Can someone please post some examples of using this card both in its
basic and superior form. I had someone try to interpret that the
superior version prevented aggravated damage. The way I saw it is that
it if someone took 3 normal and 2 aggravated damage, a vampire with
basic fortitude would take 1 normal and 2 aggravated damage, while a
vampire with superior fortitude would take 1 aggravated damage.
^
^ | ^
\|/ ha...@shadow.net
<---x---> Scott Marcellus
/|\ http://www.shadow.net/~havok
V | V
V
ha...@shadow.net (Scott Marcellus) wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well read the thread.
I agree with Scotts assesment. You can use a single damage prevention
card to specify which damage you take and which you prevent.
Rory
refp...@best.com (REF) writes:
>ha...@shadow.net (Scott Marcellus) wrote:>>Can someone please post some examples of using this card both in its
>>basic and superior form. I had someone try to interpret that the
>>superior version prevented aggravated damage. The way I saw it is that
>>it if someone took 3 normal and 2 aggravated damage, a vampire with
>>basic fortitude would take 1 normal and 2 aggravated damage, while a
>>vampire with superior fortitude would take 1 aggravated damage.>Well read the thread.>I agree with Scotts assesment. You can use a single damage prevention
>card to specify which damage you take and which you prevent.
>Rory
While I beleive that that is the current ruling (take a mix of normal
and agg, filter it through Flesh of Marble, and pass one point -
of either type - on to the vampire).
This leads to the unfortunate realization that it is better to do
N aggravated damage than to do N aggravated +1 normal (like, say, if
you had a wolf companion). By doing more damage, you have reduced the
effect on the mrbled vampire.
I would suggest a new ruling/errata/house rule for this saying that
if any of the 'reduced' damage is aggravated, then the one left over
is aggravated. That way, having a wolf companion won't prevent you
from send the opposing vampire to torpor.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | DejaFu -
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | The feeling that things have
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | been this FU'ed before.
On Tue, 7 May 1996, Scott Marcellus wrote:
> Can someone please post some examples of using this card both in its
> basic and superior form. I had someone try to interpret that the
> superior version prevented aggravated damage. The way I saw it is that
> it if someone took 3 normal and 2 aggravated damage, a vampire with
> basic fortitude would take 1 normal and 2 aggravated damage, while a
> vampire with superior fortitude would take 1 aggravated damage.
>
Flesh of marble at inferior prevents all normal damage only down to 1.
So if your vamp took say 5 reg and 2 aggravated, after the flesh, you'd
still have 1 reg and 2 aggravated to deal with. At inferior, it doesn't
touch agg.
At superior all damage can be reduced to one, and Flesh -o- Marble works
best when you have a mix of aggravated and regular. Say you took 3
regular and 5 aggravated. Oops! Guess I'll reduce all that aggravated and
all I have left is 1 normal to deal with. Nowhere does this card say that
you have to apply aggravated last.
Where you get screwed is by the little one aggravated hand damage protean
cards. When all you have is one little aggravated to deal with, no dice
from the flesh. Better have a FARTitude prevention in your hand.
-Zach
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
>
>While I beleive that that is the current ruling (take a mix of normal
>and agg, filter it through Flesh of Marble, and pass one point -
>of either type - on to the vampire).>This leads to the unfortunate realization that it is better to do
>N aggravated damage than to do N aggravated +1 normal (like, say, if
>you had a wolf companion). By doing more damage, you have reduced the
>effect on the mrbled vampire.>I would suggest a new ruling/errata/house rule for this saying that
>if any of the 'reduced' damage is aggravated, then the one left over
>is aggravated. That way, having a wolf companion won't prevent you
>from send the opposing vampire to torpor.
>--
>L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | DejaFu -
>http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | The feeling that things have
>Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | been this FU'ed before.
I agree. The problem is that it is a weak prevention card at that
point if any aggro is done you need another method of prevention.
However since this is a protean card I think it is appropriate that it
have such a loophole.
Rory
In article <Pine.DYN.3.91.96050...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
haf...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu says...
>all I have left is 1 normal to deal with. Nowhere does this card say that
>you have to apply aggravated last.
True, but the rules clearly state that agg. is always applied last.
