believe) - immediately after the vote or at the end of the current minion >phase? Can you use these political cards as votes in all types of referendums >(vote to burn Elysium, Blood Hunt, etc.)? I realize that a Blood Hunt is not >an action so no Reactions or Modifiers are allowed, but are push votes allowed? At end of the Referendum, note: only one PolAc per Methuselah can be pitched for it's vote now, and the acting Meth's original vote card (used to call the vote) counts against this restriction... >5. I read the section on hand damage vs. damage from weapons based on hand >damage. Does this mean that Torn Signpost and Brass Knuckles can't work in >conjunction? No, they do combine, and the resulting strike would be with Brass Knuckles (a melee weapon strike) for modified base hand damage plus one. >6. Am I correct in assuming that the wording on V:tES cards overrules the >wording on the corresponding Jyhad cards? Yes, barring errata. >7. Does a Dodge prevent Steal Blood Strikes? Yes. >8. I read through the aggravated damage and am now thoroughly confused. Are >these online rules the most recent ruling on the matter? Let me see if I have >this straight, according to these online rules: >Situation A - 1 pt. of agg. on a vampire with at least one blood. >Result - vampire in torpor with the same blood total. Correct. >Situation B - 1 pt. of agg. on a vampire with no blood. >Result - vampire in torpor with no blood. Correct >Situation C - 2 pt. of agg. on a vampire with x blood, where x is greater than >or equal to 1. >Result - vampire in torpor with x-1 blood. Correct >Situation D - 1 pt. regular, 1 pt. agg. to vampire with 1 blood. >Result - vampire burned. Incorrect. The first point of agg. damage sends the vampire to torpor without the loss of a blood. The regular point of damage removes one blood, as normal. Result; vampire in torpor with no blood. >Situation E - 1 pt. regular, 1 pt. agg. to vampire with 2 blood. >Result - vampire in torpor with 1 blood. Correct. >9. A card question on Blood to Water. My interpretation was that a vampire >would burn 3 blood at basic (or all if it had 3 or less blood) and an ally or >such would be burned. Is my interpretation correct? Yes, correct. >10. Ten is a nice round number, so I just want to thank everyone in advance. >I think I know the answers to most of these, but I want to be sure with this >tournament coming up. It's also really hard for someone new like me to get >straight answers without knowing where to go and if any current, up-to-date >standardized rules exist (see my question regarding the conflict between Sabbat >inserts and online docs) and who has the final say on things. Any help on this >matter is much appreciated. Thanks again for your time! This is the .sig from LSJ's posts. He is the official WotC Net presence, and the listed web site holds the official, up-to-date, current, standardized rules. He has the final say on things... Hoope this helps! L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver and future Prince of Charlotte, NC

James Coupe wrote: > > >2. When exactly does your grand-prey become your prey? Is it immediately > >after you oust your prey or immediately after your turn is over? > > Immediately after you oust your prey. Your prey is always the player to > your left. When you oust your current prey, the player to your left is > your previous grand prey. > > To be honest, I've never seen why people have a problem with this one. > I think that the reason it can sometime confuse people is that originally (ie Jyhad) the six pool that you receive for ousting your prey could not be collected until the end of your turn, therefore there it is quite easy to see where the confusion would lie. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the precise reason why V:teS changed things to receive the 6 pool immediately on killing your prey. Martin.

Richard D. Zopf wrote: > > >8. I read through the aggravated damage and am now thoroughly confused. Are > >these online rules the most recent ruling on the matter? Let me see if I have > >this straight, according to these online rules: > > >Situation A - 1 pt. of agg. on a vampire with at least one blood. > >Result - vampire in torpor with the same blood total. > Correct. > > >Situation B - 1 pt. of agg. on a vampire with no blood. > >Result - vampire in torpor with no blood. > Correct > > >Situation C - 2 pt. of agg. on a vampire with x blood, where x is greater than > >or equal to 1. > >Result - vampire in torpor with x-1 blood. > Correct > > >Situation D - 1 pt. regular, 1 pt. agg. to vampire with 1 blood. > >Result - vampire burned. > Incorrect. The first point of agg. damage sends the vampire to torpor > without the loss of a blood. The regular point of damage removes one > blood, as normal. Result; vampire in torpor with no blood. > Actually, if you want to be pedantic about it, aggravated damage always gets resolved after normal damage. So, the first point of regular damage burns one blood to heal (leaving the vamp at 0 blood) and then becomes the same as example B (above), ie takes one point of agg and is sent to torpor with zero blood. I'm not sure whether this order of events is crucial anymore since the agg. damage rules are back to being x+1 to burn, but previously it had a big impact if blood was stolen, burned or whatever. Martin.

