On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:19:43 -0400, LSJ wrote:
>>This isnt a contradiction. The basis for MVH having firs strike is
>>because of his day attack imo.>
>I believe the contradiction is found by Reyda in the fact that such
>a "day attack" logic path would lead to the conclusion that the target
>(sleeping) vampire would not be able to maneuver. By hanging your
>argument on that "day attack" base and yet not being bothered by
>maneuvers is a difficult position to defend.
"Maneuver" is often a misnomer as it is really "range setting". A
sleeping vampire might have Guard Dogs, Aid from Bats or a
smoked-glass limo driven by Jackie Therman. Or maybe it just opens
its coffin lid a crack and pokes its .44 out.
In my case, the MVH is Buffy, of course, and she tends to patrol at
night. She gets her first strike from high dexterity and wits which
give you the initiative. She's had trouble with Majesty too - both
The Master and Dracula were able to beat her with their superior
presence/dominate.
>Of course, changing the mechanics so it occurs before Dodge and before
>S:CE is not worth the hassle, either.
If you're doing a new rulebook for Final Nights, you should rewrite
the combat rules. They currently specify three steps but also call
them phases. Either way, it doesn't correspond to what actually
happens now. And it's not clear - until this debate, I didn't realise
that Dodge beat First Strike too.
Andrew
In message
<EAC85C9947076A30.83C53DA0...@lp.airnews.net>,
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>And it's not clear - until this debate, I didn't realise
>that Dodge beat First Strike too.
What is unclear about:
"A dodge protects even from the effects of a strike done with first
strike. " (from the Dodge definition)
"A strike done with first strike will still not resolve before a combat
ends effect (which always resolves first), and a dodge still cancels the
effects of a strike done with first strike (see below). " (from the
First Strike definition)
?
The rulebook is perfectly clear on this matter.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
What's the meaning when you speak with so much feeling? B457CA213D7E6
Is it over when you're sober? Is it junk? 68C3695D623D5D
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> a écrit dans le message news:
EAC85C9947076A30.83C53DA0...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:19:43 -0400, LSJ wrote:
>
> >>This isnt a contradiction. The basis for MVH having firs strike is
> >>because of his day attack imo.
> >
> >I believe the contradiction is found by Reyda in the fact that such
> >a "day attack" logic path would lead to the conclusion that the target
> >(sleeping) vampire would not be able to maneuver. By hanging your
> >argument on that "day attack" base and yet not being bothered by
> >maneuvers is a difficult position to defend.
>
> "Maneuver" is often a misnomer as it is really "range setting". A
> sleeping vampire might have Guard Dogs, Aid from Bats or a
> smoked-glass limo driven by Jackie Therman. Or maybe it just opens
> its coffin lid a crack and pokes its .44 out.
Interesting scenario =)
so, the vampire is having a nap in the Limo, driven to the succubus club by
his chauffeur , Miss therman. then theiy hear somone is chasing them !
vampire wakes with evening's freshness to see a muddled right behind them,
on a fast hawg !! "Jackie, time for B plan !", says the vamp : he pulls out
a deer rifle from his cigar box. He tries to maneuver out the hawg, but the
mudled played an ambush, so Mrs Therman's skills are not enough. then, our
vampire uses his deer rifl to maneuver, menacing the hunter. He breaks the
rear window to point the muddled hawg rider. At this point, the vampire
realizes his mistake : he didn't see that it was day time. Sunrays enter
and he takes 5 aggro and burns even before first strike takes effect. Mrs
Therman, realizing she will never be paid (het, controlling vampire is
burned !), brakes suddenly and squashes the hunter with the 2 tons limo.
Wow ! look, i thought "beyond the cards", like some people suggested in
another thread !
btw, is Andrew Talonz' second personnality ? sort of Dr Jekyll and Mr hyde ?
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:47:17 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:
>
>The rulebook is perfectly clear on this matter.
>
It is NOW.
I don't think it was before(jyhad). That, and some basic assumptions
about how a strike dodge should work (ok you dodge me, but my first
strike resolved first) isn't hard to do.
