Okay, I've just recently gotten back into Jyhad/V:TES, and I downloaded the
revised rulebook to get a grip on how things have changed since I've been
away from the game, and I have a question about the wording on aggravated
damage.
"Some damage is described as aggravated damage. Aggravated damage is damage
that a vampire cannot heal -- like damage from fire or sunlight or from the
claws or fangs of some other immortals, including some vampires. Since it
cannot be healed, aggracated damage causes a vampire to go to torpor (unless
the damage is prevented, of course). Aggravated damage done to a wounded
vampire can burn the vampire outright. When aggravated damage is
successfully inflicted on a vampire who already has unhealed damage, he must
burn a blood to prevent his destruction. If he doesn't have enough blood,
he is burned. Destruction by this method does not constitute diablerie."
Now, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm confused, and the example provided
doesn't do anything to un-confuse me, so I'll present a hypothetical
situation in order to try to clear this up.
Etrius is wandering around, and gets in a fight with Reverend Blackwood.
The Bishop plays a Shotgun Ritual, Thoughts Betrayed, and goes to long using
Movement of the Mind, then fires off a Walk of Flame on the poor IC member,
causing 3 aggravated damage (2R +1 because it's Rev. Blackwood).
Now, our man Etrius was full up going into this, with 11 blood. Here are
the possible outcomes, as I read the agg rules:
1) Etrius goes into torpor from the first point of agg, then burns 2 blood
for the remaining 2 damage, leaving him at 9 blood.
2) Etrius goes into torpor from the first point of agg, then burns 1 blood
to prevent being burned by the aggravated damage (since he is "wounded"),
leaving him at 10.
3) Etrius burns 3 blood and goes into torpor, leaving him at 8. (Probably
not the case, as this was the way it worked in V:TES, and I know that the
"new" wording works differently.
Which case is the way that it works now? In this example, it doesn't really
make too much of a difference (9 blood vs. 10 isn't that big a difference),
but it *could* in a different situation it could make a big difference...say
if Basilia or Thetmes got superior Potence and burned 4 cards for Death of
My Conscience (making it a strike for 9 agg). In this case, the possible
outcomes would be:
1) Etrius goes into torpor from the first point of agg, then burns 8 blood
for the remaining 9 damage, leaving him at 3 blood.
2) Etrius goes into torpor from the first point of agg, then burns 1 blood
to prevent being burned by the aggravated damage (since he is already
"wounded"), leaving him at 10.
Ten versus three is a big deal.
Thanks for the info.
-ru
In article <E3lw2.45$x72...@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
"Andrew Hartsell" <ahar...@dtservices.com> wrote:
> Etrius is wandering around, and gets in a fight with Reverend Blackwood.
> The Bishop plays a Shotgun Ritual, Thoughts Betrayed, and goes to long using
> Movement of the Mind, then fires off a Walk of Flame on the poor IC member,
> causing 3 aggravated damage (2R +1 because it's Rev. Blackwood).
>
> Now, our man Etrius was full up going into this, with 11 blood. Here are
> the possible outcomes, as I read the agg rules:
>
> 1) Etrius goes into torpor from the first point of agg, then burns 2 blood
> for the remaining 2 damage, leaving him at 9 blood.
This is correct. After being sent to torpor by the first point, you must burn
1 blood for *each* additional point to avoid being toastified.
> Which case is the way that it works now? In this example, it doesn't really
> make too much of a difference (9 blood vs. 10 isn't that big a difference),
> but it *could* in a different situation it could make a big difference...say
> if Basilia or Thetmes got superior Potence and burned 4 cards for Death of
> My Conscience (making it a strike for 9 agg). In this case, the possible
> outcomes would be:
I would hope that they would also use a Potence strike too, but that would be
overkill against most vampires. :)
> 1) Etrius goes into torpor from the first point of agg, then burns 8 blood
> for the remaining 9 damage, leaving him at 3 blood.
Again, this first reading of it is correct.
Xian
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>1) Etrius goes into torpor from the first point of agg, then burns 2 blood
>for the remaining 2 damage, leaving him at 9 blood.