guenh...@mindspring.com wrote: > >5. I read the section on hand damage vs. damage from weapons based on hand > >damage. Does this mean that Torn Signpost and Brass Knuckles can't work in > >conjunction? > > No, they do combine, and the resulting strike would be with Brass > Knuckles (a melee weapon strike) for modified base hand damage plus > one. I'm not sure I agree with this. The Jyhad printing of this card would infer that you could use the two together. The VTES version specifies using "hand damage as a strike" which, by the definition of hand damage, precludes the minion from using a melee weapon. Logically, if a vampire is beating you with a torn signpost, his bastard sword (or whatever) will only get in the way. However, there is currently errata (below with other relevant data) that states that Torn Signpost only sets the base hand damage, which means that the above response is correct. Personally, I'd like to see this errata overturned in favor of VTES card text to remove the contradiction of the definition of hand damage and the way the card is played. Noal McDonald VTES Text: Only usable before range is determined. This vampire can inflict 2 hand damage as a strike for remainder of the combat. (S) As above, but vampire can inflict 3 hand damage as a strike for the remainder of the combat. Jyhad Text: Play before range is determined. This vampire does 2 hand damage for remainder of the combat. (S) As Above, but vampire does 3 hand damage for the remainder of the combat. Torn Signpost - combat (pot) Sets a vampire's base hand damage to 2 (or 3 if superior). [TOM 960306] Damage (Combat) Hand damage: damage from a hand strike. e.g. Damage from a Bastard Sword is *not* hand damage. [LSJ 970224] -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Mangaser wrote: > > I just read through LSJ's revised rules posted a few days ago and had a bunch > of questions - oh, btw, if it matters, we play with a 4CL house rule (makes > everyone happy) Thanks for the input, but your choice of house rules (4CL in this case) doesn't change the answers to questions on the revised rulebook. :-) > 1. Regarding withdrawing from the game, there's a conflict between what's > written in the online revised rules (victory point for successful withdrawal) > and the Sabbat rules insert (forced withdrawal, no VP involved). Which rule is > to be followed? The revised rules. The Sabbat rules were relegated to "optional" status almost immediately upon being issued, is not sooner. > 2. When exactly does your grand-prey become your prey? Is it immediately > after you oust your prey or immediately after your turn is over? As soon as she becomes the player to your left (the definition of "prey") - that is, immediately. > For example, > can I (without the use of D-bleeds) bleed out my prey with one vampire (ousting All bleeds are D, and they all must target your prey by default unless explicit card text overrides that restriction. > him) then bleed the next player with another vampire? Or do I have to wait > till after my turn before my grand-prey becomes my "official" prey? The player to your left is always your official prey. When someone is ousted, her predator will immediately find a new player seated in the "prey" position (to her left). > 3. Regarding contesting cards with yourself, I want to see if my > interpretation is correct. I have Igo#1 in play. I bring another Igo(#2) in > play and this results in both being contested. My following turn, I pay one > pool to keep Igo#2 and yield Igo#1 by burning it. I get control of Igo#2 at > the beginning of my next turn, and not immediately, correct? Correct. > 4. When do you replace votes dropped from your hands (called "push votes," I "push votes" normally refers to *additional* political action cards burned for votes (after the first one by the same player), which is no longer allowable. Since there is no "old-school" push anymore, is see no reason now not to refer to "political action cards burned for votes" as "push votes" for convenience, however. > believe) - immediately after the vote or at the end of the current minion > phase? Immediately after the referendum. > Can you use these political cards as votes in all types of referendums > (vote to burn Elysium, Blood Hunt, etc.)? I realize that a Blood Hunt is not > an action so no Reactions or Modifiers are allowed, but are push votes allowed? Yes. > 5. I read the section on hand damage vs. damage from weapons based on hand > damage. Does this mean that Torn Signpost and Brass Knuckles can't work in > conjunction? No. Torn Signpost resets the vampire's strength to 3. Brass Knuckles inflict strength+1 damage when used as a strike. The two are usable with each other. > 6. Am I correct in assuming that the wording on V:tES cards overrules the > wording on the corresponding Jyhad cards? Yes, unless errata has been issued to the contrary (like in the case of Torn Signpost, for example: [TOM 06-MAR-98]) > 7. Does a Dodge prevent Steal Blood Strikes? Unless the latter was directed at a retainer, yes. > 8. I read through the aggravated damage and am now thoroughly confused. Are > these online rules the most recent ruling on the matter? Yes. > Let me see if I have > this straight, according to these online rules: > > Situation A - 1 pt. of agg. on a vampire with at least one blood. > Result - vampire in torpor with the same blood total. Correct. The agg damage cannot be healed, so the vampire doesn't burn blood trying to heal. Since he has unhealed damage, he will go to torpor. > Situation B - 1 pt. of agg. on a vampire with no blood. > Result - vampire in torpor with no blood. Correct, same reasoning. > Situation C - 2 pt. of agg. on a vampire with x blood, where x is greater than > or equal to 1. > Result - vampire in torpor with x-1 blood. Right. The first point is handled as above. The second point, since it is done to a vampire that already has unhealed damage, will burn the vampire unless the vampire burns a blood to prevent destruction. > Situation D - 1 pt. regular, 1 pt. agg. to vampire with 1 blood. > Result - vampire burned. No. The regular damage is healable, so the vampire burns a blood to heal it, leaving himself with zero blood. The agg damage cannot be healed, so the vampire doesn't burn a blood trying to heal. And he doesn't yet have unhealed damage, so the agg won't burn him, either. He will go to torpor, empty, since he has unhealed damage, however. > Situation E - 1 pt. regular, 1 pt. agg. to vampire with 2 blood. > Result - vampire in torpor with 1 blood. Right, as above. > If A, B, C, and E are true, we've been playing the game all wrong. :( This is a change from the previous version of the aggravated damage rules (the ones printed in the V:TES rulebook). > 9. A card question on Blood to Water. My interpretation was that a vampire > would burn 3 blood at basic (or all if it had 3 or less blood) and an ally or > such would be burned. Is my interpretation correct? Yes. > 10. Ten is a nice round number, so I just want to thank everyone in advance. > I think I know the answers to most of these, but I want to be sure with this > tournament coming up. It's also really hard for someone new like me to get > straight answers without knowing where to go and if any current, up-to-date > standardized rules exist (see my question regarding the conflict between Sabbat > inserts and online docs) and who has the final say on things. Any help on this > matter is much appreciated. Thanks again for your time! The revised rules supercede all previous rulebooks, including the Sabbat rulesheet. The final rules authority for the game is me, L. Scott Johnson. Compilations of rulings and clarifications (like your Blood to Water question and the Torn Signpost errata) can be found from the Wizards' VTES rules page (linked in my .sig below). -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Martin Jamieson wrote: > Richard D. Zopf wrote: > > >Situation D - 1 pt. regular, 1 pt. agg. to vampire with 1 blood. > > >Result - vampire burned. > > Incorrect. The first point of agg. damage sends the vampire to torpor > > without the loss of a blood. The regular point of damage removes one > > blood, as normal. Result; vampire in torpor with no blood. > > > > Actually, if you want to be pedantic about it, aggravated damage always > gets resolved after normal damage. So, the first point of regular damage > burns one blood to heal (leaving the vamp at 0 blood) and then becomes > the same as example B (above), ie takes one point of agg and is sent to > torpor with zero blood. > > I'm not sure whether this order of events is crucial anymore since the > agg. damage rules are back to being x+1 to burn, but previously it had a > big impact if blood was stolen, burned or whatever. It is still crucial, since it is not exactly X+1 to burn (noticable when a mix of regular and aggravated damage is done). The basic rule is: A point of agg damage done to a vampire with unhealed damage (or otherwise on his way to or already in torpor) will burn him unless he burns a blood to prevent destruction. And aggravated damage cannot be healed. So, if a vampire sustains more regular damage than he can heal (i.e., more than X regular damage) and one point of aggravated, then he will burn all of his blood (X) healing some (X) of the regular damage. The rest of the regular damage will remain unhealed. The single point of agg, since the vampire has unhealed damage already, will burn the vampire, unless he burns a blood to prevent destruction (which he cannot do, since he has already spent all of his blood). -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Martin Jamieson <s32...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > >2. When exactly does your grand-prey become your prey? Is it immediately > > >after you oust your prey or immediately after your turn is over? > > > > Immediately after you oust your prey. Your prey is always the player to > > your left. When you oust your current prey, the player to your left is > > your previous grand prey. > > > > To be honest, I've never seen why people have a problem with this one. > > I think that the reason it can sometime confuse people is that > originally (ie Jyhad) the six pool that you receive for ousting your > prey could not be collected until the end of your turn, therefore there > it is quite easy to see where the confusion would lie. Unless I'm > mistaken, this is the precise reason why V:teS changed things to receive > the 6 pool immediately on killing your prey. It was not the case in Jyhad any more than in VTES. The problem arose from the use of "same turn" when the intention was "same time" in both the original Jyhad rules (18.1) and the VTES rules (10). This mistake was corrected (for Jyhad) by Tom at least by 01-MAR-95 (the earliest reference I have for the statement) and incorporated into the Rules Team Rulings of 13-APR-95. But, somehow, the mistake was carried over into the VTES rulebook. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal wrote: "I'm not sure I agree with this. The Jyhad printing of this card would infer that you could use the two together. The VTES version specifies using "hand damage as a strike" which, by the definition of hand damage, precludes the minion from using a melee weapon. Logically, if a vampire is beating you with a torn signpost, his bastard sword (or whatever) will only get in the way." There goes that darned VTES wording of Torn Signpost again... The wording on the VTES version of TS is horribly, horribly garbled and doesn't really make much sense. Presumably, it was some very misguided attempt to clarify the card, but it failed completely. TS works just like the Jyhad version says--It gives you either 2 or 3 base hand damage, and that is all. If you are using this base hand damage to use a melee weapon (like, say, Meat Cleaver), the melee weapon's damage is based on the vampires base hand damage, which TS makes either 2 or 3. However, with the Weapon, it becomes a "Weapon" strike and not a "Hand" strike, and as such is not useable while Immortally Grappled and will not benefit from Wolf Claws (I know this wasn't part of the point at hand, I'm just being complete for completeness's sake...). If Agatha (POT) were to play TS (3 base hand damage), Fists of Death (+2 hand damage), and use Undead Strength (+2 damage with hand or melee weapon) to strike with a Meat Cleaver (+1 damage), she would hit someone for 8 damage (unless they Dodged. Damn that lack of IG...). With something like Gas Powered Chainsaw which is a melee weapon, but isn't based on your hand damage ("does 3 damage"), the TS and Fists of Death wouldn't help, but Undead Strength and/or Lucky Blow would, as they specificaly say "With hand or melee weapon", so if Agatha used Undead Strength with her Gas Powered Chainsaw, she would do 5 damage. "However, there is currently errata (below with other relevant data) that states that Torn Signpost only sets the base hand damage, which means that the above response is correct. Personally, I'd like to see this errata overturned in favor of VTES card text to remove the contradiction of the definition of hand damage and the way the card is played." The current eratta is not so much eratta as it is clarifying the ambigious text of the VTES version. The card always worked the way the Jyhad card says, but the VTES wording is just real dumb. There isn't any real contradiction anywhere with the Jyhad version--It gives you 2 or 3 base hand damage. Very simple. Multiples won't do anything special (as each one will just give you 2 or 3 hand damage), but you can increase your hand damage with other stackable cards like FoD and US. Then you have huge hand damage, and if you use a melee weapon based on your hand damage to hit someone, you do even more damage. The only contradiction I can think of is that the card is called "Torn Signpost" and has a picture of a signpost on it, implying in some way that it is some sort of one shot melee weapon. This is in no way the case, has no game basis to back it up, and is a complete non issue in relation to the card. TS does nothing but increase your base hand damage to 2 or 3. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "If we can focus, keep discipline, and not have quite as many mysterious deaths, Sunnydale is gonna _RULE_!" -Bobby

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > guenh...@mindspring.com wrote: >> >5. I read the section on hand damage vs. damage from weapons based on hand >> >damage. Does this mean that Torn Signpost and Brass Knuckles can't work in >> >conjunction? >> >> No, they do combine, and the resulting strike would be with Brass >> Knuckles (a melee weapon strike) for modified base hand damage plus >> one. >I'm not sure I agree with this. The Jyhad printing of this card would infer >that you could use the two together. The VTES version specifies using >"hand damage as a strike" which, by the definition of hand damage, >precludes the minion from using a melee weapon. Logically, if a vampire >is beating you with a torn signpost, his bastard sword (or whatever) will >only get in the way. Then why isn't Torn Signpost a melee weapon? The idea of a Torn Signpost being a weapon is where most people go with the card... The reference that I was told from my WoD specialists was that Really Tough Gangrel would mark out their territory by putting their claws through signposts on the country roads going into their Domain. It basically warns "you've entered _MY_ territory, prepare to be thoroughly squished..." Now, how this got to be a Potence card in Jyhad is beyond me At the very least, this interpretation gets people around the idea that the Vamp is actually beating someone with a signpost. Maybe that helps a bit in understanding the card's function, logically. (did I just use that word??? Ughn.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Martin Jamieson wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > > > > >2. When exactly does your grand-prey become your prey? Is it > immediately > > >after you oust your prey or immediately after your turn is over? > > I think that the reason it can sometime confuse people is that > originally (ie Jyhad) the six pool that you receive for ousting your > prey could not be collected until the end of your turn, therefore > there > it is quite easy to see where the confusion would lie. Unless I'm > mistaken, this is the precise reason why V:teS changed things to > receive > the 6 pool immediately on killing your prey. Our playgroup has had a lonstanding house rule, originating from one of our many misunderstandings of the original Jyhad rulebook before anyone here had net access, that blood from ousting cannot be received until your next untap. It adds a bit of excitement and risk to tapping out to bleed out your prey. After enlightenment occured (i.e. I got net access and learned the real rules :) we have kept this rule, because.. um.. we kinda think its more fun. Slow down the weenie bleed decks a bit. David Naseby (insert standard disclaimer for house rules here)

> The reference that I was told from my WoD specialists was that Really > Tough Gangrel would mark out their territory by putting their claws > through signposts on the country roads going into their Domain. It > basically warns "you've entered _MY_ territory, prepare to be > thoroughly squished..." Now, how this got to be a Potence card in > Jyhad is beyond me At the very least, this interpretation gets people > around the idea that the Vamp is actually beating someone with a > signpost. Maybe that helps a bit in understanding the card's > function, logically. (did I just use that word??? Ughn.) Heh. Sounds like someone talking out of their ass to me...*shrug* However, there are plenty of Gangrel with Potence. Certainly enough to justify a 4 discipline deck. (DotB, Torn Signpost, Immorta Grapple, Wolf Claws, Skin of Steel combo) I've been playing it as the Jyhad text because I never really looked at the VTES text until recently when I and the rest of the Michigan Jyhad League Rules Team started hashing out which cards could used with melee weapons. Anyhoo...it seems like the game is primarily using the Jyhad text of cards to base its rulings on. (Torn Signpost, Ritual of the Bitter Rose, Second Tradition, etc.) Considering that Jyhad was the limited run and VTES was the unlimited printing, I'm not sure this is a sound way to go... Noal McDonald Pagan Televangelist of Westland, MI (...have you been SAVED by the word of the Mother Earth?!? *grin*) [ quoted text not captured ]