-ru
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>While I beleive that that is the current ruling (take a mix of normal
>and agg, filter it through Flesh of Marble, and pass one point -
>of either type - on to the vampire).
>
>This leads to the unfortunate realization that it is better to do
>N aggravated damage than to do N aggravated +1 normal (like, say, if
>you had a wolf companion). By doing more damage, you have reduced the
>effect on the mrbled vampire.
>
>I would suggest a new ruling/errata/house rule for this saying that
>if any of the 'reduced' damage is aggravated, then the one left over
>is aggravated. That way, having a wolf companion won't prevent you
>from send the opposing vampire to torpor.
If someone came up with a situation where it was a disadvantage
for Muddled Vampire Hunter to strike with First Strike (such situations exist
in Magic), would you be suggesting a ruling/errata/house rule to allow
it to ignore first strike? Sometimes an ability gets hosed by an unusual
circumstances; this is one of them. Let it lie. It's not worth the
baggage to the system.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
[ quoted text not captured ]
They do? Where? Must be in Jyhad, cause I've tried to find this
several times on VtES but wasn't able to. Either that or I'm in need of some
new glasses :)
David Pontes
8[
In article <4n92j2$o...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
No, I'm suggesting that, since the superior version of Flesh of Marble
is so poorly worded as to require extra baggage (in the form of rulings)
and that those rulings may not have been worded correctly, to issue new
rulings to make the superior version work correctly.
I do not (in this case :-) pressume to know what the original intent
was, and if the original intent is currently reflected by the official
rulings, then fine. If not, I'd like to see the rulings changed, that's
all.
In article g...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com, ruma...@c2.org (Ru Hartsell) writes:
> In article <Pine.DYN.3.91.96050...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> haf...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu says...
>
> >all I have left is 1 normal to deal with. Nowhere does this card say that
> >you have to apply aggravated last.
>
> True, but the rules clearly state that agg. is always applied last.
>> -ru
>
I don't think this is the rule that is at issue. The issue is who decides,
or is it decided in what order can you apply damager prevention. It is not
covered in the rules but the general ruling has been that the player of damage
prevenition get to decide what damage he prevent the agg any time he
gets mixed damage. I actually like this ruling, it makes pulled fang, and Dragon
breath rounds less powerful. It also makes wolf companion less powerful but only
against fellow protean users. For gangrels add in some shepherds innoncence, which
you are going to need if you are facing other gangrels and then moving the wolf
companion off your gun men is not a problem.
-- Steve
Um, the wording of superior Flesh of Marble is perfectly clear: it lifts
the restriction against preventing aggravated damage. Yes, this means that
if you take a mix of aggravated and non-agg damage, the unprevented point
can come from the non-agg part, but this is really no different from using
Skin of Rock to prevent the agg damage, and taking the rest of it. Aggravated
damage is always applied last, to maximize the chances of burning the vampire;
nothing says it is, or should be, prevented last.
[ quoted text not captured ]
lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
>
>No, I'm suggesting that, since the superior version of Flesh of Marble
>is so poorly worded as to require extra baggage (in the form of rulings)
>and that those rulings may not have been worded correctly, to issue new
>rulings to make the superior version work correctly.>I do not (in this case :-) pressume to know what the original intent
>was, and if the original intent is currently reflected by the official
>rulings, then fine. If not, I'd like to see the rulings changed, that's
>all.
Actually I think Toms point about baggage is appropriate.
I know I dislike finding out rulings second hand and the card is
clear. At least in my group. I asked to find out other opinions and
see how common my view of the card was.
Rory
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.960514...@alfa.ist.utl.pt>,
l41...@alfa.ist.utl.pt says...
> They do? Where? Must be in Jyhad, cause I've tried to find this
>several times on VtES but wasn't able to. Either that or I'm in need of some
>new glasses :)
Well, I'll be. I can't find it anywhere in the V:tES book, either. I know it
was spelled out in Jyhad, though.
-ru
[ quoted text not captured ]>see how common my view of the card was.
>Rory
The card text is not clear.
The inferior "reduces" all damage to one point or normal damage per round,
without being able to "prevent" aggravated damage.
The superior is "as above" but aggravated damage may be "prevented".
Not the change of terminology from "reduced" to "prevented".