This is the correct one. The first point of aggravated damage is "ignored"
but sends the vamp to torpor unless he had unresolved damage and no blood in
which case he is burned. For every point after the first, you must burn an
additional blood or be burned. I.E a vampire is only burned by aggravated
damage when the total amount of combat damage is X+2 where x is the current
amount of blood on a vampire. So to burn an Etrius at full strength would
require 13 points of damage and at least one of it being aggravated(as
aggravated damage is now dealt with after all other damage). A vamp at 0
blood needs to only take 2 damage, at least one of it aggravated to be
burned.
Vince
Andrew Hartsell wrote:
>
> Okay, I've just recently gotten back into Jyhad/V:TES, and I downloaded the
> revised rulebook to get a grip on how things have changed since I've been
> away from the game, and I have a question about the wording on aggravated
> damage.
>
> "Some damage is described as aggravated damage. Aggravated damage is damage
> that a vampire cannot heal -- like damage from fire or sunlight or from the
> claws or fangs of some other immortals, including some vampires. Since it
> cannot be healed, aggracated damage causes a vampire to go to torpor (unless
> the damage is prevented, of course). Aggravated damage done to a wounded
> vampire can burn the vampire outright. When aggravated damage is
> successfully inflicted on a vampire who already has unhealed damage, he must
> burn a blood to prevent his destruction. If he doesn't have enough blood,
> he is burned. Destruction by this method does not constitute diablerie."
>
> Now, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm confused, and the example provided
> doesn't do anything to un-confuse me, so I'll present a hypothetical
> situation in order to try to clear this up.
>> Etrius is wandering around, and gets in a fight with Reverend Blackwood.
> The Bishop plays a Shotgun Ritual, Thoughts Betrayed, and goes to long using
> Movement of the Mind, then fires off a Walk of Flame on the poor IC member,
> causing 3 aggravated damage (2R +1 because it's Rev. Blackwood).
>
> Now, our man Etrius was full up going into this, with 11 blood. Here are
> the possible outcomes, as I read the agg rules:
>> 1) Etrius goes into torpor from the first point of agg, then burns 2 blood
> for the remaining 2 damage, leaving him at 9 blood.
Correct. Actually, he is doesn't really "go to torpor" until all of the
damage is resolved. The first point simply "wounds" him (since he can't
heal it), the other two require him to burn blood (since he is already
wounded) and then, once all the damage is resolved, he goes to torpor
(since he was wounded).
> Which case is the way that it works now? In this example, it doesn't really
> make too much of a difference (9 blood vs. 10 isn't that big a difference),
> but it *could* in a different situation it could make a big difference...say
> if Basilia or Thetmes got superior Potence and burned 4 cards for Death of
> My Conscience (making it a strike for 9 agg). In this case, the possible
> outcomes would be:
>> 1) Etrius goes into torpor from the first point of agg, then burns 8 blood
> for the remaining 9 damage, leaving him at 3 blood.
Right.
--
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
In article <E3lw2.45$x72...@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
"Andrew Hartsell" <ahar...@dtservices.com> wrote:
> Okay, I've just recently gotten back into Jyhad/V:TES, and I downloaded the
> revised rulebook to get a grip on how things have changed since I've been
> away from the game, and I have a question about the wording on aggravated
> damage.
>
I'll try and help... Others have been confused by this rule too.
[Etrius, previously full, takes 3 agg from a Rev Blackwood Walk of Flame]
>
> 1) Etrius goes into torpor from the first point of agg, then burns 2 blood
> for the remaining 2 damage, leaving him at 9 blood.
This is what happens.
[basilia hits Etrius for 9 agg]
> 1) Etrius goes into torpor from the first point of agg, then burns 8 blood
> for the remaining 9 damage, leaving him at 3 blood.
>> 2) Etrius goes into torpor from the first point of agg, then burns 1 blood
> to prevent being burned by the aggravated damage (since he is already
> "wounded"), leaving him at 10.
Ah, I think I see where you're confused. When Etrius finds that he has
9 points of agg hitting him, you start handling the agg damage one point
at a time. The first point sends him to torpor (but doesn't burn any
blood) because Etrius is currently 'healthy' (ie unwounded, ie not on
his way to torpor). The next point causes him to burn a blood *to
prevent destruction* because he is now 'wounded' (ie on his way to torpor).
The next point also causes him to burn a blood to prevent destruction, and
so on. So he burns 8 blood for the 9 agg and goes to torpor with 3 blood
remaining.
