support+Q for LSJ

We (the Swedish Section) have to say that the 7/7 was great, it fixed many broken cards. BUT, we really don't understand the new aggr. dam. rule. Please describe it in another way (examples). // Robert

Doktorow/Björklund wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I want to add to the request when certain damage is applied. Yes, this was ruled before, but my playgroup is not too happy about the 7/7 rulings and wants to rule everything new. AFAIK, normal damage is dealt before aggro damage (thus maximizing the chance for a vamp to be burned) in the damage resolution phase. (Some people of my group argued that this was not part of the errata and thus challenged the old rule) By the way: How about damage OUTSIDE the resolution phase? Michael Beer

"Doktorow/Björklund" <dokt...@algonet.se> wrote: > We (the Swedish Section) have to say that the 7/7 was great, it > fixed many broken cards. > > BUT, we really don't understand the new aggr. dam. rule. > Please describe it in another way (examples). Examples have already been posted: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=369523706 The ends-based explanation (by Gomi, I believe) is: A vampire with X blood who receives (and doesn't prevent) X+2 or more damage, at least one point of which is aggravated, is burned. Restated: If a vampire takes X damage, at least 1 point of which is aggravated, then he must burn X-1 blood or be burned. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Michael Beer <Mi...@leila.ping.de> wrote: > AFAIK, normal damage is dealt before aggro damage (thus maximizing the > chance for a vamp to be burned) in the damage resolution phase. It is all (typically) dealt simultaneously. But blood is burned to heal the normal damage before any blood can be spent to prevent destruction from the aggravated damage. In short form: the normal damage is handled first. The "applied simultaneously" part is important in allowing damage prevention to be used against any of the damage - not just the normal part first. > By the way: How about damage OUTSIDE the resolution phase? The same. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qn0gr$bvg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > "Doktorow/Björklund" <dokt...@algonet.se> wrote: > > We (the Swedish Section) have to say that the 7/7 was great, it > > fixed many broken cards. > > > > BUT, we really don't understand the new aggr. dam. rule. > > Please describe it in another way (examples). > > Examples have already been posted: > http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=369523706 > > The ends-based explanation (by Gomi, I believe) is: > > A vampire with X blood who receives (and doesn't prevent) X+2 or more > damage, at least one point of which is aggravated, is burned. > > Restated: > > If a vampire takes X damage, at least 1 point of which is aggravated, then > he must burn X-1 blood or be burned. Can you please clarify: The first aggravated point doesn't burn any blood and sends the vamp to torpor. Right? Next: can you explain why only 1 point has to be aggravated? This seems to make no sense. Jyhad: If a vampire takes X damage, at least 2 points of which are aggravated, then he must burn X-1 blood or be burned. So, the difference would be that now you need only one aggravated to burn. IMO, that's a bit tricky to explain. Especially to newbies, as the first point of aggravated burns no blood; and if you have no blood to burn and take normal damage, you burn no additional blood and go to torpor. Please clarify these points, in *very* simple words (please). Thanks -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qh3n8$3qq$1...@zingo.tninet.se>, "Doktorow/Björklund" <dokt...@algonet.se> wrote: > We (the Swedish Section) have to say that the 7/7 was great, it > fixed many broken cards. From Stockholm? > > BUT, we really don't understand the new aggr. dam. rule. > Please describe it in another way (examples). > > // Robert > > -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna PS: Don't forget to register! It's important for V:TES [ quoted text not captured ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > The ends-based explanation (by Gomi, I believe) is: > > > > A vampire with X blood who receives (and doesn't prevent) X+2 or more > > damage, at least one point of which is aggravated, is burned. > > > > Restated: > > > > If a vampire takes X damage, at least 1 point of which is aggravated, then > > he must burn X-1 blood or be burned. > > Can you please clarify: The first aggravated point doesn't burn any blood > and sends the vamp to torpor. Right? Doing things in terms of the "first" point is overly complicated, but since you insist: The first point of aggravated damage done to a vampire who is not wounded (has healed all his damage so far) simply wounds the vampire (since he cannot heal it). Since he cannot heal it, no blood is spent to heal it. Since it will not destroy him, no blood is spent to prevent destruction. The first point of aggaravted damage done to a wounded vampire (one who has not healed all of his damage so far - whether normal damage in excess of blood or aggravated damage) will destroy the vampire unless the vampire burns a blood to prevent destruction. Any aggravated damage in excess of the first point applied to a vampire follows the "wounded vampire" rules above, since the first point of aggravated damage was not healed (since aggravated damage cannot be healed). > Next: can you explain why only 1 point has to be aggravated? Yes: see above. If you take normal damage that you cannot heal (that is, more than you have blood with which to heal), then you have unhealed damage. Aggravted damage done to a vampire with unhealed damage requires the vampire to burn a blood to prevent destruction. So, with X blood, if you take X+1 normal damage and 1 aggravated, the normal damage will use up all of your blood and have enough left over to wound you, and the single point of aggravated will destroy you. > This seems > to make no sense. Jyhad: If a vampire takes X damage, at least 2 points > of which are aggravated, then he must burn X-1 blood or be burned. Because, in Jyhad, the first point of agg (from each individual source) would not destroy a vampire, wounded or not. > So, the difference would be that now you need only one aggravated to burn. Once you are wounded, yes. > IMO, that's a bit tricky to explain. Especially to newbies, Then use Gomi's ends-based explanation for newbies. > as the first > point of aggravated burns no blood; unless done to a wounded vampire, in which case it "burns a blood". > and if you have no blood to burn and > take normal damage, you burn no additional blood and go to torpor. The normal damage is handled first (before the agg damage). > Please clarify these points, in *very* simple words (please). Stop using the "first" modifier, and it can be done *very* simply. Damage is damage. The first, last, and in-between points of damage are all treated the same way: A vampire with unhealed damage is said to be "wounded". Regular damage can be healed by the vampire burning a blood to heal. Aggravated damage cannot be healed. Aggravated damage done to a wounded vampire will destroy the vampire unless he burns a blood to prevent destruction. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Doktorow/Björklund wrote: > We (the Swedish Section) have to say that the 7/7 was great, it > fixed many broken cards. > > BUT, we really don't understand the new aggr. dam. rule. > Please describe it in another way (examples). Well, I'm sure someone gave you the short explanation. Here's a long one. In Jyhad, taking damage is not the same as losing blood. Rather, blood is a resource that can be used to heal damage. It does not take alot of damage to stop a vampire. One damage will kill many allies and send any vampire to torpor. Two damage will kill almost any ally. If aggravated, two damage will *destroy* any vampire. The vampires supernatual toughness comes not from his physical composition, but from his ability to heal the damage immediately as he receives it, using blood as a supernatural resource. Thus, if I am a vampire with 3 blood and someone slaps me for one damage, this would have probably been enough to kill me had I still been mortal. However, I instantly burn one blood and the damage is gone. I pull the dagger out of my eyesocket and stand there just as healthy and whole as before, with no damage, but looking perhaps a little less rosy. Had I taken 4 damage with that slap, I would have only had enough blood to heal 3, so I would have remained messed up. Thus I would have gone into torpor. Aggravated damage shocks the system so that you cannot instantly burn blood to heal. If I have a blood supply of 10, and I take one aggravated damage, I am then unable to burn blood to heal the damage, so I go into torpor. Since I was not able to burn a blood to heal, I still have all ten blood points. Two or more points of aggravated damage, unhealed, will destroy a vampire. The first point sends him into torpor and shuts down his system, and the second one destroys him. However, after the first point torporized him, he is then allowed to burn blood to heal any additional points of aggravated damage and so prevent destruction. Thus, if I have 10 blood and take 2 ag damage: The first point sends me into torpor with 10 blood; the second point is healed in torpor by burning an additional blood. Thus...I end up in torpor with 9 blood. If a vampire is ever in a situation where he does not have sufficient blood to heal that second point, he is burned. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