IE: the intuitive response is that FS beats a 'normal' dodge. But
apparently there are no normal strike dodges in VTES.
T
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:59:14 +0200, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote:
>
>Interesting scenario =)
>so, the vampire is having a nap in the Limo, driven to the succubus club by
>his chauffeur , Miss therman. then theiy hear somone is chasing them !
>vampire wakes with evening's freshness to see a muddled right behind them,
>on a fast hawg !! "Jackie, time for B plan !", says the vamp : he pulls out
>a deer rifle from his cigar box. He tries to maneuver out the hawg, but the
>mudled played an ambush, so Mrs Therman's skills are not enough. then, our
>vampire uses his deer rifl to maneuver, menacing the hunter. He breaks the
>rear window to point the muddled hawg rider. At this point, the vampire
>realizes his mistake : he didn't see that it was day time. Sunrays enter
>and he takes 5 aggro and burns even before first strike takes effect. Mrs
>Therman, realizing she will never be paid (het, controlling vampire is
>burned !), brakes suddenly and squashes the hunter with the 2 tons limo.
>Wow ! look, i thought "beyond the cards", like some people suggested in
>another thread !
>
Bravo! Pretty cool interpretation really.
>btw, is Andrew Talonz' second personnality ? sort of Dr Jekyll and Mr hyde ?
>
Nope. Andrew has a personality all his own I'm sure. =]
T
>===== Original Message From Talo...@hotmail.com =====>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:47:17 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
>wrote:>>The rulebook is perfectly clear on this matter.>
>It is NOW.
Which is the explicit topic at hand - Andrew was talking about
changing the Sabbat War rulebook (the "NOW" rulebook) because
"[The rulebook in Sabbat War starters is] not clear - until this
debate, I [Andrew] didn't realise that Dodge beat First Strike too."
>I don't think it was before(jyhad). That, and some basic assumptions
It has already been mentioned that the Jyhad rulebook was ambiguous
on the matter of Dodge vs. First Strike. See [LSJ 04-APR-2001] most
recently. Fortunately, that ambiguity was clarified online in
[RTR 22-DEC-1994], and again in [RTR 09-FEB-1995], [RTR 13-APR-1995],
and [18-APR-1995], and finally in print in the V:TES rulebook [SEP-1995].
>about how a strike dodge should work (ok you dodge me, but my first
>strike resolved first) isn't hard to do.
And some basic assertions about dodge: "The Dodge strike card [sic]
deals no damage, but it negates the effect of the opponent's strike
that round." (Jyhad rulebook, 15.3, p.35) No special exemption made
there for First Strike.
>IE: the intuitive response is that FS beats a 'normal' dodge. But
*your* intuive response, perhaps.
My intuitive response is that dodge 'beats' the incoming strike.
>apparently there are no normal strike dodges in VTES.
Right, by explicit rulebook text. [6.4.5]
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 21:07:39 -0400, LSJ <vte...@MailAndNews.com>
wrote:
>
>It has already been mentioned that the Jyhad rulebook was ambiguous
>on the matter of Dodge vs. First Strike. See [LSJ 04-APR-2001] most
>recently. Fortunately, that ambiguity was clarified online in
>[RTR 22-DEC-1994], and again in [RTR 09-FEB-1995], [RTR 13-APR-1995],
>and [18-APR-1995], and finally in print in the V:TES rulebook [SEP-1995].
>
>>And some basic assertions about dodge: "The Dodge strike card [sic]
>deals no damage, but it negates the effect of the opponent's strike
>that round." (Jyhad rulebook, 15.3, p.35) No special exemption made
>there for First Strike.
>
It is this clarification that I take issue with.
Dodge did NOT beat first strikes in jyhad, nor should it. It was made
to do so after the fact. The jyhad rules state that a dodge dodges a
strike. Without specefic text to allow it to beat a first strike, it
wont.
Specefic overides general.
First strike is played and resolved before a normal strike, so under
those rules a dodge would not effect it. Neither would a sce for that
matter, iirc.
A good game follows a strict sequence of play, and this particular
interaction voids it. (normal strikes beating first strikes after
they should've been resolved)
>>IE: the intuitive response is that FS beats a 'normal' dodge. But>
>*your* intuive response, perhaps.