The Rules Team even enhanced this distinction with the ruling:
Flesh of Marble reduces damage "that was not prevented" to one point.
(i.e., is applied after all damage-prevention effects)
This schizophrenically leads to the agg (superior) part being applied
before the normal (inferior, "as above") part.
The superior is literally read as:
A. All aggravated damage is prevented, and all non-Aggravated is reduced to 1.
But, applying a little common sense, you can contort the English and come
up with:
B. All damage (agg and non-agg) is reduced to one point.
But, is that one point agg? Is doesn't say so - it just says 1 damage.
One damage is, by default, non-agg.
So this means that even an all-agg strike can be reduced to one non-agg
by superior Flesh of Marble.
Or you could contort the English in much the same way and come up with
the current Rules Team scenario:
C. All damage (agg and non-agg) is reduced so that only one point remains.
This way, you choose which point of damage is to remain. If you take a
mix of agg and non-agg, you can choose to take one agg or one non-agg.
No matter what (unless you prefer the literal reading), you need some baggage.
The B. baggage works fine - it doesn't penalize you for doing extra
(non-agg) damage. The C. baggage needs a little work, that's all.
If you're gonna have baggage, it may as well work properly in all cases.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | "The Borg assimilated my race and
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | all I got was this lousy T-shirt"
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>The inferior "reduces" all damage to one point or normal damage per round,
>without being able to "prevent" aggravated damage.
>The superior is "as above" but aggravated damage may be "prevented".
>
>Not the change of terminology from "reduced" to "prevented".
You seem to be working from the Jyhad wording, which may be part of the
problem. Here is the VTES wording:
"Only usable before range is chosen. If the vampire takes more than 1 damage
in a round, excess damage is prevented, although aggravated damage cannot be
prevented. This lasts for the duration of the combat.
"As above, but aggravated damage can be prevented."
Which, as you can see, uses "prevented" in both cases.
>The Rules Team even enhanced this distinction with the ruling:
>Flesh of Marble reduces damage "that was not prevented" to one point.
>(i.e., is applied after all damage-prevention effects)
>This schizophrenically leads to the agg (superior) part being applied
>before the normal (inferior, "as above") part.
Both of the versions have the same problem with regards to aggravated damage,
in that they should say something like "aggravated damage may not be prevented
in this way", and "but aggravated damage may be prevented."
>The superior is literally read as:
>A. All aggravated damage is prevented, and all non-Aggravated is reduced to 1.
Exactly how does "aggravated damage can be prevented" _literally_ translate
to this? The superior version is allowing you to prevent aggravated damage,
something the basic version does not.
>But, applying a little common sense, you can contort the English and come
>up with:
There's no need to contort the English. All that the superior version is
doing is removing a restriction.
>the current Rules Team scenario:
>C. All damage (agg and non-agg) is reduced so that only one point remains.
>This way, you choose which point of damage is to remain. If you take a
>mix of agg and non-agg, you can choose to take one agg or one non-agg.
Personally I think this requires less baggage than your B. reading, which
works out to something like "throw away all damage the vampire takes, and
replace it with 1 non-aggravated damage", which is not something the card
text exactly leads one to believe.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <4nrmi5$g...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:>>The inferior "reduces" all damage to one point or normal damage per round,
>>without being able to "prevent" aggravated damage.
>>The superior is "as above" but aggravated damage may be "prevented".
>>>>Note the change of terminology from "reduced" to "prevented".>
>You seem to be working from the Jyhad wording, which may be part of the
>problem. Here is the VTES wording:
>
>"Only usable before range is chosen. If the vampire takes more than 1 damage
>in a round, excess damage is prevented, although aggravated damage cannot be
>prevented. This lasts for the duration of the combat.
>"As above, but aggravated damage can be prevented."
>
>Which, as you can see, uses "prevented" in both cases.
Excellent. Then, yes, my argument only applies to the Jyhad wording.
It would be nice to know what all of the canges in VtES were, so that
all of us will be playing the same game.
>>The Rules Team even enhanced this distinction with the ruling:
>>Flesh of Marble reduces damage "that was not prevented" to one point.