LSJ wrote: > > > > A vampire with X blood who receives (and doesn't prevent) X+2 or more > > > damage, at least one point of which is aggravated, is burned. > > > > > > Restated: > > > > > > If a vampire takes X damage, at least 1 point of which is aggravated, then > > > he must burn X-1 blood or be burned. LSJ, this is really important; I seem to have also been misunderstanding things as well. So, under the new agg. damage rules, a vampire going to torpor with no blood gets "old" Pulled Fangs played on it. Is it burned? Or only burned if it's going to torpor due to unhealed damage? For example, if it's going to torpor due to Rowan Ring or Coma? James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

In article <35D04F64...@math.wisc.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] >> Restated: [ quoted text not captured ] If a vampire is going to torpor empty due to unhealed damage (having spent all blood either to heal healable damage or to prevent destruction from unhealable damage), then 1 agg (from your favorite source) will burn it, yes. Coma bypasses the 'damage' torpor cause, and is thus orthogonal to the burn conditions; 1 agg (from your favorite source) will still only burn the opposing vamp if it is both empty and has unhealed damage, Coma or not. gomi

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > [Gomi's ends-based explanation:] > > A vampire with X blood who receives (and doesn't prevent) X+2 or more > > damage, at least one point of which is aggravated, is burned. > > > > Restated: > > > > If a vampire takes X damage, at least 1 point of which is aggravated, then > > he must burn X-1 blood or be burned. > > LSJ, this is really important; I seem to have also been misunderstanding > things as well. So, under the new agg. damage rules, a vampire going to > torpor with no blood gets "old" Pulled Fangs played on it. Is it > burned? Or only burned if it's going to torpor due to unhealed damage? > For example, if it's going to torpor due to Rowan Ring or Coma? Well, you were probably not misunderstanding things before. The ends-based explanation only applies when there are no odd "go to torpor" effects thrown into the mix. That is, when all you have to handle is damage. To avoid getting anyone confused with the Pulled Fangs issue, lets pretend that there's a Dawn Operation in effect and that the vampire is the victim of a Drawing out the Beast. In combat, he's sent to torpor with a Coma strike. He is now wounded (i.e., on his way to torpor), so the aggravated damage (done by Drawing out the Beast now that the round is ending) will destroy him unless he burns a [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > > LSJ, this is really important; I seem to have also been misunderstanding > > things as well. So, under the new agg. damage rules, a vampire going to > > torpor with no blood gets "old" Pulled Fangs played on it. Is it > > burned? Or only burned if it's going to torpor due to unhealed damage? > > For example, if it's going to torpor due to Rowan Ring or Coma? > > Well, you were probably not misunderstanding things before. The ends-based > explanation only applies when there are no odd "go to torpor" effects > thrown into the mix. That is, when all you have to handle is damage. > > To avoid getting anyone confused with the Pulled Fangs issue, lets pretend > that there's a Dawn Operation in effect and that the vampire is the victim > of a Drawing out the Beast. > > In combat, he's sent to torpor with a Coma strike. He is now wounded (i.e., > on his way to torpor), so the aggravated damage (done by Drawing out the > Beast now that the round is ending) will destroy him unless he burns a > blood to prevent destruction. OK, thanks for the clarification. The point is that now I am no longer against the 7/7 Pulled Fangs change, since even with the changed aggro rules it would still burn vampires left and right. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qpup1$me0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > In combat, he's sent to torpor with a Coma strike. He is now wounded (i.e., > on his way to torpor), so the aggravated damage (done by Drawing out the > Beast now that the round is ending) will destroy him unless he burns a > blood to prevent destruction. So if the vampire is already on their way to Torpor, they have to burn a blood even for the first point of aggravated damage or they are destroyed? As an example using Drawing Out the Beast with Dawn Operatoin again. The opposing vampire is sent to torpor because they had 3 blood and took 5 damage. I read your above statement as saying that the damage from DotB would then burn him? Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP Rules Survey Website - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