A vamp does not 'burn one blood to prevent being burned' only once for
any amount of agg damage - it's once for every point of agg damage the
vamp is taking, if it's already on its way to torpor (due to previous
agg damage, or regular damage in excess of what the vamp could take).
If you were familiar with the old Jyhad rule, this one is essentially
exactly the same except that there is no 'packeting of agg damage, so
a vamp 'on its way to torpor' that takes any agg damage *does* have to burn
a blood for each point (including the first), or else it's burned.
Josh
not LSJ, but usually remembers how the agg damage rules work
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <36C1F8F1...@wizards.com>,
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> Andrew Hartsell wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I've just recently gotten back into Jyhad/V:TES, and I downloaded the
> > revised rulebook to get a grip on how things have changed since I've been
> > away from the game, and I have a question about the wording on aggravated
> > damage.
> >> > "Some damage is described as aggravated damage. Aggravated damage is damage
> > that a vampire cannot heal -- like damage from fire or sunlight or from the
> > claws or fangs of some other immortals, including some vampires. Since it
> > cannot be healed, aggracated damage causes a vampire to go to torpor (unless
> > the damage is prevented, of course). Aggravated damage done to a wounded
> > vampire can burn the vampire outright.
Now this sentence is very important:
> > When aggravated damage is successfully inflicted on a vampire who already> > has unhealed damage, he must burn a blood to prevent his destruction.
You may notice, that it doesn't say that you have to burn one blood per
point of aggravated damage.
> > If he doesn't have enough blood, he is burned. Destruction by this method
> > does not constitute diablerie."
LSJ, as this is something that causes a lot of confusion (the initial
question leading to this posting can be seen as proof), can you alter
the wording, making it clear, that a vampire has to burn 1 blood for
*each* point of unhealed aggravated damage?
As a side note: If you do that, you can also alter the FS wording,
simply by removing the sentence "dodge beats even strikes dealt with
FS" (o.k. I don't remember the exact wording, as I don't have the rules
in front of me, sorry). If you do that together with the above change,
you needn't issue errata on two different occasions. :)
Okay, forget the sidenote, it should have been a joke.... I know it's
not a good one. ;)
Carl
(VEKN Prince of Vienna)
[ quoted text not captured ]
>> > "Some damage is described as aggravated damage. Aggravated damage is
damage
>> > that a vampire cannot heal -- like damage from fire or sunlight or from
the
>> > claws or fangs of some other immortals, including some vampires. Since
it
>> > cannot be healed, aggracated damage causes a vampire to go to torpor
(unless
>> > the damage is prevented, of course). Aggravated damage done to a
wounded
>> > vampire can burn the vampire outright.>
>Now this sentence is very important:
>>> > When aggravated damage is successfully inflicted on a vampire who
already
>> > has unhealed damage, he must burn a blood to prevent his destruction.>
>You may notice, that it doesn't say that you have to burn one blood per
>point of aggravated damage.
You're oversimplifying. Aggravated damage is still damage that happens to
have an additional characteristic. As such you must treat each point as you
would regular damage.
>>> > If he doesn't have enough blood, he is burned. Destruction by this
method
>> > does not constitute diablerie."
This essentially covers the basis that it doesn't matter how much damage is
left to deal with, if you "see" a point of aggravated damage coming and your
vampire doesn't have anyblood left on him with other damage still
unresolved, your vampire is burned.
>
>LSJ, as this is something that causes a lot of confusion (the initial
>question leading to this posting can be seen as proof), can you alter
>the wording, making it clear, that a vampire has to burn 1 blood for
>*each* point of unhealed aggravated damage?
That is listed, with the normal damage rules. Aggravated damage is regular
damage with that extra characteristic. Just because it has this
characteristic doesn't mean it's to be treated differently.
>
>As a side note: If you do that, you can also alter the FS wording,
>simply by removing the sentence "dodge beats even strikes dealt with
>FS" (o.k. I don't remember the exact wording, as I don't have the rules
>in front of me, sorry). If you do that together with the above change,
>you needn't issue errata on two different occasions. :)
>
They're not going to change it, and the reasons people have given for it to
be changed don't make any sense because they are outrightly ennumerated in
the rules regardless of any "intended" representations of first strike on
the part of WotC when they made this game. A change of the wording in
Aggravated damage will only clarify the existing rules, not change the
previous ones.
Vince