Catatonic Fear and Pulled Fangs

Can you play Pulled Fangs after a Superior Catatonic Fear? If not, why? If the 1 damage from the CF gets applied to the vamp during the strike resolution, then why wouldn't you be able to use PF? If the 1 damage isn't applied during resolution, why isn't it and what is the logic behind it not being applied at that time? Also, I have one complaint about the current ruling on PF. Why was it ruled to *not* burn a vamp at 0 blood? It does aggravated damage. And like any other kind of aggravated damage, it should burn at 0 blood. I think it's kinda crappy that ppl change the text/ruling for a card just because they feel that they don't like how it works. What's next? Rule that using aggro damage given by Bone Spur/Claws won't burn a vamp at 0 blood? Or any other card that does aggravated damage? Why not just overrule burning altogether? Sorrow -- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris wrote: > > Can you play Pulled Fangs after a Superior Catatonic Fear? > If not, why? If the 1 damage from the CF gets applied to the > vamp during the strike resolution, then why wouldn't you be > able to use PF? If the 1 damage isn't applied during resolution, > why isn't it and what is the logic behind it not being applied > at that time? You can, if you have somehow managed to deal damage to the opposing vampire before combat ends (CF ends combat). So, unless CF is one of your additional strikes, you cannot normally play PF after it. The damage from CF gets applied after the combat is ended, because the strike (a Combat Ends strike) ends combat before strike resolution (rulebook: 8.3). If you insist on dealing the damage during strike resolution, then the damage will never be dealt, since S:CE explicitly precludes strike resolution. Since the card was intended to deal damage, it has been errataed to deal the damage after the Combat Ends. > Also, I have one complaint about the current ruling on PF. > Why was it ruled to *not* burn a vamp at 0 blood? It does > aggravated damage. And like any other kind of aggravated > damage, it should burn at 0 blood. I think it's kinda > crappy that ppl change the text/ruling for a card just because > they feel that they don't like how it works. > What's next? Rule that using aggro damage given by Bone > Spur/Claws won't burn a vamp at 0 blood? Or any other card > that does aggravated damage? Why not just overrule burning > altogether? PF deals aggravated damage. Aggravated damage will burn a vampire at zero blood (unless the vampire prevents the damage or commutes it to normal damage or something). So PF will burn a vampire at zero blood (normally). There is no ruling to the contrary (house rules excepted, of course). (Check your sources before issuing complaints :-) -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team

> PF deals aggravated damage. > Aggravated damage will burn a vampire at zero blood (unless > the vampire prevents the damage or commutes it to normal > damage or something). > > So PF will burn a vampire at zero blood (normally). > > There is no ruling to the contrary (house rules excepted, of course). > I play whith the house rule that the first piont of aggr damage only get a vampire into torpor, makes life a little longer, but it works fine. There are sufficient ways to burn a vampire. > > -- > L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) > Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. > (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team -- Gert-Jan van der Heijden ger...@engin.umich.edu temporary living in the USA 1910 hill st 48104-2644 ANN ARBOR. tel nr 001 (313) 769 5665 Dutch adress: bazaar 35 7552 KP hengelo tel nr +31 74 2918510

> Also, I have one complaint about the current ruling on PF. > Why was it ruled to *not* burn a vamp at 0 blood? It does > aggravated damage. And like any other kind of aggravated > damage, it should burn at 0 blood. I think it's kinda > crappy that ppl change the text/ruling for a card just because > they feel that they don't like how it works. > What's next? Rule that using aggro damage given by Bone > Spur/Claws won't burn a vamp at 0 blood? Or any other card > that does aggravated damage? Why not just overrule burning > altogether? This is a JOLT ruling, not a Rules Team ruling. So, if you're going to whine about it, you're whining to the wrong person. The reason (at least in my mind), that this is used as a house rule is that the new rules for aggravated damage overpower the card a lot. In Jyhad, 1 point of aggravated damage would not burn a vampire at 0 blood. The first point of agg damage would send a vampire to torpor, but you would not need to spend blood to heal it. In that case, PF was not too much overpowered (but it was still powerful). With the new rules, PF is made too powerful. All you have to do is play Skin of Steel (or the card that prevents X+1 damage) and X Pulled Fangs, to burn a vampire at any current blood total. As a disciplineless card, this is clearly out of line with its cost. -Chris -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet