Pulled Fangs Suggestion

I just had a good idea, that I think can help out players a lot. Pulled Fangs was previously very useful, and as most agreed, too useful. At first I was happy to see it "fixed" in the last rulings...especially so, because I was also a fan of Disarm (a balanced PF). Limiting to potence-vampires seemed like just the right restriction. However, I also have 40+ Pulled Fangs. :) And, being rare, we can all attest to the scramble to accumulate those in the past, trading, buying whenever not sold out, at $2 or more each. An unfortunate case of a rare being commonly useful. :) Now I am sure lots of us have a large investment which is marginally useful, and certainly not in any of the ways we used to use it, or had planned to use it. Not only is it debatably useful, but you can now Pull 12 (?) fangs from that pesky IC member... :) Now as much as I like Disarm, it suffers from the same rarity problem, only much worse. Sabbat shows no signs of ever being cheap like Jyhad, Disarm sells for $3+, and I don't think they ever get traded. This is a shame, since it would fit perfectly in all those potence decks that packed 6+ Pulled Fangs. My suggestion, LSJ, is that PF remain aggro, but have errata to require potence. It is the same amount of errata, so the confusion could be no worse. It will actually not be quite as good as Disarm, but would work well enough. The silliness of pulling out a lot of teeth wouldn't be possible. In fact, unless someone here convinces me that my idea is bad, I think I will try to institute this in our play group. I certainly don't see that it could possibly unbalance things, compared to Disarm. And god forbid I would ever have to proxy cards... :) ++ "If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell ++ ++ him is 'God is crying.' And if he asks why God is crying, another ++ ++ cute thing to tell him is 'Probably because of something you did.'" ++ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

jbt wrote: "My suggestion, LSJ, is that PF remain aggro, but have errata to require potence. It is the same amount of errata, so the confusion could be no worse. It will actually not be quite as good as Disarm, but would work well enough. The silliness of pulling out a lot of teeth wouldn't be possible. In fact, unless someone here convinces me that my idea is bad, I think I will try to institute this in our play group. I certainly don't see that it could possibly unbalance things, compared to Disarm. And god forbid I would ever have to proxy cards... :)" I'm here to convince you that it is not a good idea. The biggest problem with Pulled Fangs (pre 7/7) is not that it can be used multiple times (and neither the 7/7 errata or your suggestion prevent this aplication of the card), but that if it does aggrivated damage, it is obscenely powerful, and will burn a vampire every time it is played. Requiring a vampire to have Potence to play it is a cost of sorts, but as most of the vamps that play PF have Pot anyway, it isn't much of a hurdle. The problem is that when PF does aggro damage, it is painfully easy to burn vampires. You have 4 blood. I Immortally Grapple you, hit you for 5 damage, and play Pulled Fangs. You are burned. It is just too easy. The difference between Pulled Fangs and Disarm is that PF burns you while Disarm does not (it specifically just sends you to torpor). The real comparison is between Pulled Fangs and Decapitate. Pulled Fangs allows you to burn a vampire already on the way to torpor, but it costs you no blood and no discipline. Decapitate allows you to burn a vampire already on the way to torpor, but it costs you 2 blood and requires superior Potence. The cost of Decapitate justifies its ability. The cost of Pulled Fangs (even if it requires Potence) simply does not. When Pulled Fangs is played in a Potence deck, and it does aggro damage, it will burn a vampire every time it is played. Very simple. However, if Pulled Fangs had its wording changed to the same template as Disarm (sends to torpor, rather than does aggro damage), this would not be a problem, but it would still be too powerful. I suspect that in the end, PF not doing aggro damage is the easiest and most appropriate fix. "The silliness of pulling out a lot of teeth wouldn't be possible." I don't see how this changes. The card has nothing on it to prevent multiples from being played, there is no eratta to prevent multiples from being played, and your proposed fix has nothing in it to prevent multiples from being played. Please explain. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "If we can focus, keep discipline, and not have quite as many mysterious deaths, Sunnydale is gonna _RULE_!" -Bobby

In article <19981006230741...@ng120.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > The problem is that when PF does aggro damage, it is painfully easy to burn > vampires. You have 4 blood. I Immortally Grapple you, hit you for 5 damage, > and play Pulled Fangs. You are burned. It is just too easy. Yes, it is, but the rest of my playgroup apparently likes having their big vampire burned because they didn't draw enough Fortitude. > Pulled Fangs allows you to burn a vampire already on the > way to torpor, but it costs you no blood and no discipline. I would ammend this with: "Pulled Fangs allows you to burn a vampire _with 0 blood_ already on the way to torpor..." It's versatility is of course much more than that. > However, if Pulled Fangs had its wording changed to the same template as > Disarm (sends to torpor, rather than does aggro damage), this would not be a > problem, but it would still be too powerful. I suspect that in the end, PF > not doing aggro damage is the easiest and most appropriate fix. And as much as some people are saying that it makes this now wallpaper, I wholeheartedly disagree. If you get them down to 0 blood, you can still send the opponent to torpor and they won't be able to hunt. If you do send them to torpor with your strikes, you can keep them from hunting when they come back out. The no-hunting aspect is quite useful. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