>>>> Restated: >>>> If a vampire takes X damage, at least 1 point of which is >>>> aggravated, then he must burn X-1 blood or be burned. > LSJ, this is really important; I seem to have also been misunderstanding > things as well. So, under the new agg. damage rules, a vampire going to > torpor with no blood gets "old" Pulled Fangs played on it. Is it > burned? Or only burned if it's going to torpor due to unhealed damage? > For example, if it's going to torpor due to Rowan Ring or Coma? It occurs to me that the new ruling was, in part, to make it so that application of aggro damage would be easier to understand. This is incredibly ironic, and quite funny, when even the seasoned veterans of the game have problems understanding how it works. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

cbo...@apdi.net wrote: > > It occurs to me that the new ruling was, in part, to make it so that > application of aggro damage would be easier to understand. > This is incredibly ironic, and quite funny, when even the seasoned veterans > of the game have problems understanding how it works. Well, to be fair, it's not the rule that is in question, but LSJ's wording of it. If the rule works one way or the other way, it's as easy to understand. I just want to know which way it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qpe2e$uft$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > A vampire with unhealed damage is said to be "wounded". > Regular damage can be healed by the vampire burning a blood to heal. > Aggravated damage cannot be healed. Does this mean that if you take e.g. 5 aggravated damage, you burn _no_ blood??? The last two sentences imply that. > Aggravated damage done to a wounded vampire will destroy the vampire > unless he burns a blood to prevent destruction. > > -- > L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. > Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: > http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum > -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > In article <6qpup1$me0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > > In combat, he's sent to torpor with a Coma strike. He is now wounded (i.e., > > on his way to torpor), so the aggravated damage (done by Drawing out the > > Beast now that the round is ending) will destroy him unless he burns a > > blood to prevent destruction. > > So if the vampire is already on their way to Torpor, they have to burn > a blood even for the first point of aggravated damage or they are destroyed? > > As an example using Drawing Out the Beast with Dawn Operatoin again. The > opposing vampire is sent to torpor because they had 3 blood and took 5 > damage. I read your above statement as saying that the damage from DotB would > then burn him? Well, the five damage would burn him (since it is aggravated under the Dawn Operation), but "yes" to the general question. [ quoted text not captured ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > > A vampire with unhealed damage is said to be "wounded". > > Regular damage can be healed by the vampire burning a blood to heal. > > Aggravated damage cannot be healed. > > Does this mean that if you take e.g. 5 aggravated damage, you burn _no_ > blood??? The last two sentences imply that. > > > Aggravated damage done to a wounded vampire will destroy the vampire > > unless he burns a blood to prevent destruction. No. You burn no blood to heal (since the aggravated damage cannot be healed), but you burn four blood to prevent destruction. Start: 5 aggravated damage left. Handle one point of agg: cannot be healed, but will not destroy the vampire. The vampire is wounded (has unhealed damage, is going to torpor). 4 aggravated damage left. Handle one point of agg: cannot be healed, will destroy the vampire since he is already wounded. He burns a blood to prevent destruction. 3 aggravated damage left. Handle one point of agg: cannot be healed, will destroy the vampire since he is already wounded. He burns a blood to prevent destruction. 2 aggravated damage left. Handle one point of agg: cannot be healed, will destroy the vampire since he is already wounded. He burns a blood to prevent destruction. 1 aggravated damage left. Handle one point of agg: cannot be healed, will destroy the vampire since he is already wounded. He burns a blood to prevent destruction. No damage left. The vampire, if he has not been destroyed (i.e., was able to burn a blood to prevent destruction four times - above), then he is now placed in torpor. [ quoted text not captured ]

It seems we need a *simple* and *comprehensive* text about how aggravated damage now works. Even I'm confused by it, and I've been playing this game for a long time. The latest bit combining Coma and aggra damage shattered my illusions of understanding the new rule... We *really* need something to give to newbies (and old-timers) to clear this up. A major game mechanic should not be this complicated to understand. //Petri

In article <7xemulf...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi says... [ quoted text not captured ] The way I understand it right now would be as follow: A ready vampire who is dealt normal damage must burn one blood per damage to soak it. If it cannot soak all the damage, it is sent to torpor. If it is already going to torpor, it must still soak the damage. A vampire without blood going to torpor ignores normal damage which is dealt to it. Example: A vampire with 3 blood is dealt 3 normal damage. It will burn 2 blood to soak it, and will thus be at 0 blood. Example: A vampire with 1 blood who is dealt 3 normal damage will burn its last blood to soak 1 damage. There will be unsoaked damage, so the vampire is sent to torpor (at 0 blood), and the last 2 normal damage have no other effect. (So far, so good; typical VtES rule.) A ready vampire who is dealt aggravated damage will soak the first point of aggravated damage by going to torpor. A vampire going to torpor who is dealt aggravated damage must soak the damage by burning one blood for each aggravated damage. If it cannot soak all the aggravated damage, it is burnt. Example: A vampire with 3 blood is dealt 3 aggravated damage. The vampire goes to torpor to soak the first point. There remains aggravated damage; since the vampire is on his way to torpor, it must burn 2 blood to soak the rest of it. Thus the vampire ends up in torpor with 1 blood. Example: A vampire with 1 blood is dealt 3 aggravated damage. The vampire goes to torpor to soak the first point of aggravated damage. It then burns its last blood to soak another aggravated damage. There is still aggravated damage to soak, so the vampire is burnt. If a vampire is simultaneously dealt normal and aggravated damage, the normal damage is handled first. Example: A vampire with 1 blood is in combat against Zach North who has a Wolf Companion. Zach uses Wolf Claws to make his hand damage aggravated. Thus, at strike resolution, the opposing vampire is dealt 1 normal damage, and 2 aggravated damage; normal damage is handled first. The vampire burns his last blood to soak the normal damage. The first aggravated damage sends the vampire in torpor, and the last one burns it. Example: A Tremere with 1 blood is in combat against a Malkavian Antitribu. The Tremere plays normal Weather Control and Burst of Sunlight, while the !Malk strikes with Coma. Coma sends the Tremere in torpor first. Then, the Tremere must soak the normal damage; thus it as no blood remaining. It must now handle the aggravated damage; since it is already going to torpor, and as no blood left, it is burnt. (Well, I hope I got it right. :) Frederic.

Petri Wessman wrote: > > It seems we need a *simple* and *comprehensive* text about how > aggravated damage now works. Even I'm confused by it, and I've been > playing this game for a long time. The latest bit combining Coma and > aggra damage shattered my illusions of understanding the new rule... Check out the FAQ. What's there has been perused and checked by LSJ, and I hope that it's comprehensive (and comprehensible). If not, let me know and I'll try to clear it up. > We *really* need something to give to newbies (and old-timers) to > clear this up. A major game mechanic should not be this complicated to > understand. Well, that's the purpose of the FAQ, so if what I've got isn't doing it, I want to know about it. :) James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu V:EKN FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html "What's a man like me supposed to do with all this extra savoir-faire?"