>>(i.e., is applied after all damage-prevention effects)
>>This schizophrenically leads to the agg (superior) part being applied
>>before the normal (inferior, "as above") part.>
>Both of the versions have the same problem with regards to aggravated damage,
>in that they should say something like "aggravated damage may not be prevented
>in this way", and "but aggravated damage may be prevented."
Not the part I was refering to. The card text, together with the ruling
that damage prevention occures before damage reduction, leads to the
prevention part (the superior) coming before the reduction part (the
inferior, or the "as above" part) of the card.
>>The superior is literally read as:
>>A. All aggravated damage is prevented, and all non-Aggravated is reduced to 1.>
>Exactly how does "aggravated damage can be prevented" _literally_ translate
>to this? The superior version is allowing you to prevent aggravated damage,
>something the basic version does not.
If you had a stand-alone effect that was simply "Aggravated damage can be
prevented. This lasts for the duration of combat", how would you arrive
at any other literal reading? This is what the Jyhad version says, since
the superior's ability to prevent damage is distinct from the inferior's
ability to reduce damage. Again, this argument doesn't apply to the
(hitherto unbeknownst to me) VtES wording.
>>>But, applying a little common sense, you can contort the English and come
>>up with:>
>There's no need to contort the English. All that the superior version is
>doing is removing a restriction.
True, removing the restriction that vampires cannot prevent aggravated
damage. Now, they can prevent aggravated damage, and (the inferior) reduce
normal damage to one point. It doesn't limit how much agg they can prevent,
so I assume most vampires would choose to prevent all of it.
>>the current Rules Team scenario:
>>C. All damage (agg and non-agg) is reduced so that only one point remains.
>>This way, you choose which point of damage is to remain. If you take a
>>mix of agg and non-agg, you can choose to take one agg or one non-agg.>
>Personally I think this requires less baggage than your B. reading, which
>works out to something like "throw away all damage the vampire takes, and
>replace it with 1 non-aggravated damage", which is not something the card
>text exactly leads one to believe.
The Jyhad card text says reduce all damage to 1.
If a strike does 1 damage, does it do 1 normal or 1 aggravated?
This is defined to mean one normal damage, so when a card like Flesh of
Marble reduces all damage to one, there is an obvious way of extrapolating
the fact that the one damage, since it is not specified as aggravated, be
normal (non-agg) damage. There is a separate, but no more obvious, way
of interpretting it to mean that one point, of whatever type was done, be
left
Cards are easy to read if you already know what they're supposed to say.
It doesn't change the fact that the card can be read just as easily to
come up with an improper reading (cf. Trap).
lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
(nice posts by both snipped)
So are you saying Scott that you feel that Superior should prevent all
but one damage and make the aggro normal?
I read as prevent down to 1 damage. This means if its a mix then you
take one normal but if its all agro then you indeed take one agrro.
Rory
In article <4nt85i$8...@nntp1.best.com>, REF <refp...@best.com> wrote:
>lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
>
>(nice posts by both snipped)
>So are you saying Scott that you feel that Superior should prevent all
>but one damage and make the aggro normal?
No, I'm saying that that is one incorrect way or reading the Jyhad text.
My personal feelings are that Superior should reduce the amount of
damage to 1 without altering any modifications to the *type* of
damage inflicted (i.e., if any of the damage is aggravated, then the
one point remaining after FoMarble is aggravated)
This is, however, just another incorrect reading of the text.
>I read as prevent down to 1 damage. This means if its a mix then you
>take one normal but if its all agro then you indeed take one agrro.
And this is another (non-literal) way of reading the Jyhad text.
But this one has a disadvantage in that it penalizes someone for doing
more damage:
If I pull a flame thrower on you, you reduce it to one agg, but if I
also have a Murder of Crows, then you only take one normal? Swell.
The literal reading of the Jyhad text (with it's mix of "reduce" and
"prevent") won't lump the two dissimilar effects (reducing normal
and preventing agg) into one effect.
This will prevent all aggro, and reduce normal to one.
But, as with Force of Will, the literal reading isn't the correct way
to play the card - you need some errata to fix the thing.
Apparently, this errata came in the form of updated VtES text, which
works fine (if you can keep up with the changes to card text).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Actually I don't remember the new text either.
I see the problem with the crows and flamethrower example.
I don't have a good answer.
Rory