> So, if a vampire sustains more regular damage than he can heal (i.e., > more than X regular damage) and one point of aggravated, then he > will burn all of his blood (X) healing some (X) of the regular damage. > The rest of the regular damage will remain unhealed. > The single point of agg, since the vampire has unhealed damage > already, will burn the vampire, unless he burns a blood to prevent > destruction (which he cannot do, since he has already spent all of > his blood). Ok, this is getting irritating. I thought that one of the reasons for changing how agg damage works was to simplify it and make it easier to understand. Yeah, right. In all the messages that I've seen previously, it says that the first point of agg damage doesn't cause the vamp to burn a blood because it can't be healed. Yet you say that "The single point of agg, since the vampire has unhealed damage already, will burn the vampire, unless he burns a blood to prevent destruction". If the first point of agg damage doesn't cause the vamp to burn a blood (because he can't), why is it that if he doesn't burn a blood in the above example, he burns? It seems like a contradiction to me. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > So, if a vampire sustains more regular damage than he can heal (i.e., > > more than X regular damage) and one point of aggravated, then he > > will burn all of his blood (X) healing some (X) of the regular damage. > > The rest of the regular damage will remain unhealed. > > The single point of agg, since the vampire has unhealed damage > > already, will burn the vampire, unless he burns a blood to prevent > > destruction (which he cannot do, since he has already spent all of > > his blood). > > Ok, this is getting irritating. > I thought that one of the reasons for changing how agg damage works > was to simplify it and make it easier to understand. Yeah, right. No. It was to restore the original intended power level of aggravated damage. Certainly, the VTES rules were easier to understand. The new rules are even harder to understand because the old simple rule got players used to equating blood with damage, which was never the case. Damage and burning blood are two separate things. Under the old VTES rules: You take damage and then (if you're a vampire) you burn blood to heal the damage (or, in the case of aggravated damage, you don't burn a blood to heal, since agg damage cannot be healed. Instead, the aggravated damage will burn you unless you burn a blood to prevent destruction). Note that healing damage and preventing destruction are two distinct things, even though both are accomplished by burning blood. The new rules are the same as the above, except that aggravated damage won't burn a healthy (undamaged, un-torpored) vampire. It will burn a wounded (on-his-way-to-torpor or in-torpor) vampire, however, unless he burns a blood to prevent destruction. > In all the messages that I've seen previously, it says that the first > point of agg damage doesn't cause the vamp to burn a blood because it > can't be healed. "First point" is irrelevant. The first, middle, and last points of aggravated damage cannot be healed. No blood is spent healing damage that cannot be healed. The first, middle, and last points of aggravated damage will burn a wounded vampire. A wounded vampire must burn a blood to prevent destruction from each of these points. > Yet you say that "The single point of agg, since the > vampire has unhealed damage already, will burn the vampire, unless he > burns a blood to prevent destruction". If the first point of agg damage > doesn't cause the vamp to burn a blood (because he can't), why is it It *does* require him to burn a blood if he is damaged. Not to heal, of course, since it cannot be healed, but rather to prevent destruction since it will burn his damaged body if he doesn't burn a blood. > that if he doesn't burn a blood in the above example, he burns? It seems > like a contradiction to me. Since preventing destruction is not the same as healing damage, this is not a contradiction. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > So, if a vampire sustains more regular damage than he can heal (i.e., > > more than X regular damage) and one point of aggravated, then he > > will burn all of his blood (X) healing some (X) of the regular damage. > > The rest of the regular damage will remain unhealed. > > The single point of agg, since the vampire has unhealed damage > > already, will burn the vampire, unless he burns a blood to prevent > > destruction (which he cannot do, since he has already spent all of > > his blood). > > Ok, this is getting irritating. > I thought that one of the reasons for changing how agg damage works > was to simplify it and make it easier to understand. Yeah, right. > In all the messages that I've seen previously, it says that the first > point of agg damage doesn't cause the vamp to burn a blood because it > can't be healed. Yet you say that "The single point of agg, since the > vampire has unhealed damage already, will burn the vampire, unless he > burns a blood to prevent destruction". If the first point of agg damage > doesn't cause the vamp to burn a blood (because he can't), why is it > that if he doesn't burn a blood in the above example, he burns? It seems > like a contradiction to me. This is why all damge was considered equal when it went from Jyahd to VTES. This new aggro damage rule is too big a pain in the arse. When it first hit the e-mail list, I said it would take a math major to figure out. So far, I feel justified in that statement. Somewhere a long the line the current RT forgot the time-honored tradition of KISS. Keep it simple, stupid. Yes, the previous rule that all damage removes blood from the vampire, aggravated or not, was more brutal. But at least we all understood it. One of the biggest headaches for new players to learn Jyhad (back when it was in print) was to learn the difference between regular and aggravated damage's effects. This is much, much, much worse. There are two things that 7/7 really irked me with. This is one of them. The other was the change in vote pushing rules. It gives Presence a much bigger edge than it already had. You can argue all you want about weenie vote push decks being really successful. The simple truth is that they're are extremely vulnerable to real vote decks, combat decks and bleed decks and most especially +1 intercept. I don't know how a weenie vote deck ever won a table with you folks, but I've never had a problem dealing with them. You block their votes, you vote their PA's down and you beat up their vamps or bleed them out. And if you don't have intercept or rush combat available, chances are a stealth bleed deck will wipe you off the table just as quickly. Noal McDonald [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: : *sighs heavily* I'll try to keep this civil.... : : > No. It was to restore the original intended power level of aggravated : > damage. Certainly, the VTES rules were easier to understand. : : Yes they were. That's why they were implemented in the first place. Except that they made agg. damage too powerful, but the original rules were very hard to understand, so we go to new rules. : > "First point" is irrelevant. The first, middle, and last points of : > aggravated damage cannot be healed. No blood is spent healing damage : > that cannot be healed. : : If "first point" is irrelevant, why did you state the rule in 7/7 to be: : Aggravated Damage: : Aggravated damage done to a vampire with unhealed damage : (including aggravated damage after the first point) : requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of : damage to avoid being burned. : : Looking at this, "first point" is quite relevant. The first and subsequent points of aggravated damage are (A) the same, in that neither can be healed (B) different, in that if a vampire is not already on its way to torpor (i.e., "wounded"), the first point does not require that vampire to burn blood to prevent destruction. : > The first, middle, and last points of aggravated damage will burn : > a wounded vampire. A wounded vampire must burn a blood to prevent : > destruction from each of these points. : : In that case, why treat aggravated damage different than regular damage for : the purposes of burning blood? Why put in the "first point" statement in the : first place? You're starting to contradict yourself. Because a single point of aggravated damage done to a non-wounded vampire does not require that vampire to burn blood. : For example, Bear Claw pops Wolf Claws and swipes Normal in the head. : Normal goes to torpor and burns a blood to prevent being burned. : (But wait...there's that "after the first point" clause) No, Normal just goes to torpor. He received one point of aggravated damage, so is sent to torpor, without having to burn any blood. : Next time, Bear Claw uses Shadow of the Wolf for 2 strikes against Claven. : First strike he punches for 1 reg damage. On the second strike, he pops : Bone Spur and punches for 2 agg damage. Does Claven have to burn : a total of 2 or 3 blood? The 2nd strike is after the "first point" of damage : in the round of combat, but it's not from a single source of damage. Offhand, I can't remember who Claven is, so we'll use Normal again. After the first strike, Normal takes 1 point of damage, and burns one blood to heal it. On the second strike, Normal takes two aggravated damage. The first point "wounds" him, and he must burn a blood for the second agg point to prevent destruction. So Normal ends up in torpor 0/2. : To be honest, the problem lies not with what you were trying to do, LSJ, but : rather how it was worded. It was worded as poorly as Ritual of the Bitter : Rose and has now caused you to be bombarded by questions for clarification. I agree that LSJ's initial wording on July 7 was cloudy. But he has since cleared it up, and there is also an explanation in the FAQ. Please go read that section of the FAQ and let me know if it needs improving. How about this for a better wording? * A vampire is "wounded" if it receives damage that it is unable to heal. * Aggravated damage cannot be healed. * Normal damage can be healed by burning one blood for each point of damage. * A wounded vampire that receives aggravated damage must burn one blood for each point of aggravated damage. A vampire which must burn blood to prevent destruction but cannot is burned. * A wounded vampire is sent to torpor after damage resolution. The "first point" business is covered up by the fact that the "first" point wounds the vampire, and further points require the vampire to prevent destruction. LSJ, if you and Noal both approve, I'll put this wording into the FAQ. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "Do you like my mask? Isn't it pretty? It raises the dead. ... Americans!" -- Giles Jyhad/V:TES FAQ: http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html

In article <7002an$2m7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com writes >It is really >one action (Burning Blood) called 2 different things. This is why you are having confusion. If you separate the two things - burning blood to heal damage and burning blood to prevent destruction - clearly in your mind, the entire process becomes a hell of a lot easier. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6vvtjg$tbe$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >I said it would take a math major to figure out. So far, I >feel justified in that statement. Pre-University English Lit student here, and I've more or less got it down. [ quoted text not captured ]

Agent Zero wrote: "Ok, this is getting irritating." If you find this sort of thing irritating, you might well pick a new pastime... "I thought that one of the reasons for changing how agg damage works was to simplify it and make it easier to understand. Yeah, right." No, the new aggro rules exist to balance them out properly and make them a bit more logical. The original rules ran into a few weird problems (like Basilia vs a vamp with Undead Persistance), and the VTES rules made aggro damage _way_ more powerful than originally intended, without changing any of the cards that cause aggro damage to balance them out (PF and Ivory Bow still did aggro damage for no increase in cost, but suddenly became capable of buring vampires where originally they could never do this. This was bad.) The new aggro rules just aren't that hard to understand. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal wrote: "Anyhoo...it seems like the game is primarily using the Jyhad text of cards to base its rulings on. (Torn Signpost, Ritual of the Bitter Rose, Second Tradition, etc.) Considering that Jyhad was the limited run and VTES was the unlimited printing, I'm not sure this is a sound way to go..." Please keep in mind that the VTES printing was fraught with typos, rules errors and garbles, poorly written "clarifications", and new aggro damage rules that changed the system drastically without rebalancing the cards that it affected. As Jyhad was well designed, and the folks who were not the original designers were responsible for the re-write, it strikes me as nothing but a good idea to stick to the Jyhad wording in almost all situations. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Ok, this is getting irritating. >I thought that one of the reasons for changing how agg damage works >was to simplify it and make it easier to understand. Yeah, right. >In all the messages that I've seen previously, it says that the first >point of agg damage doesn't cause the vamp to burn a blood because it >can't be healed. Yet you say that "The single point of agg, since the >vampire has unhealed damage already, will burn the vampire, unless he >burns a blood to prevent destruction". If the first point of agg damage >doesn't cause the vamp to burn a blood (because he can't), why is it >that if he doesn't burn a blood in the above example, he burns? It seems >like a contradiction to me. It IS really very simple... you just deal with the damage one point at a time, and there are 4 cases (ready or torpored vamp, normal or aggro damage): a ready vampire takes one point of damage. If the vampire has blood left, she burns one blood. If not, she goes to torpor. a ready vampire takes one point of aggro damage. She goes to torpor. a torpored vamp takes one point of normal damage. If the vampire has blood left, he burns one blood. If not, nothing happens. a torpored vamp takes one point of aggro damage. If the vampire has blood left, he burns one blood. If not, he is burned. Maybe it's just because I'm a computer science major, but when you break it down into a few very simple rules it all becomes easy to understand. This may not be how the rules were explained, but following these rules will give you the correct results, and it makes it clear what is going on as you take damage. -Dave