> jbt wrote: > "My suggestion, LSJ, is that PF remain aggro, but have errata to require > potence. Um...no. One of the biggest advantages of Pulled Fangs over Disarm is that all allies can use it as well. I'd be against this from the get go. > pdb6 wrote: > I'm here to convince you that it is not a good idea. The biggest problem with > Pulled Fangs (pre 7/7) is not that it can be used multiple times (and neither > the 7/7 errata or your suggestion prevent this aplication of the card) I would argue that this is one of the biggest problems...esp. when played with original agg dmg text. If I hit a vampire with an agg strike and they go to torpor, am I allowed an additional strike? No. The same principal should apply here. With the damage being normal, if I attack you with a War Ghoul and I have a fist full of Pulled Fangs, not only are they going to torpor, but they'll have to take a billion actions to get rid of the stack of Pulled Fangs on the vampire. If played with original agg damage, I would argue that the vampire immediately goes to torpor and does not allow you to play additional PF cards. If you want to burn them you have to either get them to zero before PF is played or play Decapitate or Amaranth. It may not completely balance the card...but it helps. > that if it does aggrivated damage, it is obscenely powerful, and will burn a > vampire every time it is played. Not every time, but anytime it is used with big hand damge (Potence, War Ghoul, Dauntain, Muddled Vampire Hunter) it is likely. If used with Fortitude, that is unlikely to be the case. > Requiring a vampire to have Potence to play > it is a cost of sorts, but as most of the vamps that play PF have Pot anyway, > it isn't much of a hurdle. This is nonsense. Vampires with Fortitude and any Ally in combat with a vampire with Memories of Mortality can use it effectively. > The problem is that when PF does aggro damage, it is painfully easy to burn > vampires. You have 4 blood. I Immortally Grapple you, hit you for 5 damage, > and play Pulled Fangs. You are burned. It is just too easy. Agreed. So instead of doing one point of agg damage (or normal) have it send the vampire to torpor like Disarm. This would discourage repeat playing of the card. > (sends to torpor, rather than does aggro damage), this would not be a problem, > but it would still be too powerful. I suspect that in the end, PF not doing > aggro damage is the easiest and most appropriate fix. I disagree. However, I would argue that multiples of the card should not be allowed to be played in the same round (or even on a vampire that has already had PF played on it). -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

In article <19981006230741...@ng120.aol.com>, PDB6 <pd...@aol.com> writes >The problem is that when PF does aggro damage, it is painfully easy to burn >vampires. You have 4 blood. I Immortally Grapple you, hit you for 5 damage, >and play Pulled Fangs. You are burned. The new aggro rules neuter this to an extent. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <6vftne$5bq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <mboh...@shout.net> wrote: >And as much as some people are saying that it makes this now wallpaper, I >wholeheartedly disagree. If you get them down to 0 blood, you can still >send the opponent to torpor and they won't be able to hunt. If you do send >them to torpor with your strikes, you can keep them from hunting when they >come back out. The no-hunting aspect is quite useful. I agree -- I certainly still use it. It's no where near as usefull as it was before (and we already had a house rule that made it work like disarm), but it's still quite effective since quite often someone in torpor with their fangs pulled is as good as burned. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

pdb6 wrote: > > I'm here to convince you that it is not a good idea. The biggest problem with > Pulled Fangs (pre 7/7) is not that it can be used multiple times (and neither > the 7/7 errata or your suggestion prevent this aplication of the card), Hm, I had to research this. I found the ruling that Pulled Fangs is playable whenever combat ends. We've never played it this way, and I can see how this would cause a lot of problems with the card. I knew before that PF was playable multiple times, but I assumed that after the first time one of them dealt aggravated damage, the vampire goes to torpor, combat ends, no more combat cards, no more PF. I suppose it could be looked at as "interrupting" the "end of combat phase" but I see no precedent for this or reason to invent it. Otherwise, saying PF is playable at the end of combat is akin to giving it Psyche-ish errata (play at end of combat). I note that Psyche, which comes to mind as an end-of-combat card, has specific text allowing this. I can now see why PF as written and ruled would be more powerful than Disarm, and usable by anyone. I think the logical time to use PF is when damage is resolved after any "set" of strikes. Why rule it to be any other way? > but that if it does aggrivated damage, it is obscenely powerful, and > will burn a vampire every time it is played. This is an unfortunate side-effect of making PF "errata-ed" to be playable when combat ends, ie when a vampire already going to torpor with more damage then it can heal. > Requiring a vampire to have Potence to play > it is a cost of sorts, but as most of the vamps that play PF have > Pot anyway, it isn't much of a hurdle. The way we played the old PF was like Disarm, only you didn't have to wait for the end of the round, and anyone could use the card, which made minor celerity or fortitude combat deadly. That was what unbalanced it vs. Disarm (for us). > The problem is that when PF does aggro damage, it is painfully