New Agg rules + Rutor's Hand [Jyhad]

>Rutor's Hand: > A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand. > > New card text: > "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to > prevent the damage." > # > # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay > # what it would have cost him to get out of torpor all in > # a single step - without the need for a second action > # and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the > # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that > # cumbersome "how to prevent non-combat damage" errata. I think this is an exact quote from recent errata posted. It came by on the mailing list, rather than in the newsgroup. If this is indeed the newest ruling re: Rutor's Hand, then, I have a question: Why does Rutor's hand cost 3 blood to heal, if agg damage only does "damage" to a vampire after the second point (the first point 'just' sending a vamp to torpor). If a vampire is theoretically taking 1 agg point, then burning blood to get out, shouldn't they only pay 2 blood to simulate this? If I'm completely wrong about the errata concerning Rutor's Hand, then, I'm sorry :). Reading the above just didn't make sense! Gwen Morse -- Eachna dalta Aonghus - 5th century Irish Celt (Eachna, foster-daughter of Aoghus) Probationary member of the New York Tuatha de Bhriain http://www.hatrack.net/gwen/celtic/index.html Gwen Morse || mailto:goldmoon%40geocities.com

Gwen Morse wrote: > >Rutor's Hand: > > A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand. > > > > New card text: > > "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to > > prevent the damage." > > # > > # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay > > # what it would have cost him to get out of torpor all in > > # a single step - without the need for a second action > > # and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the > > # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that > > # cumbersome "how to prevent non-combat damage" errata. > > I think this is an exact quote from recent errata posted. It came by > on the mailing list, rather than in the newsgroup. If this is indeed > the newest ruling re: Rutor's Hand, then, I have a question: > > Why does Rutor's hand cost 3 blood to heal, if agg damage only does > "damage" to a vampire after the second point (the first point 'just' > sending a vamp to torpor). The Rutor's Hand errata came in RTR 06/23. Aggravated Damage errata came in RTR 07/07. And they are distinct, having nothing to do with each other, except by way of comments, which can be ignored. So it was decided not to issue still more errata on Rutor's Hand to keep the prior comments intact. -- 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

[ quoted text not captured ] If you're trying to explain the new card text to someone, and you're telling them how all the NEW errata is balanced and makes sense, and they say "Why does it cost three when the agg damage rules are different", it sounds kind of silly to say "Well, the person in charge of the rules didn't think ahead a couple weeks when he issued the errata on this card." If you're going to make changes to cards and expect us to play by them, shouldn't you at least be CONSISTENT??? Gwen Morse >-- >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 -- [ quoted text not captured ]

none (Gwen Morse) wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 04:43:44 -0700, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > >The Rutor's Hand errata came in RTR 06/23. Aggravated Damage errata > >came in RTR 07/07. And they are distinct, having nothing to do with > >each other, except by way of comments, which can be ignored. So it > >was decided not to issue still more errata on Rutor's Hand to keep > >the prior comments intact. > > If you're trying to explain the new card text to someone, and you're > telling them how all the NEW errata is balanced and makes sense, and > they say "Why does it cost three when the agg damage rules are > different", it sounds kind of silly to say "Well, the person in charge > of the rules didn't think ahead a couple weeks when he issued the > errata on this card." Explain it this way: "You cannot prevent damage done outside of combat very easily (only Blood Tears can do that), so this card has errata allowing you to prevent the damage by burning three blood." The RT did indeed "think ahead" to the 7/7 rulings, but since the two rulings (Rutor's Hand and Aggravated damage) were (and are) distinct, there was no compelling reason to change the amount of blood required to prevent the damage from Rutor's Hand. > If you're going to make changes to cards and expect us to play by > them, shouldn't you at least be CONSISTENT??? The amount (three blood) was chosen for balance reasons, since consistency would not be sacrificed, whatever the amount. At the time the errata was issued, a comment was added to give people a memory aid for the new ruling. The comment doesn't change the errata/ ruling, nor does it change the fact that you are not actually resolving the damage and leaving torpor - you're preventing the damage. For instance, if you have some special card that says "this vampire burns one less blood for the 'leave torpor' action" on the vampire taking the Rutor's Hand action, he'd still have to burn three blood if he wanted to prevent the damage - because the comment is not the errata/ruling. -- 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