In article <7009rm$5g0m$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes >* A wounded vampire that receives aggravated damage must burn one blood >for each point of aggravated damage. A vampire which must burn blood to >prevent destruction but cannot is burned. You need to clear up the first sentence to indicate WHY the vampire is burning blood to allow it to work with the "to prevent destruction" section of the second sentence. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7009rm$5g0m$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, ham...@math.wisc.edu (James Hamblin) wrote: [snip Noal] > How about this for a better wording? > > * A vampire is "wounded" if it receives damage that it is unable to heal. > * Aggravated damage cannot be healed. > * Normal damage can be healed by burning one blood for each point of > damage. > * A wounded vampire that receives aggravated damage must burn one blood > for each point of aggravated damage. A vampire which must burn blood to > prevent destruction but cannot is burned. I think you're missing a fragment here. Wouldn't it sound better as: "A wounded vampire that receives aggravated damage must burn one blood for each point of aggravated damage *to prevent destruction*. A vampire which must burn blood to prevent destruction but cannot is burned." > * A wounded vampire is sent to torpor after damage resolution. > > The "first point" business is covered up by the fact that the "first" > point wounds the vampire, and further points require the vampire to > prevent destruction. LSJ, if you and Noal both approve, I'll put this > wording into the FAQ. Otherwise, this seems fairly clear to me. "you can just ignore it....and let hand jam sort them out." -Jasper Phillips [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7012r4$hvh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, xi...@waste.org wrote: > In article <7009rm$5g0m$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, > ham...@math.wisc.edu (James Hamblin) wrote: > [snip Noal] > > How about this for a better wording? > > > > * A vampire is "wounded" if it receives damage that it is unable to heal. > > * Aggravated damage cannot be healed. > > * Normal damage can be healed by burning one blood for each point of > > damage. > > * A wounded vampire that receives aggravated damage must burn one blood > > for each point of aggravated damage. A vampire which must burn blood to > > prevent destruction but cannot is burned. > > I think you're missing a fragment here. Wouldn't it sound better as: > > "A wounded vampire that receives aggravated damage must burn one blood for > each point of aggravated damage *to prevent destruction*. A vampire which > must burn blood to prevent destruction but cannot is burned." Or perhaps even clearer... "A wounded vampire that receives aggravated damage must burn one blood for each point of aggravated damage *in order to prevent destruction*. A vampire which must burn blood to prevent destruction but cannot is burned." I like that better than my prior suggestion. Xian [ quoted text not captured ]

ham...@math.wisc.edu (James Hamblin) wrote: > I agree that LSJ's initial wording on July 7 was cloudy. But he has since > cleared it up, and there is also an explanation in the FAQ. Please go > read that section of the FAQ and let me know if it needs improving. > > How about this for a better wording? > > * A vampire is "wounded" if it receives damage that it is unable to heal. > * Aggravated damage cannot be healed. > * Normal damage can be healed by burning one blood for each point of > damage. > * A wounded vampire that receives aggravated damage must burn one blood > for each point of aggravated damage. A vampire which must burn blood to > prevent destruction but cannot is burned. > * A wounded vampire is sent to torpor after damage resolution. > > The "first point" business is covered up by the fact that the "first" > point wounds the vampire, and further points require the vampire to > prevent destruction. LSJ, if you and Noal both approve, I'll put this > wording into the FAQ. That wording is correct, so I have no objections if it serves to clear up some misconceptions that players have had about damage. Note that this wording is equivalent to the V:TES rules, except for the word "wounded" in the fourth bullet item. That is the extent of the change in the aggravated damage rules. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

ham...@math.wisc.edu (James Hamblin) wrote: > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > : > "First point" is irrelevant. The first, middle, and last points of > : > aggravated damage cannot be healed. No blood is spent healing damage > : > that cannot be healed. > : > : If "first point" is irrelevant, why did you state the rule in 7/7 to be: > : Aggravated Damage: > : Aggravated damage done to a vampire with unhealed damage > : (including aggravated damage after the first point) > : requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of > : damage to avoid being burned. > : Looking at this, "first point" is quite relevant. The only part of that that uses "first point" is part of a parenthetical remark - which means that it can be removed without changing the meaning. In short: it is irrelevant. All aggravated damage is handled the same way. In practice, one refers to the "first" point and then to the "second" point and so on, but they are all the same. It (the remark) was included to make sure that people understood the nature of applied damage point-by-point in turn (first the first point, then the second point, etc.) > The first and subsequent points of aggravated damage are > (A) the same, in that neither can be healed > (B) different, in that if a vampire is not already on its way to torpor > (i.e., "wounded"), the first point does not require that vampire to burn > blood to prevent destruction. They are not different, BTW. If a vampire is not already on its way to torpor, the second point would not destroy the vampire, either. It just happens that, by the time you get to the second point, the vampire is typically on his way to torpor. :-) > : > The first, middle, and last points of aggravated damage will burn > : > a wounded vampire. A wounded vampire must burn a blood to prevent > : > destruction from each of these points. > : > : In that case, why treat aggravated damage different than regular damage for > : the purposes of burning blood? Why put in the "first point" statement in the > : first place? You're starting to contradict yourself. It is treated differently because it is different. Damage will wound a vampire. Aggaravted damage will burn a wounded vampire. Neither of these equals "causes the vampire to lose a blood". A vampire may burn a blood to heal damage (and will thus not be wounded). Except that aggravated damage cannot be healed. A vampire may burn a blood to prevent destruction from aggravated damage (and will thus not be burned). No contradiction. > Because a single point of aggravated damage done to a non-wounded vampire > does not require that vampire to burn blood. > > : For example, Bear Claw pops Wolf Claws and swipes Normal in the head. > : Normal goes to torpor and burns a blood to prevent being burned. > : (But wait...there's that "after the first point" clause) > > No, Normal just goes to torpor. He received one point of aggravated > damage, so is sent to torpor, without having to burn any blood. Right. Aggravated damage can't burn a healthy, unwounded vampire. So there's no destruction to burn a blood to prevent. Normal can't heal the damage, though, so he is wounded and goes to torpor. > : Next time, Bear Claw uses Shadow of the Wolf for 2 strikes against Claven. > : First strike he punches for 1 reg damage. On the second strike, he pops > : Bone Spur and punches for 2 agg damage. Does Claven have to burn > : a total of 2 or 3 blood? The 2nd strike is after the "first point" of damage > : in the round of combat, but it's not from a single source of damage. > > Offhand, I can't remember who Claven is, so we'll use Normal again. After > the first strike, Normal takes 1 point of damage, and burns one blood to > heal it. On the second strike, Normal takes two aggravated damage. The > first point "wounds" him, and he must burn a blood for the second agg > point to prevent destruction. So Normal ends up in torpor 0/2. Right. After healing the regular damage, normal remains healthy (unwounded, untorporous, whatever). Then he takes two point of aggravated, which he cannot heal. After handling the "first" of them, he is wounded. The "second" point will burn him, since he is now wounded (just as the "first" one would've if he had been wounded at that time). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

xi...@waste.org wrote: > xi...@waste.org wrote: > > ham...@math.wisc.edu (James Hamblin) wrote: > > > * A wounded vampire that receives aggravated damage must burn one blood > > > for each point of aggravated damage. A vampire which must burn blood to > > > prevent destruction but cannot is burned. > > > > I think you're missing a fragment here. Wouldn't it sound better as: > > > > "A wounded vampire that receives aggravated damage must burn one blood for > > each point of aggravated damage *to prevent destruction*. A vampire which > > must burn blood to prevent destruction but cannot is burned." > > Or perhaps even clearer... "A wounded vampire that receives aggravated damage > must burn one blood for each point of aggravated damage *in order to prevent > destruction*. A vampire which must burn blood to prevent destruction but > cannot is burned." > > I like that better than my prior suggestion. Or how about "Each point of aggravated damage will burn a wounded vampire unless he burns a blood for each point to prevent destruction". -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > Please keep in mind that the VTES printing was fraught with typos, rules errors > and garbles, poorly written "clarifications", and new aggro damage rules that > changed the system drastically without rebalancing the cards that it affected. > As Jyhad was well designed, and the folks who were not the original designers > were responsible for the re-write, it strikes me as nothing but a good idea to > stick to the Jyhad wording in almost all situations. *raises eyebrow* Jyhad was much worse for typos than VTES. I also believe that the change in the agg damage rules was done for the right reasons. I also differ in opinion with you about the quality of design of Jyhad over VTES. But, hey, this is America. We're all used to having opinions. We're also used to them not counting for a damned thing. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