easy to > burn vampires. You have 4 blood. I Immortally Grapple you, hit you > for 5 damage, and play Pulled Fangs. You are burned. It is just too > easy. The difference between Pulled Fangs and Disarm is that PF burns > you while Disarm does not (it specifically just sends you to torpor). > The real comparison is between Pulled Fangs and Decapitate. Pulled > Fangs allows you to burn a vampire already on the way to torpor, but > it costs you no blood and no discipline. Decapitate allows you to > burn a vampire already on the way to torpor, but it costs you 2 blood > and requires superior Potence. The cost of Decapitate justifies its > ability. The cost of Pulled Fangs (even if it requires Potence) simply > does not. I am going to have to argue here that there is actually a much smaller difference than you think. Pulled Fangs (currently) would burn a vampire with 0 blood and on the way to torpor. Sure it's free, but I would think twice about even bothering to play it. Decapitate, OTOH, will burn a vampire on the way to torpor with any amount of blood. If you can play the decapitate and they've got blood on them, it's almost always more than worth it to burn them. If I was only playing with PF in order to burn vampires with 0 blood going to torpor, I doubt I would even put them in the deck. > When Pulled Fangs is played in a Potence deck, and it does aggro damage, it > will burn a vampire every time it is played. Very simple. That isn't remotely true, it requires hitting a vampire down to -1 blood, which may or may not happen. There are probably more ways to avoid getting hit like that than there are to deal the hit(s). > However, if Pulled Fangs had its wording changed to the same template > as Disarm (sends to torpor, rather than does aggro damage), this would > not be a problem, but it would still be too powerful. I suspect that > in the end, PF not doing aggro damage is the easiest and most > appropriate fix. Only too powerful because it doesn't require a discipline, which is the change I'm arguing for. > > The silliness of pulling out a lot of teeth wouldn't be possible. > > I don't see how this changes. The card has nothing on it to prevent > multiples from being played, there is no eratta to prevent multiples > from being played, and your proposed fix has nothing in it to prevent > multiples from being played. Please explain. As I discovered above, it is the silly ruling about PF (at the end of combat) that allows multiples even as combat is ending. Sensibly speaking, 1 PF, go to torpor, no chance to play more (I'm waiting to hear from LSJ on this). mbohlman wrote: > > > However, if Pulled Fangs had its wording changed to the same template as > > Disarm (sends to torpor, rather than does aggro damage), this would not be a > > problem, but it would still be too powerful. I suspect that in the end, PF > > not doing aggro damage is the easiest and most appropriate fix. > > And as much as some people are saying that it makes this now wallpaper, I > wholeheartedly disagree. If you get them down to 0 blood, you can still > send the opponent to torpor and they won't be able to hunt. If you do send > them to torpor with your strikes, you can keep them from hunting when they > come back out. The no-hunting aspect is quite useful. Generally speaking, Pulled Fangs is almost wallpaper now compared to Disarm. All I want is for it to work the way Disarm does, the way we used to play it. I don't see why, after so many players accumulating PF, and they print an approximately identical card, we have to spend a ton more money to "maintain" decks. The 7/7 ruling on PF fixes Acrobatics/SkinOfSteel-PF decks, but really hurts a lot of other worthy potence-combat decks. I _could_ fix it by buying up Disarms, but re-fixing PF is way more appealing. ++ "There's a fine line between eye contact and the piercing stare ++ ++ of a psychopath." ++ [ quoted text not captured ]

Actually, I believe that pulled fangs was designed to burn vampires. Which, by the way is impossible now, as the first point of aggravated does no damage. I believe the problem with pulled fangs resided in people such as myself making decks designed to do one point of damage to the opposing vampire in combat, prevent all of that vampires damage, and send it to torpor. Making it require potence, makes you usethe card the way it was intended to be used, as sort of a finishingblow. I think this change would be good. as it is now, I have about 30 pulled fangs, which I used to use quite frequently. Now I find them about as useful as ascendence. Two more cents from me. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok, I'm not exactly one in favour for changing rules, but since this is an arguable interpretation of the card text (and I don't have to use it anyway, just thought I'd throw it in), how about this. Pulled fangs is a combat card (no arguments there) and is only usable if your minion does more damage at close range than the opposing minion, therefore can only be used after damage resolution (again no arguments). Now in no other case can a combat card be used after combat ends (apart from cards like psyche, which explicitly state 'use after combat ends', or Amaranth 'use when a vampire goes to torpor'). Therefore wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that pulled fangs could not be used after combat ends. This would not only eliminate the playing of multiple PF, but since combat ends immediately when a vampire goes to torpor, this would also make it impossible to burn a vampire with PF (You couldn't play it on a vamp already going to torpor, the aggro damage would only be able to send them to torpor - no more). Anyway, that about covers it. Can anyone see any problems with that? It isn't actually changing any of the rules at all - just changing the way that we interpret a card (which makes much more sense to me then changing everything... But we won't start that again ;-) Martin.