> It seems we need a *simple* and *comprehensive* text about how > aggravated damage now works. Even I'm confused by it, and I've been > playing this game for a long time. The latest bit combining Coma and > aggra damage shattered my illusions of understanding the new rule... > > We *really* need something to give to newbies (and old-timers) to > clear this up. A major game mechanic should not be this complicated to > understand. > Simple... ---Start simple agg damage rules--- All normal damage is handled before agg damage. For a ready minion (who is not on his way to torpor): 1 point of normal causes him to burn 1 blood. If he cannot, he goes to torpor. 1 point of agg damage sends him to torpor. For a minion in torpor or on his way to torpor: 1 point of normal causes him to burn 1 blood. If he cannot, no effect. 1 point of agg damage causes him to burn 1 blood. If he cannot, he burns. ---End simple agg damage rules--- I can't see it getting any simpler than that. Much easier than the old Jyhad rules, in fact. The only caveat here is that when a ready minion takes damage that sends him to torpor, he is considered "on his way to torpor," and is not actually in torpor until all damage resolves. So, if a minion is burned while on his way to torpor, he's never considered to actually be in torpor. Note that strikes which say "Strike: the opposing minion goes to torpor," cause the minion to be "on his way to torpor" during damage resolution. I think that the general rule is that these types of effects are handled before damage is dealt, so a Dawn Op/Murder of Crows will then cause the "on his way to torpor" minion to burn a blood. (This is the only point where I'm unsure. But seriously... how often are you going to have 1 minion play Coma/Entombment and deal agg damage to the other minion during the same strike resolution? Anyway, a simple ruling will clear up that timing quite easily.) This is the way that my playgroup has always played the game (up to the point where V:TES rules changed agg damage). We never knew about the "packeting" garbage that cause so much crap before. Why a vampire should care whether it gets hit with 2 agg damage from a Walk of Flame or 2 agg damage from 2 separate Pulled Fangs is beyond me. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qv98p$e8j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > > It seems we need a *simple* and *comprehensive* text about how > > aggravated damage now works. Even I'm confused by it, and I've been > > playing this game for a long time. The latest bit combining Coma and > > aggra damage shattered my illusions of understanding the new rule... > > > > We *really* need something to give to newbies (and old-timers) to > > clear this up. A major game mechanic should not be this complicated to > > understand. > > > Simple... > > ---Start simple agg damage rules--- > All normal damage is handled before agg damage. > > For a ready minion (who is not on his way to torpor): 1 point of normal > causes him to burn 1 blood. If he cannot, he goes to torpor. 1 point of agg > damage sends him to torpor. > > For a minion in torpor or on his way to torpor: > 1 point of normal causes him to burn 1 blood. If he cannot, no effect. > 1 point of agg damage causes him to burn 1 blood. If he cannot, he burns. > ---End simple agg damage rules--- Yes, Yes, Yes! You win the "most simple aggravated damage rules explanation" contest! :) You are now head to head with Frederic Genest who also explained the rule in an excellent (but definitely longer) way. Thanks for clearing this mess up! -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <MPG.103cd1e98...@news.polymtl.ca>, gen...@iname.com wrote: > In article <7xemulf...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, > or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi says... > > It seems we need a *simple* and *comprehensive* text about how > > aggravated damage now works. Even I'm confused by it, and I've been > > playing this game for a long time. The latest bit combining Coma and > > aggra damage shattered my illusions of understanding the new rule... > > > > We *really* need something to give to newbies (and old-timers) to > > clear this up. A major game mechanic should not be this complicated to > > understand. > [ quoted text not captured ] I'm very tempted to say that your's is the best explanation ever, but I'll wait until I've read the others. -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Example: A Tremere with 1 blood is in combat against a Malkavian > > Antitribu. The Tremere plays normal Weather Control and Burst of > > Sunlight, while the !Malk strikes with Coma. Coma sends the Tremere in > > torpor first. Then, the Tremere must soak the normal damage; thus it as > > no blood remaining. It must now handle the aggravated damage; since it > > is already going to torpor, and as no blood left, it is burnt. > > > > (Well, I hope I got it right. :) > > I'm very tempted to say that your's is the best explanation ever, but I'll > wait until I've read the others. Thanks. :) It is long though... I also like Gomi's and Chris'. :) As a side note, I noticed a small mistake in my example above (though it doesn't change the conclusion). The damage from WC is applied before range is determined, so the order of "damage resolution" would be WC, Coma and BoS. But the end result is the same... Regarding why the rule may be complicated to understand. I believe it is so for many because of the introduction of new terms such as "wounded" and "unhealed damage"... Those terms needed to be defined/clarified before being used in a rule, and those definitions were sorely lacking. Gomi did that, giving us nice clarifications, which help understand his summary afterwards. In my explanation, I didn't use those terms, and used well known ones instead, which avoided some confusion. Frederic.