> I agree that LSJ's initial wording on July 7 was cloudy. But he has since > cleared it up, and there is also an explanation in the FAQ. Please go > read that section of the FAQ and let me know if it needs improving. What's the URL of the FAQ? It's not on LSJ's site. > How about this for a better wording? > > * A vampire is "wounded" if it receives damage that it is unable to heal. > * Aggravated damage cannot be healed. > * Normal damage can be healed by burning one blood for each point of > damage. > * A wounded vampire that receives aggravated damage must burn one blood > for each point of aggravated damage. A vampire which must burn blood to > prevent destruction but cannot is burned. > * A wounded vampire is sent to torpor after damage resolution. Hrm. Let's see if I can focus this a bit. It's still not as concise as it could be. 1) A vampire that has received damage must burn one blood for each point of damage received to heal. If the vampire is unable to heal any non-aggravated damage in this manner, that vampire is sent to torpor immediately following damage resolution and is considered "wounded". 2) If a vampire that is not "wounded" receives aggravated damage, that vampire is sent to torpor after damage resolution and is considered "wounded". For each point after the first of aggravated damage from a single source that a "non-wounded" vampire receives, that vampire must spend one point of blood or is burned. 3) If a "wounded" vampire receives additional aggravated damage before going to torpor, that vampire must spend one point of blood for each point of damage recevied to avoid being burned. The first part is pretty much standard textbook. Pretty much goes without saying. The second part covers what happens when a vampire gets hit by Claws or Burning Wrath or whatever. The third part covers what happens if I punch someone into torpor and my Ghoul Retainer hits you with a Ivory Bow. Let me know what you think. Noal McDonald [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > How about this for a better wording? > > > > * A vampire is "wounded" if it receives damage that it is unable to heal. > > * Aggravated damage cannot be healed. > > * Normal damage can be healed by burning one blood for each point of > > damage. > > * A wounded vampire that receives aggravated damage must burn one blood > > for each point of aggravated damage. A vampire which must burn blood to > > prevent destruction but cannot is burned. > > * A wounded vampire is sent to torpor after damage resolution. > > Hrm. Let's see if I can focus this a bit. It's still not as concise as it > could be. > > 1) A vampire that has received damage must burn one blood for each point of > damage received to heal. If the vampire is unable to heal any non-aggravated > damage in this manner, that vampire is sent to torpor immediately following > damage resolution and is considered "wounded". The second sentence is more directly stated as "If a vampire is unable to heal any damage, that vampire is sent to torpor." Aggravated damage is merely damage that cannot be healed - it "wounds" a vampire just like normal damage that is not healed. It happens to have the power to burn a wounded vampire, but that's a separate point (below). > 2) If a vampire that is not "wounded" receives aggravated damage, that > vampire is sent to torpor after damage resolution and is considered > "wounded". For each point after the first of aggravated damage from a single > source that a "non-wounded" vampire receives, that vampire must spend one > point of blood or is burned. This is overly complicated, and may be why some people have such a hard time grasping the new rules. The first sentence is already handled by the more direct wording of the first point above. The second sentence for some reason uses concepts of "after the first" and "from a single source" that are irrelevant (the former) or not correct (the latter), and lead to confusion. And aggravated damage cannot burn a "non-wounded" vampire. 2) For each point of aggravated damage done to a "wounded" vampire, that vampire must spend one point of blood to prevent destruction or he is burned. All aggravated damage, the first through the last point from as many sources as you like, are all handled the same way. And, if the first point wounds a vampire (and it will, since it can't be healed) the remaining points (being done to a now-wounded vampire) will burn him unless he prevents destruction. But this is the same as the first point - if it had been done to a wounded vampire it would burn him unless he prevents destruction. > 3) If a "wounded" vampire receives additional aggravated damage before going > to torpor, that vampire must spend one point of blood for each point of > damage recevied to avoid being burned. This is covered by the simpler, correct explanation of 2), above. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> Damage will wound a vampire. > Aggaravted damage will burn a wounded vampire. > Neither of these equals "causes the vampire to lose a blood". > A vampire may burn a blood to heal damage (and will thus not be wounded). > Except that aggravated damage cannot be healed. Ok, elsewhere in this thread (I cannot find it because dejanews isn't displaying all the messages), I read that if a vampire takes 2 normal and 1 aggravated damage, that vampire burns 2 blood for the normal damage and because it is wounded, it also has to burn a blood for the 1 aggravated damage. Yet the above makes it seem like that is not the case. So the *only* way that a vampire will *ever* burn a blood due to agg damage is if there is more than 1 point of agg damage done to that vampire irregardless of how much normal damage was done to that vampire (that doesn't reduce that vampire to 0 blood)? a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Yet you say that "The single point of agg, since the > > vampire has unhealed damage already, will burn the vampire, unless he > > burns a blood to prevent destruction". If the first point of agg damage > > doesn't cause the vamp to burn a blood (because he can't), why is it > It *does* require him to burn a blood if he is damaged. > Not to heal, of course, since it cannot be healed, but > rather to prevent destruction since it will burn his > damaged body if he doesn't burn a blood. Since burning blood for regular damage "heals" a vampire, thus making that vampire to be considered 'unwounded' (as per your message elsewhere in this thread), there is no way that a single point of agg damage will ever cause that vampire to burn a blood as you assert above. The only way that a vampire can be considered 'damaged' (unwounded?) is if that vampire is in Torpor with 0 blood (for the simple fact that it didn't have blood left to heal). If the vampire is in Torpor because of agg damage, then the first point doesn't require him to burn a blood. This is what I'm talking about apparent contradiction. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hrm....Let's start from scratch on this. There needs to be a simple statement that summarizes in a clear fashion what LSJ has in play regarding agg damage. We don't need to define normal damage since everyone is already clear on those effects. How does this one strike you? A vampire is considered "wounded" when it has either taken more normal damage than it can heal or one point of aggravated damage. If a "wounded" vampire takes additional aggravated damage, that vampire must spend one blood for each additional aggravated damage or it is burned. The first sentence doesn't get into whether you can heal agg damage or not. The second sentence goes into what happens when more than 1 agg is take or the vampire is already going into torpor. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

I think it can all be summarized very easily: When a vampire is hit with damage, it must burn a blood for each point of damage in order to heal. A vampire that takes damage that it does not or cannot burn a blood to heal (not the same as preventing damage) is then considered to be wounded. A wounded vampire goes to torpor at the end of strike resolution. Additional explantion: Aggravated damage cannot be healed by a vampire and will cause the vampire to be wounded if unprevented. If a wounded vampire receives aggravated damage that it does not prevent, it must burn a blood to prevent destruction. If it cannot burn a blood to prevent destruction, it is burned. Unnecessary rules thoughts: A wounded vampire means that it is on its way to torpor. However, is a vampire on its way to torpor considered wounded? This could be important for cards like Coma and Entombment. I'm not sure that it is in the rules at this point that wounded means going to torpor and going to torpor means wounded. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

> A vampire that takes damage that it does not or cannot burn a blood > to heal (not the same as preventing damage) is then considered to be > wounded. A wounded vampire goes to torpor at the end of strike > resolution. I'm going to say nothing more on the above than the way you word it makes it sound as if a vamp who takes 5 points of damage can choose not to burn the blood for that damage (your use of 'does not'), and because he does not burn the blood for that 5 damage goes to torpor. This whole thing is much more difficult than it should be. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <702e0c$7l2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > Damage will wound a vampire. > > Aggaravted damage will burn a wounded vampire. > > Neither of these equals "causes the vampire to lose a blood". > > A vampire may burn a blood to heal damage (and will thus not be wounded). > > Except that aggravated damage cannot be healed. > > Ok, elsewhere in this thread (I cannot find it because dejanews isn't > displaying all the messages), I read that if a vampire takes 2 normal > and 1 aggravated damage, that vampire burns 2 blood for the normal > damage and because it is wounded, it also has to burn a blood for the > 1 aggravated damage. > Yet the above makes it seem like that is not the case. Right. By burning to blood to heal the two regular damage, the vampire has avoided becoming wounded. He healed the damage done, so he is still healthy. Then the agg, which he cannot heal, won't burn him since he is still healthy. (So he doesn't burn a blood to prevent destruction.) Since he can't heal it, though, it leaves him wounded (on his way to torpor). The example to which you refer may have referred to a vampire with only one blood (who therefore couldn't heal both points of regular damage, which means he would then be "wounded", and would then be burned by the aggravated damage). Or perhaps it was just a mistake - I can't find the example, either. > So the *only* way that a vampire will *ever* burn a blood due to agg > damage is if there is more than 1 point of agg damage done to that vampire > irregardless of how much normal damage was done to that vampire (that > doesn't reduce that vampire to 0 blood)? Not quite. The only way a vampire will burn a blood due to aggravated damage is when he has to prevent destruction from the aggravated damage. Aggravated damage will only destroy a vampire when he is wounded (on his way to torpor or in torpor). This "wounded" state may come from other, preceding, points of aggravated damage, or from regular damage in excess of the vampire's blood supply, or from other "go to torpor" effects. For example: If he is hit with Coma (go to torpor) and one point of Agg (from a Ivory Bow wielded by a Ghoul Retainer, for instance), then he will have to pay a blood to prevent destruction, since he is already wounded (on his way to torpor) when the aggravated damage resolves. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: : > Damage will wound a vampire. : > Aggaravted damage will burn a wounded vampire. : > Neither of these equals "causes the vampire to lose a blood". : > A vampire may burn a blood to heal damage (and will thus not be wounded). : > Except that aggravated damage cannot be healed. : Ok, elsewhere in this thread (I cannot find it because dejanews isn't : displaying all the messages), I read that if a vampire takes 2 normal : and 1 aggravated damage, that vampire burns 2 blood for the normal : damage and because it is wounded, it also has to burn a blood for the : 1 aggravated damage. : Yet the above makes it seem like that is not the case. It's not, at least not exactly (I'm not sure what post you're referring to). A vampire is not 'wounded' just because it's burning blood to heal damage. A vampire is 'wounded' if it has taken damage that it could not heal. That is, if it took a point of normal damage when it had no blood, and was therefore unable to heal it, or if it took a point of agg damage, which can never be healed. When a vampire is not 'wounded', each point of normal damage it takes requires it to burn a blood or else become 'wounded'. Each point of agg damage it takes causes it to become 'wounded', since vampires cannot heal agg damage. The confusion seems to arise because typically, if a vampire takes multiple points of agg damage, the first one will cause that vamp to become 'wounded', and agg damage affects 'wounded' vampires differently than normal damage (and differently than agg damage affects non-'wounded' vampires). When a vampire *is* 'wounded', each point of agg damage it takes requires it to burn a blood or else be burned. Each point of normal damage requires it to burn a blood as usual; if it can't, nothing happens (since the vamp is already 'wounded'). So if a previously unwounded vamp takes 2 regular and 1 agg, it is handled like this: First point of regular: vamp burns a blood or becomes wounded. Second point of regular: vamp burns a blood or becomes wounded. First point of agg: vamp becomes wounded (if it wasn't already) or must burn a blood to avoid being destroyed (if the regular damage caused it to become wounded). : So the *only* way that a vampire will *ever* burn a blood due to agg : damage is if there is more than 1 point of agg damage done to that vampire : irregardless of how much normal damage was done to that vampire (that : doesn't reduce that vampire to 0 blood)? No, that's not quite correct. A vamp must burn blood to avoid destruction whenever it takes agg damage *if it is already wounded*. If it is not previously wounded, a point of agg damage will cause the vamp to become wounded, but will not require burning a blood to avoid destruction. This is why there is a functional difference between 'the first point' of agg and 'further points' of agg. The reason 'first point' terminology is not used is because there is no 'packeting' or 'single source' effect inherent in the current damage rules. The 'wounded' terminology is (I believe) new to this set of damage rules. It might take a little getting used to, but I think it's the best way to explain how these rules really work. Josh thinks he understands the current damage rules

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: : Hrm....Let's start from scratch on this. : There needs to be a simple statement that summarizes in a clear fashion : what LSJ has in play regarding agg damage. We don't need to define : normal damage since everyone is already clear on those effects. : How does this one strike you? : A vampire is considered "wounded" when it has either taken more : normal damage than it can heal or one point of aggravated damage. : If a "wounded" vampire takes additional aggravated damage, that : vampire must spend one blood for each additional aggravated : damage or it is burned. : The first sentence doesn't get into whether you can heal agg damage : or not. The second sentence goes into what happens when more : than 1 agg is take or the vampire is already going into torpor. This is more of a 'results based' description than the ones we've previously seen, I think. It seems to me that a 'process' description (ie explaining how to handle the actual application of each individual point of damage) is a little more straightforward. (It doesn't assume as much in terms of previous knowledge of how damage rules 'ought to work'.) Let me try this: A vampire becomes 'wounded' when it takes a point of damage that it can't heal, whether this is a point of regular damage that it cannot burn a blood to heal or a point of agg damage (which can never be healed). (Note that when a previously 'unwounded' vampire takes a point of agg damage, it does not burn a blood, but simply becomes 'wounded'.) A 'wounded' vampire goes to torpor at the earliest opportunity. (For example, a vampire that becomes 'wounded' during damage resolution will go to torpor at the end of damage resolution.) When a 'wounded' vampire takes a point of aggravated damage, it must burn a blood or else be destroyed. (When a 'wounded' vampire takes a point of regular damage, it must burn a blood as usual, but if it cannot, nothing else happens.) Josh just yet another take on how to explain agg damage...