jbt wrote: "I am going to have to argue here that there is actually a much smaller difference than you think. Pulled Fangs (currently) would burn a vampire with 0 blood and on the way to torpor. Sure it's free, but I would think twice about even bothering to play it." With a good Pot Rush deck, pretty much every vampire you send to torpor goes to torpor with zero blood. If all it costs to burn them is a single Pulled Fangs card, I can't for the life of me imagine _not_ wanting to play it. "Decapitate, OTOH, will burn a vampire on the way to torpor with any amount of blood. If you can play the decapitate and they've got blood on them, it's almost always more than worth it to burn them." If you are playing a Potence deck, most of the time your opponent will be going to torpor with zero blood anyway. Occasionally, they will go to Torpor due to Disarm, but in most cases, it is just better to hit them more. At which point, (pre 7/7) Pulled Fangs is infinitely better than Decapitate. "If I was only playing with PF in order to burn vampires with 0 blood going to torpor, I doubt I would even put them in the deck." Then I can only assume you are not playing a good Pot Rush deck. This is where pre 7/7 PF becomes incredibly effective, and where it becomes obvious that PF doing aggro damage is too effective. "That isn't remotely true, it requires hitting a vampire down to -1 blood, which may or may not happen. There are probably more ways to avoid getting hit like that than there are to deal the hit(s)." I Immortally Grapple you after playing Torn Signpost and Fists of Death. I strike you with Undead Strength. I play Pulled Fangs. Unless you are holding Skin of Steel, you are, in all likelyhood, burned. If you are holding Skin of Steel, I press and try again. Rinse and repeat. I bet the Rush deck wins out in the end. "Only too powerful because it doesn't require a discipline, which is the change I'm arguing for." Disarm requires a discipline and does not do aggro damage, and as such, is incapable of buring a vampire. Two very different cards. Decapitate is very similar to pre 7/7 PF in its effect, but requires 2 blood and a superior discipline. If Pulled Fangs cost 2 blood and required superior Potence, then maybe it would be balanced doing aggro damage. Otherwise, I suspect not. "Generally speaking, Pulled Fangs is almost wallpaper now compared to Disarm." They are compareable cards for compareable costs. Pulled Fangs does an extra point of damage (which is always useful) with no discipline cost and prevents the victim from hunting. Sure, it isn't as good as it was when it burned someone every time it was played, but it is still arguably useful. [ quoted text not captured ]

dharzhak wrote: "I would argue that this is one of the biggest problems...esp. when played with original agg dmg text. If I hit a vampire with an agg strike and they go to torpor, am I allowed an additional strike? No." Wheither or not you can play multiple Pulled Fangs is a completely different issue than wheither or not Pulled Fangs does aggro damage. Yes, it is silly that you can play multiple PFs, but it is silly even if it does aggro damage. I would never argue that you should be able to play multiple pulled fangs, in fact, I would vastly prefer that PF was errattaed so that you couldn't play multiples. However, it still shouldn't do aggro damage. "If played with original agg damage, I would argue that the vampire immediately goes to torpor and does not allow you to play additional PF cards." Sadly, that would require additional errata. "Not every time, but anytime it is used with big hand damge (Potence, War Ghoul, Dauntain, Muddled Vampire Hunter) it is likely. If used with Fortitude, that is unlikely to be the case." You need to look at Pulled Fangs in terms of when it truly exhibits its brokenness. Guilanno Vinchensi getting hit for 1, preventing the damage, and than pulling someones fangs (with pre 7/7 aggro PF) is not abusing the system. Putting tons of PF in an Immortal Grapple based Rush deck so you burn a vampire every time PF gets played is abusing the system, and demonstrates why Pulled Fangs doing aggro damage is too good. At Origins this last summer, I played such a deck, and literally every time I played PF, I burned a vampire. It cost me nothing and was _way_ too easy. "This is nonsense. Vampires with Fortitude and any Ally in combat with a vampire with Memories of Mortality can use it effectively." There are plenty of ways to use PF effectively, and many of them don't require potence. However, the ways that demonstrated how over powered pre 7/7 PF was all invariably involved Potence, as vampires with Pot would burn opponents left and right. No muss, no fuss, no cost. "Agreed. So instead of doing one point of agg damage (or normal) have it send the vampire to torpor like Disarm. This would discourage repeat playing of the card." Our playgroup used Pulled Fangs like this (same template as Disarm) for a long time and it worked fine, but it was still overpowered for what it cost. "I disagree. However, I would argue that multiples of the card should not be allowed to be played in the same round (or even on a vampire that has already had PF played on it)." Again, this is a completely different issue than wheither or not PF should do aggro damage. I agree that you should not be able to play multiple PF. Regardless, Pulled Fangs should not be doing aggro damage, multiples or no. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: "The new aggro rules neuter this to an extent." Not really. With the new rules, you need to do X+2 damage, at least one of which needs to be aggrivated, to burn a vampire (where X=current blood on the victim). You have 4 Blood. KoKo hits you for 5. You are now going to torpor, but before you get there, KoKo (assuming aggro PF) Pulls your Fangs. You have now taken 6 damage, one of which is aggrivated, which is X(of 4)+2, at least one of which is aggro. You are now burned. Poof. KoKo happy. Grin :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6vh1sb$eu6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, pa...