>My intuitive response is that dodge 'beats' the incoming strike.
>
Ergo the 'clarification' then I guess, which imo was more of a rules
change than clarification imo.
Well at least I can see how the rules got to be the way they are now.
If a clarification had to be made, it had to go one way or the other
when diverging opinions of it exist.
T
>===== Original Message From Talo...@hotmail.com =====>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 21:07:39 -0400, LSJ <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:>>It has already been mentioned that the Jyhad rulebook was ambiguous
>>on the matter of Dodge vs. First Strike. See [LSJ 04-APR-2001] most
>>recently. Fortunately, that ambiguity was clarified online in
>>[RTR 22-DEC-1994], and again in [RTR 09-FEB-1995], [RTR 13-APR-1995],
>>and [18-APR-1995], and finally in print in the V:TES rulebook [SEP-1995].
>>
>>And some basic assertions about dodge: "The Dodge strike card [sic]
>>deals no damage, but it negates the effect of the opponent's strike
>>that round." (Jyhad rulebook, 15.3, p.35) No special exemption made
>>there for First Strike.>
>It is this clarification that I take issue with.
It's not a clarification. It's a direct quote from the Jyhad rulebook,
as cited.
>Dodge did NOT beat first strikes in jyhad, nor should it. It was made
Yes, it did. See the section of the rulebook quoted above, and see
the RTRs cited above, which were issued as soon as the amiguity was
brought to the attention of the WotC Design Team.
>to do so after the fact. The jyhad rules state that a dodge dodges a
The conflict between the statements in the jyhad rulebook was
removed after the rulebook was printed, yes. That doesn't mean that
the rules on Dodge vs. FS were changed - the original rulebook can
be read as giving dodge precedence over FS, as previously stated (See
the section of the rules quoted above).
>strike. Without specefic text to allow it to beat a first strike, it
>wont.
A strike done with first strike without specific text to allow it to
beat a dodge will be negated by a dodge.
>Specefic overides general.
That's true.
>First strike is played and resolved before a normal strike, so under
>those rules a dodge would not effect it. Neither would a sce for that
>matter, iirc.
You're assuming that a dodge is a "normal" strike. It is not.
As for S:CE, see jyhad rulebook: "Combat Ends: This is considered a
strike. The strike ends combat immediately (before any damage is
dealt or any strike's effects take place). Note that Combat Ends is
not affected by Dodge and even cancels strikes done with First
Strike." [JYHAD 15.3, p. 36]
Note that the part about FS is handled in a "Note" - a clarification
of the rules that had just been given. The rules prior to the note
were sufficient to handle the FS case (since there was no exception
made for FS), just as the rules on Dodge (quoted far above) didn't
make exception for FS.
>A good game follows a strict sequence of play,
OK. I've played "good" games that don't follow a strict sequence
of play, but that would just be a matter of opinion, I guess.
> and this particular interaction voids it.
Not true. Strict sequence: CE, Dodge, FS, normal.
> (normal strikes beating first strikes after
>they should've been resolved)
What you're trying to do is have FS mysteriously avoid
the "cancelling" effect of dodge.
>>>IE: the intuitive response is that FS beats a 'normal' dodge. But>>
>>*your* intuive response, perhaps.
>>My intuitive response is that dodge 'beats' the incoming strike.
>>>
>Ergo the 'clarification' then I guess, which imo was more of a rules
>change than clarification imo.
It was not. See the rules on dodge quoted far above to see how this
was a part of the rulebook and was clarified, not changed.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:57:20 -0400, LSJ <vte...@MailAndNews.com>
wrote:
>>
>>Ergo the 'clarification' then I guess, which imo was more of a rules
>>change than clarification imo.>
>It was not. See the rules on dodge quoted far above to see how this
>was a part of the rulebook and was clarified, not changed.
>
Based on an ambiguity which could be played either way. If you
happened to have played one way and found it perfectly sound, then any
subsequent 'clarfication' will seem like a rules change.
*shrugs at this point*
T