> > So the *only* way that a vampire will *ever* burn a blood due to agg > > damage is if there is more than 1 point of agg damage done to that vampire > > irregardless of how much normal damage was done to that vampire (that > > doesn't reduce that vampire to 0 blood)? > Not quite. > The only way a vampire will burn a blood due to aggravated damage is when > he has to prevent destruction from the aggravated damage. Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote. It sounds like you said exactly what I did, but in a different way. To illustrate what I was saying, a 5/5 vamp takes 4 damage (damage that doesn't reduce him to 0 blood). He burns 4 blood for that damage (to heal, whatever, etc). He also takes 1 agg damage. (this is *all* the damage that vamp takes this round; no environmental or other affects in play). Under no circumstances does that vamp burn 1 blood for that agg damage although that vamp does go to Torpor. However, this begs the question, if that same vamp (in the same circumstances) takes 5 damage and 1 agg damage, does the vamp burn. If I understand this correctly, I say no. It simply drops to Torpor. > Aggravated damage will only destroy a vampire when he is wounded (on his > way to torpor or in torpor). Ok, so the only time a vampire is considered 'wounded' is if s/he is on their way to torpor? Elsewhere, I read something that made it seem as if a vamp still ready could be considered wounded. > For example: > If he is hit with Coma (go to torpor) and one point of Agg (from a Ivory Bow > wielded by a Ghoul Retainer, for instance), then he will have to pay a > blood to prevent destruction, since he is already wounded (on his way to > torpor) when the aggravated damage resolves. Ok, this is coming around... a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

> : So the *only* way that a vampire will *ever* burn a blood due to agg > : damage is if there is more than 1 point of agg damage done to that vampire > : irregardless of how much normal damage was done to that vampire (that > : doesn't reduce that vampire to 0 blood)? > No, that's not quite correct. A vamp must burn blood to avoid destruction > whenever it takes agg damage *if it is already wounded*. If it is not > previously wounded, a point of agg damage will cause the vamp to become > wounded, but will not require burning a blood to avoid destruction. Ok, either I wrote it so that people didn't understand or are not actually reading it. And it is because of things like this that make me confused. If a vampire takes any amount of damage (burns blood, whatever) that doesn't reduce it to 0 blood, then it is not 'wounded', right? Or at least I'm led to believe this by several parties. Now, in order for a vamp in the above situation (burning blood for damage that doesn't reduce them to 0 blood) to burn *any* blood due to agg damage would be that more than 1 point of agg damage is being applied to this vamp, Correct? The first causing the vamp to become 'wounded' (yet not requiring the burning of a blood) and the second+ causing/requiring the vamp to burn a blood. Correct? This is what I said (and is quoted above) and what I was lead to believe, yet people are telling me that it isn't quite correct. This is why I'm getting frustrated. [ quoted text not captured ]

> A vampire becomes 'wounded' when it takes a point of damage that it > can't heal, whether this is a point of regular damage that it cannot > burn a blood to heal or a point of agg damage (which can never be healed). Which implies that a vamp only ever becomes wounded (by normal damage) when it is > 0 blood since it is only then that it won't be able to burn a blood to heal... fine. > burn a blood or else be destroyed. (When a 'wounded' vampire takes a > point of regular damage, it must burn a blood as usual, but if it cannot, > nothing else happens.) If the above is true, then the part of your statement that says 'if it cannot' should read 'since it cannot'. Again, if the above is true. [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > So the *only* way that a vampire will *ever* burn a blood due to agg > > > damage is if there is more than 1 point of agg damage done to that vampire > > > irregardless of how much normal damage was done to that vampire (that > > > doesn't reduce that vampire to 0 blood)? > > Not quite. > > The only way a vampire will burn a blood due to aggravated damage is when > > he has to prevent destruction from the aggravated damage. > > Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote. It sounds like you said exactly > what I did, but in a different way. Your statement doesn't handle the possibility of going to torpor by means other than aggravated damage (like the Coma example I gave, below). And your use of parentheses for a non-parenthetical phrase leads to the question of whether your statement handles normal damage in excess of blood supply followed by aggravated damage. > To illustrate what I was saying, a 5/5 vamp takes 4 damage (damage that > doesn't reduce him to 0 blood). He burns 4 blood for that damage (to heal, > whatever, etc). He also takes 1 agg damage. (this is *all* the damage that > vamp takes this round; no environmental or other affects in play). > Under no circumstances does that vamp burn 1 blood for that agg damage > although that vamp does go to Torpor. Right. He takes damage that he doesn't heal (the agg. damage). So he goes to torpor. > However, this begs the question, if that same vamp (in the same circumstances) > takes 5 damage and 1 agg damage, does the vamp burn. If I understand this > correctly, I say no. It simply drops to Torpor. Right. The agg damage won't burn him, since he is healthy at the time, so he doesn't need to prevent destruction. > > Aggravated damage will only destroy a vampire when he is wounded (on his > > way to torpor or in torpor). > > Ok, so the only time a vampire is considered 'wounded' is if s/he is on > their way to torpor? ... or already in torpor, right. > > For example: > > If he is hit with Coma (go to torpor) and one point of Agg (from a Ivory Bow > > wielded by a Ghoul Retainer, for instance), then he will have to pay a > > blood to prevent destruction, since he is already wounded (on his way to > > torpor) when the aggravated damage resolves. > > Ok, this is coming around... Great! -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > A vampire is considered "wounded" when it has either taken more > > normal damage than it can heal or one point of aggravated damage. > > If a "wounded" vampire takes additional aggravated damage, that > > vampire must spend one blood for each additional aggravated > > damage or it is burned. > Joshua Duffin wrote: > A vampire becomes 'wounded' when it takes a point of damage that it > can't heal, whether this is a point of regular damage that it cannot > burn a blood to heal or a point of agg damage (which can never be healed). > (Note that when a previously 'unwounded' vampire takes a point of agg > damage, it does not burn a blood, but simply becomes 'wounded'.) A > 'wounded' vampire goes to torpor at the earliest opportunity. (For > example, a vampire that becomes 'wounded' during damage resolution will > go to torpor at the end of damage resolution.) > > When a 'wounded' vampire takes a point of aggravated damage, it must > burn a blood or else be destroyed. (When a 'wounded' vampire takes a > point of regular damage, it must burn a blood as usual, but if it cannot, > nothing else happens.) Not bad, Josh...but it's a bit wordy. How about the following average of the two? A vampire is considered "wounded" when it has either taken more normal damage than it can heal by spending blood or one point of aggravated damage. A "wounded" vampire goes to torpor after damage resolution. If a "wounded" vampire takes additional aggravated damage before going to torpor, that vampire must spend one blood for each additional aggravated damage or it is burned. I'd like to see it be a short, concise statement that is clear in intent and in function. Hence, my "results based" wording. It'll be easier for the average newbie to follow. Hell, we can even ask a newbie for his input. Whaddya think, Vryce? Since you make a good test audience, your input would be most valuable. Noal McDonald The Big Nacho of Westland, MI [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: : > A vampire becomes 'wounded' when it takes a point of damage that it : > can't heal, whether this is a point of regular damage that it cannot : > burn a blood to heal or a point of agg damage (which can never be healed). : Which implies that a vamp only ever becomes wounded (by normal damage) : when it is > 0 blood since it is only then that it won't be able to burn : a blood to heal... : fine. Only *becomes* wounded by normal damage when at 0 blood, yes. : > burn a blood or else be destroyed. (When a 'wounded' vampire takes a : > point of regular damage, it must burn a blood as usual, but if it cannot, : > nothing else happens.) : If the above is true, then the part of your statement that says 'if it : cannot' should read 'since it cannot'. Again, if the above is true. No, it's not actually impossible for a vampire to be wounded and then later take normal damage. It could be wounded by a Claws of the Dead agg hit and then take another 1 normal from Twisting the Knife (or Pulled Fangs). Hence, 'if it cannot'. ;-) (Same deal if it got hit with Coma or Entombment and then a Wolf Companion smacked it around some more.) Josh 'the horror! the horror!'

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: : > Joshua Duffin wrote: : > A vampire becomes 'wounded' when it takes a point of damage that it : > can't heal, whether this is a point of regular damage that it cannot : > burn a blood to heal or a point of agg damage (which can never be healed). : > (Note that when a previously 'unwounded' vampire takes a point of agg : > damage, it does not burn a blood, but simply becomes 'wounded'.) A : > 'wounded' vampire goes to torpor at the earliest opportunity. (For : > example, a vampire that becomes 'wounded' during damage resolution will : > go to torpor at the end of damage resolution.) : > : > When a 'wounded' vampire takes a point of aggravated damage, it must : > burn a blood or else be destroyed. (When a 'wounded' vampire takes a : > point of regular damage, it must burn a blood as usual, but if it cannot, : > nothing else happens.) : Not bad, Josh...but it's a bit wordy. True. : How about the following average of the two? : A vampire is considered "wounded" when it has either taken more : normal damage than it can heal by spending blood or one point of : aggravated damage. A "wounded" vampire goes to torpor after : damage resolution. If a "wounded" vampire takes additional : aggravated damage before going to torpor, that vampire must spend : one blood for each additional aggravated damage or it is burned. : I'd like to see it be a short, concise statement that is clear in intent : and in function. Hence, my "results based" wording. It'll be easier : for the average newbie to follow. Hell, we can even ask a newbie : for his input. Whaddya think, Vryce? Since you make a good test : audience, your input would be most valuable. I appreciate your desire for briefness, but I'm not sure that it's possible to make it as short as you'd like without losing potentially important content. In my estimation, it's better for it to be clear than for it to be short - new players probably don't have any trouble reading more words, but they might get confused by assumptions that aren't natural to them. Your restatement is (I think) essentially accurate, but I would prefer to have it incorporate normal damage handling as well, for the sake of a unified approach. (My previous description includes explanatory information that I would expect to be useful to someone who's not clear on damage handling. This one doesn't.) How about something like this: A point of normal damage 'wounds' a vampire unless it burns a blood to heal that damage. A point of aggravated damage 'wounds' a vampire if it is not currently wounded. A point of aggravated damage burns a 'wounded' vampire unless it burns a blood to prevent destruction. A point of normal damage forces a 'wounded' vampire to burn a blood, but will have no further effect if the wounded vamp has no blood. Josh I suspect four sentences is about as much as it can be cut down to...