@exis.net wrote: > Actually, I believe that pulled fangs was designed to burn vampires. > Which, by the way is impossible now, as the first point of aggravated > does no damage. That would be the Jyhad rules. The current ruling is a variation on that. If you do any aggravated damage to a vampire with 0 blood that is on its way to torpor, it will be burned. Pulled Fangs could still burn vampires if its damage were aggravated. > Making it require potence, makes you usethe card the way it was intended > to be used, as sort of a finishingblow. I think this change would be good. > as it is now, I have about 30 pulled fangs, which I used to use quite > frequently. Now I find them about as useful as ascendence. In that case, I'll buy 6 of them from you for $1. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

j...@inri.com wrote: > pdb6 wrote: > > I don't see how this changes. The card has nothing on it to prevent > > multiples from being played, there is no eratta to prevent multiples > > from being played, and your proposed fix has nothing in it to prevent > > multiples from being played. Please explain. > > As I discovered above, it is the silly ruling about PF (at the end of > combat) that allows multiples even as combat is ending. Sensibly > speaking, 1 PF, go to torpor, no chance to play more (I'm waiting to > hear from LSJ on this). **** Note to those just joining the thread: *** This discussion is about the way Pulled Fangs used to work (back when the damage it dealt was aggravated). Since PF no longer does aggravated damage (Rule Team Rulings of 7 July 1998), the question is not as interesting now. ************************************************ That ruling [allowing multiple PF] came in the Rules Team Rulings of 6 September 1995. PF itself (actual card text) has no explicit restriction at all on when it can be played. This includes the V:TES version of the card, which was printed well after the "during the press step" ruling (see below). But it does have an implicit restriction: you have to know that you deal more damage than your opponent. You only know this for certain after all strikes that are going to be resolved have been resolved. The explicit restriction (at the end of a round) was added to clarify the original intent of the card, since some players were questioning whether PF could be played before additional strikes resolved. The original form of that restriction was issued by the Rules Team in the Rulings Summary of 9 November 1994. In that statement, however, the RT used the phrase "during the press step", which inadvertently prohibited PF from being played if the victim was going to torpor (from too much damage, or from agg damage, or whatever). This restriction was not part of the intended use, as witnessed by the "not usable by a dying ally or a vampire going into torpor" clause (which would have no effect if PF was only usable during the press step, since vampires going to torpor do not reach the press step). Tom Wylie later (1 October 1995) used (or rather, explained) an example of using PF when a Strike: Combat Ends resolves, "because the round is now ending." - indicating his belief the PF was to be played at the end of a round. An update, of sorts, on the timing matter came from Tom Wylie on 25 February 1996: Pulled Fangs is played when the round ends, regardless of when the round ends. For example, if you send a vampire to torpor via aggravated damage, you can yank its Fangs on its way out, even though you haven't reached the press step yet. When someone questioned as a departure from the "during press step" ruling, Tom Wylie replied "This [the new statement, quoted above] was simply was a mistake on my part (I had Taste of Vitae on the brain)". Which just confuses the issue, since Taste is not played when the round ends, but rather, after [any] strike resolution. Hard to say what to do with this "retraction". The main point of ruling "during the press step" was to make it clear that PF couldn't be played after some strikes, but before all additional strikes had been resolved. The key to playing the card, said Tom, is knowing for sure what the comparable damage was (this stipulation stated by Tom Wylie on 24 January 1996). In general, since the 6 September 1995 ruling has never been overturned, playing multiple Pulled Fangs in a round has always been legal. And it is even sensible in the light of the statements by Tom. Since PF no longer does aggravated damage (Rule Team Rulings of 7 July 1998), the question is not as interesting now. -- 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

pa...@exis.net wrote: > > Actually, I believe that pulled fangs was designed to burn vampires. No, since originally, PF only did one aggravated damage and (originally) one agg was never enough to burn a vampire. > Which, by the way is impossible now, as the first point of aggravated > does no damage. It does one damage. And it cannot be healed. Any time a vampire takes damage that he doesn't heal, he goes to torpor. (And when failing to heal damage, he also does not burn a blood to heal). Failing to burn a blood to heal is not the same thing as taking no damage. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Since PF no longer does aggravated damage (Rule Team Rulings of > 7 July 1998), the question is not as interesting now. > ************************************************ Now...place nice with the less enlightened, LSJ. Just because it may be less interesting to _you_ doesn't make the discussion of timing any less relevant. The fact that it is being discussed as much as it is tells me that some people _do_ find the topic interesting. I'll go ahead and state the relevant points as stated by LSJ and his Clarifications page. 6/28: Strike: Combat Ends followed by combat cards. Combat cards cannot be played after combat. Clarifications: Combat Going to torpor/ash heap ends the combat. [RTR] > But it does have an implicit restriction: > you have to know that you deal more damage than your opponent. > You only know this for certain after all strikes that are going > to be resolved have been resolved. I agree with this statement 100%. However, it in no way addresses the fact of whether you can play the card for an additional damage after you are sending the vampire to torpor. I can't play additional combat cards after a S:CE in accordance to your ruling on 6/28. Since successfully inflicted aggravated damage immediately sends a vampire to torpor, ending the combat at that point (Clarifications: Combat, 1st RTR statement) the same statement should apply with the exception of Decap and Amaranth. > The original form of that restriction was issued by the Rules Team > in the Rulings Summary of 9 November 1994. In that statement, > however, the RT used the phrase "during the press step", which > inadvertently prohibited PF from being played if the victim was > going to torpor (from too much damage, or from agg damage, or > whatever). This restriction was not part of the intended use, as > witnessed by the "not usable by a dying ally or a vampire going > into torpor" clause (which would have no effect if PF was only > usable during the press step, since vampires going to torpor do > not reach the press step). It may or may not be intended...but it's not a school of thought that is any less valid. As we've seen time and again, the restrictions on cards can be redundant. (Obedience and NRA rule, for example) > Tom Wylie later (1 October 1995) used (or rather, explained) an > example of using PF when a Strike: Combat Ends resolves, "because > the round is now ending." - indicating his belief the PF was to be > played at the end of a round. Whether it is at the end of the round is not the point..but whether one can use it _after_combat_ is. > An update, of sorts, on the timing matter came from Tom Wylie on 25 > February 1996: > > Pulled Fangs is played when the round ends, regardless of when the > round ends. For example, if you send a vampire to torpor via > aggravated damage, you can yank its Fangs on its way out, even though > you haven't reached the press step yet. This statement is moot as it predates your 6/28 ruling. > In general, since the 6 September 1995 ruling has never been > overturned, playing multiple Pulled Fangs in a round has always > been legal. And it is even sensible in the light of the statements > by Tom. I would argue that since playing combat cards after a combat has ended is illegal, this "legality" is an inherently false one. Noal McDonald Anarch of Westland, MI (p.s. I've had my 2 1/2 cups of coffee already, LSJ. *grin*) [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: [snip] : I've argued this point already. It gets into the timing of when combat : ends if a vampire is going to torpor. I would argue that only two cards : can be played after a vampire is determined to be going to torpor: : Decapitate and Amaranth. That's a valid suggestion, but it's not exactly how things work at the moment. : I would argue that at combat ends at the exact moment that a vampire : goes to torpor. With LSJ's new-fangled aggro rules (the first agg dmg : doesn't burn you) you would be correct. Even if I hit for just enough : damage to reduce you to zero, I would still be unable to burn you with : the vampire. However, many people are against PF being able to send : you to torpor at all. Currently, combat ends when a combatant is no longer ready (is burned or goes to torpor), or when a Strike:Combat Ends resolves, or if there are no presses to continue at the end of a round. With any of these methods, there is a 'round ends' phase that you pass through on the way to 'combat ends', and only after 'round ends' is over do you actually leave 'combat'. During the end-of-round phase, you can play Pulled Fangs; if the round is ending because a vampire is going to torpor, you can play Amaranth or Decapitate; if there is a superior Drawing out the Beast in effect, its damage will be applied. The 'exact moment when a vampire goes to torpor' is basically right after combat ends. A vampire becomes destined for torpor whenever it has unhealed damage after the 'heal damage' step of damage resolution - whether it's taken agg damage that can't be 'healed' by burning blood, or else if it's taken normal damage beyond the amount of blood it had available to burn. But vampires have never gone to torpor immediately on determining that they are destined for torpor. Also, note that the current ('LSJ') rules for aggravated damage *do* allow a single point of agg to burn a vampire. If a vampire already 'is on the way to torpor', each additional point of agg requires that vamp to burn a blood to prevent destruction. So if a vamp is going to torpor empty, an agg-damage Pulled Fangs (or a point of Drawing out the Beast damage under a Dawn Op) *will* currently burn that vampire. And under the current (non-agg-damage) Pulled Fangs ruling, you *can* still use Pulled Fangs to send a vampire to torpor, but only if they're already reduced to zero blood. (I don't think anyone has a problem with Pulled Fangs being able to send vamps to torpor in that way.) : Seems to me that you're going to see Dawn Op-PF combos coming out : to get around the currnent ruling unless we fine tune the timing of the : combat phase when a vampire goes to torpor. That could happen; however Dawn Op/Weather Control and Dawn Op/Drawing out the Beast are probably harsher combos than Dawn Op/Pulled Fangs, and I've never seen them become truly problematic. I think this is because Dawn Op isn't that great at combos, since you can never 'force' a Dawn Op'ed combat - at superior, a blocker doesn't get the option of backing out, but you can't force someone to block in the first place. Josh 'like kurosawa i make mad films...'