James Coupe wrote: > In article <7002an$2m7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > agen...@my-dejanews.com > writes > >It is really > >one action (Burning Blood) called 2 different things. > > This is why you are having confusion. If you separate the two things > - > burning blood to heal damage and burning blood to prevent destruction > - > clearly in your mind, the entire process becomes a hell of a lot > easier. > And of course, burning blood for burning blood which is not caused by damage but by burn blood effects is the proper use of the burn blood term, but thats another matter entirely. Um. That doesn't necessarily ease the issues does it? :) David Naseby

Noal wrote: "*raises eyebrow* Jyhad was much worse for typos than VTES." Not that I'm saying you're necessarily wrong, but what typos can you think of off hand in the Jyhad set? VTES had the free hunting grounds, the poorly re-written Torn Signpost, the clan specifc clan hosers, as well as the inclusion of highly questionable cards like Archon Investigation and Protected Racehorses (which aren't typos, but they might as well be...) "I also believe that the change in the agg damage rules was done for the right reasons." I don't disagree with the motives behind the change of the aggro rules, but it didn't work for the reasons that I mentioned earlier, namely that aggro damage became far more powerful between Jyhad and VTES, but none of the cards that caused aggro damage were changed to balance it out. Ivory Bow still cost one pool. Pulled Fangs still cost nothing. Claws of the Dead still cost one blood. All of these cards became _much_ more powerful with the rules change, but nothing was done to balance them out accordingly. In Jyhad, one point of aggro was very easy to come by, but could _never_ burn a vampire. It was exeedingly difficult to burn vampires in the Jyhad rules, as was the intention of the game. With the VTES aggro rules, burning vampires became almost laughably easy with nothing done to balance this change. Not good. "I also differ in opinion with you about the quality of design of Jyhad over VTES." In what way, I curiously ask? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "She's not playing with a full deck. That girl has no deck. She has a three." -Buffy

Agent0 wrote: "To illustrate what I was saying, a 5/5 vamp takes 4 damage (damage that doesn't reduce him to 0 blood). He burns 4 blood for that damage (to heal, whatever, etc). He also takes 1 agg damage. (this is *all* the damage that vamp takes this round; no environmental or other affects in play). Under no circumstances does that vamp burn 1 blood for that agg damage although that vamp does go to Torpor." This is correct. What you seem to be misunderstanding is the correct useage of the term "wounded". A "wounded" vampire is specificaly a vampire on the way to torpor. Not a vampire who takes damage. Not a vampire with a wound. Very specifically a vampire who is currently on the way to torpor. Nothing else covers the term "wounded" in this discussion. If a vampire is currently on the way to torpor, it is wounded. If it is not on the way to torpor, it is not wounded. There are two ways to become wounded. A) Take a point of aggrivated damage (when you have not previously taken one), B) Take more regular (non aggrivated) damage than you have blood to burn. Thus, a vampire with 8 blood who takes one point of aggro damage becomes wounded (as he is on the way to torpor). A vampire with 4 blood who is hit for 5 or more regular damage becomes wounded (as he is on the way to torpor). (I am fairly certain that a vampire who is torporized by something like Coma also counts as wounded for this discussion, so there would be three ways to become wounded, but that doesn't really matter here). "However, this begs the question, if that same vamp (in the same circumstances) takes 5 damage and 1 agg damage, does the vamp burn. If I understand this correctly, I say no. It simply drops to Torpor." You are correct. The vampire starts with 5 blood. He takes 5 regular damage, reducing him to 0 blood. A vampire with 0 blood does not go to torpor, so he is not wounded (as he is not currently going to torpor). Then he takes the 1 aggro damage (as you always apply regular damage first). As he is not wounded (i.e. currently going to torpor), a point of aggrivated damage does not cause you to burn blood, but it does send you to torpor (wounds you). If in the above situation, the vampire took 6 regular damage and 1 aggro, he _would_ burn, as the 6 points would send the vampire to torpor (wounding him) and then the one point of aggro damage would require him to burn a blood to avoid destruction, as he is already wounded (on the way to torpor) when he takes the aggro damage. As he has no blood to burn, poof. Remember. Wounded means "currently on the way to torpor". It means nothing else in this discussion. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > But, hey, this is America. We're all used to having > opinions. We're also used to them not counting for a damned thing. Hey.. this isn't America. This is the net. Kind of international. David Naseby (*.au)

>> A vampire is considered "wounded" when it has either taken more >> normal damage than it can heal by spending blood or one point of >> aggravated damage. A "wounded" vampire goes to torpor after >> damage resolution. If a "wounded" vampire takes additional >> aggravated damage before going to torpor, that vampire must spend >> one blood for each additional aggravated damage or it is burned. > > Your restatement is (I think) essentially accurate, but I would prefer > to have it incorporate normal damage handling as well, for the sake > of a unified approach. The first setence does with the phrase. "A vampire is considered "wounded" when it has either taken more normal damage than it can heal by spending blood..." Not to mention that normal damage rules haven't changed and are fairly well defined in the book. > How about something like this: > > A point of normal damage 'wounds' a vampire unless it burns a blood to > heal that damage. > A point of aggravated damage 'wounds' a vampire if it is not currently > wounded. > A point of aggravated damage burns a 'wounded' vampire unless it burns > a blood to prevent destruction. > A point of normal damage forces a 'wounded' vampire to burn a blood, > but will have no further effect if the wounded vamp has no blood. You don't say what happens to a 'wounded' vampire...that he goes to torpor. The last sentence is misleading in that regard. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Um...I don't live in a net. I live in an apt. My apt. is in Michigan, which is in America. Peter also lives in America. Would you care to make any other silly useless comments? [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > [uncited source wrote:] > > [agentzero wrote:] > > > So the *only* way that a vampire will *ever* burn a blood due to agg > > > damage is if there is more than 1 point of agg damage done to that vampire > > > irregardless of how much normal damage was done to that vampire (that > > > doesn't reduce that vampire to 0 blood)? > [...] > If a vampire takes any amount of damage (burns blood, whatever) that > doesn't reduce it to 0 blood, then it is not 'wounded', right? Or at least > I'm led to believe this by several parties. If you're restricting the comment to "regular, non-agg damage", then this is correct (assuming the vampire isn't already on his way to torpor or in torpor). (The parenthetical remark is misleading, possibly equating damage to burning blood - burning blood, even in excess of supply, is not damage and will never cause a vamp to be "wounded".) > Now, in order for a vamp in the above situation (burning blood for damage > that doesn't reduce them to 0 blood) to burn *any* blood due to agg damage > would be that more than 1 point of agg damage is being applied to this vamp, > Correct? The first causing the vamp to become 'wounded' (yet not requiring > the burning of a blood) and the second+ causing/requiring the vamp to burn a > blood. Correct? > This is what I said (and is quoted above) and what I was lead to believe, > yet people are telling me that it isn't quite correct. > This is why I'm getting frustrated. It is correct unless some other effect has already set the vampire on his way to torpor (like the Coma plus Ghoul-with-Bow example I gave elsewhere in this thread). Also your bit about "not reduced to 0 blood" was included as a parenthetic remark in your first statement even though it was not parenthetic to your statement, which added to the confusion. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > it's not actually impossible for a vampire to be wounded and then > later take normal damage. It could be wounded by a Claws of the Dead > agg hit and then take another 1 normal from Twisting the Knife (or > Pulled Fangs). Hence, 'if it cannot'. ;-) (Same deal if it got hit > with Coma or Entombment and then a Wolf Companion smacked it around > some more.) The 'classic' example of this is untapping in torpor, but not empty, with Charnas the Imp. The vampire still burns a blood to heal the damage from the Imp. [ quoted text not captured ]

On VTES-L, Krzysztof Meyer writes: > I want to ask about only one example with aggr damage. > New vamp becomes controlled. She is capacity 3. Right after other > Metuselah declares an action, which is blocked with this 3 > capacity vamp. She suffers 4 aggro in combat. Will she be burnt > or not? Not. Resolve each point in turn: 1) Done to a healthy vampire. Cannot be healed, but won't destroy a healthy vampire. So no blood is burned to heal (impossible) or to prevent destruction (not applicable). The vampire is now on her way to torpor, since she has unhealed damage. We'll call "en route to torpor" "wounded" for brevity. 2) Done to a "wounded" vampire. Will destroy a wounded vampire, so the vampire must burn one blood to prevent destruction. (She now has 2 blood left). She is still on her way to torpor. 3) Done to a "wounded" vampire. Will destroy a wounded vampire, so the vampire must burn one blood to prevent destruction. (She now has 1 blood left). She is still on her way to torpor. 4) Done to a "wounded" vampire. Will destroy a wounded vampire, so the vampire must burn one blood to prevent destruction. (She now has 0 blood left). She is still on her way to torpor. At the end of strike resolution, the vampire goes to torpor (empty). [ quoted text not captured ]

> Not that I'm saying you're necessarily wrong, but what typos can you think of > off hand in the Jyhad set? Let's see... 1) Many of vampires had 2 (as opposed to +1) hand damage. At basic, Torn Signpost does them no good. 2) Tasha Morgan A & B. 'Nuff said. 3) Ritual of the Bitter Rose. Poorly worded. 4) Chantry. Could be read to be compulsory...even if the Tremere leaving torpor is not your own. 5) Mob Connections. Doesn't specify that the press must used for a combat involving one of the Controller's minions. 6) Police Department. Same thing. 7) J.S. Simmons, Esq. Does not specify that only vampires may use him. I think that's plenty enough for now.... > "I also differ in opinion with you about the quality of design of Jyhad over > VTES." > > In what way, I curiously ask? For one, I differ in my opinion of aggravated damage. I prefer the VTES version. Most of my other preferences has to do with the cosmetic changes to the cards...esp. since I can't recall what changed from Jyhad to VTES right now. *yawn* Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <702sn9$vn7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > : So the *only* way that a vampire will *ever* burn a blood due to agg > > : damage is if there is more than 1 point of agg damage done to that vampire > > : irregardless of how much normal damage was done to that vampire (that > > : doesn't reduce that vampire to 0 blood)? > If a vampire takes any amount of damage (burns blood, whatever) that > doesn't reduce it to 0 blood, then it is not 'wounded', right? Or at least > I'm led to believe this by several parties. A vampire is only wounded if it is on its way to torpor. Being reduced to 0 blood doesn't make you wounded (your statement could mean that you think it would be). You have to receive additional damage at 0 blood to become wounded. So a vampire with 5 blood and taking 5 points of regular damage is not wounded. > Now, in order for a vamp in the above situation (burning blood for damage > that doesn't reduce them to 0 blood) to burn *any* blood due to agg damage > would be that more than 1 point of agg damage is being applied to this vamp, > Correct? The first causing the vamp to become 'wounded' (yet not requiring > the burning of a blood) and the second+ causing/requiring the vamp to burn a > blood. Correct? The first point of aggravated damage to an unwounded vampire is never going to cause it to burn blood. If a vampire is already wounded, each aggravated damage thereafter will force it to burn a blood to prevent destruction. > This is what I said (and is quoted above) and what I was lead to believe, > yet people are telling me that it isn't quite correct. > This is why I'm getting frustrated. Actually, it's not quite what you said. You said the "only" way for a vampire to have to burn blood for aggravated damage was if it had received more than 1 aggravated damage. You could be hit with Coma and then take a point of aggravate damage somehow (Dawn Operation + DOtB?) Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <70335s$3...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > : Which implies that a vamp only ever becomes wounded (by normal damage) > : when it is > 0 blood since it is only then that it won't be able to burn > : a blood to heal... > : fine. > > Only *becomes* wounded by normal damage when at 0 blood, yes. I want to clarify this with: Only *becomes* wounded if it cannot burn a blood to heal normal damage. A vampire reduced to 0 blood is not wounded, which your sentence could imply. It is only when a vampire at 0 blood takes normal damage, which it then cannot heal, that it becomes wounded. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Remember. Wounded means "currently on the way to torpor". It means >nothing else in this discussion. Therein lies the crux of the problems I was having. There were several posts that I read that made it seem like 'wounded' meant the above, but also meant something else. Now that everything is defined, I believe I have a handle on this. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <704sv3$p3e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > Not that I'm saying you're necessarily wrong, but what typos can you think of > > off hand in the Jyhad set? > > Let's see... [snip some stuff] > 5) Mob Connections. Doesn't specify that the press must used for a combat > involving one of the Controller's minions. > 6) Police Department. Same thing. Whoa whoa whoa...wasn't I just babbling about this on the list? I think that LSJ said that this ruling had been overturned...I had been thinking of Elysium...etc. Anyone else remember? Xian "you can just ignore it....and let hand jam sort them out." -Jasper Phillips [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > Not that I'm saying you're necessarily wrong, but what typos can you think of > > off hand in the Jyhad set? > Let's see... > 1) Many of vampires had 2 (as opposed to +1) hand damage. At basic, Torn > Signpost does them no good. These aren't typos. That's what they did and it was right at the time. > 2) Tasha Morgan A & B. 'Nuff said. Right. One of these is a mistake. > 3) Ritual of the Bitter Rose. Poorly worded. But not a mistake. > 4) Chantry. Could be read to be compulsory...even if the Tremere leaving > torpor is not your own. Ambiguous, but not a mistake. > 5) Mob Connections. Doesn't specify that the press must used for a combat > involving one of the Controller's minions. > 6) Police Department. Same thing. Still, no typos. > 7) J.S. Simmons, Esq. Does not specify that only vampires may use him. Arguably a mistake. -- Just because something changed from Jyhad to VTES doesn't make the Jyhad version a mistake. Meanwhile: the mistakes in VTES: All melee weapons (except Wooden Stake) (worded to alter hand strikes). All ammo (worded to affect all the minion's strikes, not just from the gun). Hector Sosa (inf Potence) Hawg (a typo in Jyhad that was "fixed" with a new typo) Asylum Hunting Ground (no cost) Blood Bond (target not named until successful action) Blood Hunt (missing (D) symbol - same as Jyhad but printed well after the (D) symbol errata). Cat Burglary (inf not directed - a "typo" introduced to correct a "typo" introduced by the errata to all (D) symbols) Gangrel Atavism (requires Gangrel) Malkavian Dementia (requires Malk) Tragic Love Affair (requires Toreador) Major Boon ("you" can play modifiers) Pulled Fangs (improper (D) symbol or controller designation missing) Society of Leopold (missing (D) symbol - same a Jyhad, but printed well after the (D) symbol errata). Soul Gem, twice (cost 2 pool *and* is burned on diablerie) Zip Gun (always damages owner once per combat, not just when used) Ritual of the Bitter Rose (usable only in combat by an acting vampire, not outside of combat during a diablerie action) And possibly others (like many cases where "minion" is used for "vampire" and vice-versa). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <704sv3$p3e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: >> Not that I'm saying you're necessarily wrong, but what typos can you think >> of off hand in the Jyhad set? > Let's see... > 1) Many of vampires had 2 (as opposed to +1) hand damage. At basic, Torn > Signpost does them no good. > 2) Tasha Morgan A & B. 'Nuff said. > 3) Ritual of the Bitter Rose. Poorly worded. > 4) Chantry. Could be read to be compulsory...even if the Tremere leaving > torpor is not your own. > 5) Mob Connections. Doesn't specify that the press must used for a combat > involving one of the Controller's minions. > 6) Police Department. Same thing. > 7) J.S. Simmons, Esq. Does not specify that only vampires may use him. I really wouldn't consider any of those typos. Typos are things like the Asylum Hunting Grounds not having a cost. Or the Academic Hunting Grounds taking effect during master instead of untap like all the other ones. Blood Rage or Blood Fury....whichever one it is that's printed with Fortitude. The things you mention don't exactly seem obvious that they are wrong. That's what I consider a typo. Seeing what you consider a typo, I understand why you think Jyhad had more than VtES. > > "I also differ in opinion with you about the quality of design of Jyhad over > > VTES." > > > > In what way, I curiously ask? > > For one, I differ in my opinion of aggravated damage. I prefer the VTES > version. Most of my other preferences has to do with the cosmetic > changes to the cards...esp. since I can't recall what changed from > Jyhad to VTES right now. *yawn* Cosmetically, I like VtES more than Jyhad except for the reaction modifier borders. Design wise, I like Jyhad much more than VtES because aggravated damage worked like it should and paralyze was still in the game. Aggravated damage in VtES is way too powerful IMHO. The Jyhad aggravated damage was pretty complex but was balanced. And paralyze was ohhhh so much fun. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

xi...@waste.org wrote: > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > [What're the misprints/typos/mistakes in Jyhad?] > > Let's see... > [snip some stuff] > > 5) Mob Connections. Doesn't specify that the press must used for a combat > > involving one of the Controller's minions. > > 6) Police Department. Same thing. > > Whoa whoa whoa...wasn't I just babbling about this on the list? I think that > LSJ said that this ruling had been overturned...I had been thinking of > Elysium...etc. Anyone else remember? The ruling ("can't affect a combat that doesn't involve any of your minions by default") has not been overturned, and the VTES texts incorporate the ruling into their actual text (as well as adding a restriction of "vampire" rather than "minion" in the case of Mob Connections, for reasons unknown). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > But, hey, this is America. We're all used to having > > > opinions. We're also used to them not counting for a damned > thing. > > > > Hey.. this isn't America. This is the net. Kind of international. > > > > David Naseby (*.au) > > Um...I don't live in a net. I live in an apt. My apt. is in > Michigan, > which is in America. Peter also lives in America. > Not everyone on the ng lives in America. Time to realise that there is a world out there, and this is a fairly well represented international community. Consisting, I might add, not solely of Americans. David Naseby

> Not everyone on the ng lives in America. Time to realise that there is a > world out there, and this is a fairly well represented international > community. Consisting, I might add, not solely of Americans. While the net may not consist solely of Americans, the conversation between me and Peter, the person whom I was addressing, does. I would appreciate that unless you have some constructive contribution to the conversation you keep your trite little comments to yourself. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <707dtf$78m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > David Narseby wrote: > > Not everyone on the ng lives in America. Time to realise that there is a > > world out there, and this is a fairly well represented international > > community. Consisting, I might add, not solely of Americans. > > While the net may not consist solely of Americans, the conversation > between me and Peter, the person whom I was addressing, does. If you're addressing a singular person, maybe you should just use e-mail rather than a public forum. > I > would appreciate that unless you have some constructive contribution > to the conversation you keep your trite little comments to yourself. ...and some Americans wonder why the rest of the world sees the stereotypical American as an egocentric, arrogant jerks. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> > I would appreciate that unless you have some constructive contribution > > to the conversation you keep your trite little comments to yourself. > > ...and some Americans wonder why the rest of the world sees the > stereotypical American as an egocentric, arrogant jerks. Whatever, Mike. I made one comment about "...this is America. We're all used to having opinions. We're also used to them not counting for a damned thing," when I was addressin Peter in a post. David has to get cute with his, " Hey.. this isn't America. This is the net. Kind of international." crap. I'd like to quote Chef from South Park at this time. "Shut up, Pip." If that makes me a "egocentric, arrogant jerk" because I take offense when someone interjects snide comments in an otherwise productive conversation, then let me proudly proclaim that not only am I a "egocentric, arrogant jerk," but also that I am a gold card-carrying, VIP member of the Asshole Club for Men. Noal -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Not everyone on the ng lives in America. Time to realise that there is a > > world out there, and this is a fairly well represented international > > community. Consisting, I might add, not solely of Americans. > > While the net may not consist solely of Americans, the conversation > between me and Peter, the person whom I was addressing, does. I > would appreciate that unless you have some constructive contribution > to the conversation you keep your trite little comments to yourself. > > Noal Pot: Hey, Kettle! You're black! The Mighty Davethulhu