In article <6vipvq$4jl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > Since PF no longer does aggravated damage (Rule Team Rulings of > > 7 July 1998), the question is not as interesting now. > > ************************************************ > > Now...place nice with the less enlightened, LSJ. Just clarifying that this thread is discussing PF in a way that doesn't match the official way. In that way, by discussing a non-existant card, the discussion is less interesting than it would be if the card really existed. > Just because it may be less interesting to _you_ doesn't make the discussion > of timing any less relevant. The fact that it is being discussed as much as > it is tells me that some people _do_ find the topic interesting. That fact that the card doesn't function the way this thread assumes it does (and, indeed, no card functions the way this thread is concerned with) makes the discussion less relevant - since it has no direct application to the official game. "less interesting" doesn't mean "without interest". Some people do indeed find the topic interesting, myself included, as a hypothetical testing ground for the rules. But it would be more interesting if it were not hypothetical. Hence, "it is not *as* interesting" (emphasis added). > I'll go ahead and state the relevant points as stated by LSJ and his > Clarifications page. > > 6/28: > Strike: Combat Ends followed by combat cards. > Combat cards cannot be played after combat. That's from 9/28, not 6/28, but OK. The full text is: "Combat effects cannot be used after combat ends, so cannot be used after a strike to end combat has resolved (or after other effects that end combat, like Elysium: the Arboretum). [RTR 980928]" > Clarifications: > Combat > Going to torpor/ash heap ends the combat. [RTR] > > > But it does have an implicit restriction: > > you have to know that you deal more damage than your opponent. > > You only know this for certain after all strikes that are going > > to be resolved have been resolved. > > I agree with this statement 100%. However, it in no way addresses the fact of > whether you can play the card for an additional damage after you are sending > the vampire to torpor. > > I can't play additional combat cards after a S:CE in accordance to your > ruling on 6/28. Since successfully inflicted aggravated damage immediately > sends a vampire to torpor, ending the combat at that point (Clarifications: > Combat, 1st RTR statement) the same statement should apply with the exception > of Decap and Amaranth. You are mixing effects which end combat as part of their resolution and combat ending when one (or both) of the combatants is no longer ready. The "end combat now" effects (like S:CE, Rotschreck, etc.) cannot be interrupted (as usual for all effects in V:TES), and once they are resolved, combat is over. Damage resolution is not an effect, however, it is a phase (or sub-phase or whatever) during which effects occur (notably burning blood to heal damage, burning life as a result of damage, and burning blood to prevent destruction from aggravated damage when wounded). Combat ends once a combatant goes to torpor, true. But Pulled Fangs can be played after the damage is handled and before the vampire goes to torpor, according to the ruling. I would be happy with a simpler ruling, like the one you propose, but that kind of change is best made for reasons of balance and/or intent, and not simply to make my job easier. (And such a decision would be better left to an RT ruling - not a change to be made off-the-cuff by the net.rep.) > > The original form of that restriction was issued by the Rules Team > > in the Rulings Summary of 9 November 1994. In that statement, > > however, the RT used the phrase "during the press step", which > > inadvertently prohibited PF from being played if the victim was > > going to torpor (from too much damage, or from agg damage, or > > whatever). This restriction was not part of the intended use, as > > witnessed by the "not usable by a dying ally or a vampire going > > into torpor" clause (which would have no effect if PF was only > > usable during the press step, since vampires going to torpor do > > not reach the press step). > > It may or may not be intended...but it's not a school of thought > that is any less valid. As we've seen time and again, the restrictions > on cards can be redundant. (Obedience and NRA rule, for example) Obedience's card text is part of the official game. The NRA rule is just part of the tournament rules. They are not redundant. > > Tom Wylie later (1 October 1995) used (or rather, explained) an > > example of using PF when a Strike: Combat Ends resolves, "because > > the round is now ending." - indicating his belief the PF was to be > > played at the end of a round. > > Whether it is at the end of the round is not the point..but whether one > can use it _after_combat_ is. It is not being used after combat - it is being used as the round is ending. (When the opponent is about to go to torpor.) > > > An update, of sorts, on the timing matter came from Tom Wylie on 25 > > February 1996: > > > > Pulled Fangs is played when the round ends, regardless of when the > > round ends. For example, if you send a vampire to torpor via > > aggravated damage, you can yank its Fangs on its way out, even though > > you haven't reached the press step yet. > > This statement is moot as it predates your 6/28 ruling. My 9/28 ruling addressed effects like S:CE and Rotschreck. Not processes like damage resolution. Where new rulings don't contradict previous official statements, the previous statements are not moot. > > In general, since the 6 September 1995 ruling has never been > > overturned, playing multiple Pulled Fangs in a round has always > > been legal. And it is even sensible in the light of the statements > > by Tom. > > I would argue that since playing combat cards after a combat has ended is > illegal, this "legality" is an inherently false one. That has been argued before. But, since PF is not being played after combat, the argument doesn't apply. -- 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 -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Which, by the way is impossible now, as the first point of aggravated > > does no damage. > It does one damage. And it cannot be healed. Ok, this is bugging me. Everytime I think I have a handle on how the new agg damage works, I read something that has me wondering all over again. Situation: Vamp A 5/5 in combat with Vamp B 2/2 Vamp A does 2 Aggro damage to Vamp B Does Vamp B drop into Torpor with 0 blood? Or 1 blood? a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Currently, combat ends when a combatant is no longer ready (is burned > or goes to torpor), or when a Strike:Combat Ends resolves, or if there > are no presses to continue at the end of a round. With any of these > methods, there is a 'round ends' phase that you pass through on the > way to 'combat ends', and only after 'round ends' is over do you > actually leave 'combat'. I'd word it that the round ends when the combat ends, but OK. > During the end-of-round phase, you can > play Pulled Fangs; Unless some special effect is ending combat (like Rotschreck, Strike: Combat Ends, etc.). Such effects' resolutions cannot be interrupted, and once the effect is resolved, combat is over. Combat cards (like Pulled Fangs) cannot be played after combat. There's no special "end of round" phase: Pulled Fangs can at the end of a round (during the press step, after all presses) and can be played if the round is ending prematurely (with the opposing vampire going to torpor, for instance). [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > Which, by the way is impossible now, as the first point of aggravated > > > does no damage. > > It does one damage. And it cannot be healed. > > Ok, this is bugging me. Everytime I think I have a handle on how > the new agg damage works, I read something that has me wondering all > over again. The statement which followed the part you quoted clarified the situation. > Situation: > Vamp A 5/5 in combat with Vamp B 2/2 > Vamp A does 2 Aggro damage to Vamp B > > Does Vamp B drop into Torpor with 0 blood? Or 1 blood? 1 blood. He takes 2 agg. Agg. cannot be healed, so he doesn't burn any blood to heal. Handle two points of agg damage, one at a time: * one point of agg. He can't heal it. It is unhealed. It won't burn him, however, since he was unharmed. He still has two blood, since none was spent to heal or prevent destruction. * one point of agg. He can't heal it, and it will burn him since he is wounded (has already taken unhealed damage. He burns a blood to prevent destruction. This leaves him with one blood. And then he's on his way to torpor since he has not healed all the damage done to him. -- 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 -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

pa...@exis.net wrote in message <6vh1sb$eu6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > >Actually, I believe that pulled fangs was designed to burn vampires. >Which, by the way is impossible now, as the first point of aggravated Pulled Fangs was in the Jyhad release. In the Jyhad release, there was almost no way a single point of aggravated damage could ever burn a vampire. Therefore, I'd have to say that Pulled Fangs was never intended to be a vampire-burner. >does no damage. I believe the problem with pulled fangs resided in >people such as myself making decks designed to do one point of damage to >the opposing vampire in combat, prevent all of that vampires damage, >and send it to torpor. No, the problem with Pulled Fangs is that it is the cheapest way to inflict aggravated damage on an opponent, and can be useful in just about any deck. >Making it require potence, makes you usethe card the way it was intended >to be used, as sort of a finishingblow. I think this change would be good. >as it is now, I have about 30 pulled fangs, which I used to use quite >frequently. Now I find them about as useful as ascendence. It's still useful. Vampires that are low on blood and without fangs are less likely to be rescued from torpor, and even vampires with a fair bit of blood are going to be slowed down a bit. What a great card! -Mark Langsdorf Jyhad Archivist http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/

> Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > Since PF no longer does aggravated damage (Rule Team Rulings of > > > 7 July 1998), the question is not as interesting now. > > > ************************************************ > > > > Now...play nice with the less enlightened, LSJ. > > Just clarifying that this thread is discussing PF in a way that doesn't > match the official way. In that way, by discussing a non-existant card, > the discussion is less interesting than it would be if the card really > existed. In a mystical land called Michigan it is still played by the original text. (At least for now) However...whether the damage is aggravated or not as little relevance to the timing issue of when combat ends due to a vampire going to torpor. This issue would also apply to Disarm, Twisting the Knife and Taste of Vitae...not just PF. As it stands now, a vampire going to torpor can still play Disarm. I agree that the issue needs to be more than an off the cuff ruling. But that doesn't preclude us from having a discussion on the timing issue. I also agree that any change should be a RT decison since it possibly could redefine how the combat phase is timed. I don't think that a very concise description of a combat round has ever been given by someone in an official capacity. It's always been kind of patched together by various statements and rulings. Perhaps it should be defined in minute detail in such a way that would give a iron-clad structure to base future judgements on. Of course, this would give me no loopholes to argue from...but I can't imagine that that wouldn't please you. *grin* Noal McDonald Big Wig Gamer Dork of Westland, MI. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: : Joshua Duffin wrote: : > Currently, combat ends when a combatant is no longer ready (is burned : > or goes to torpor), or when a Strike:Combat Ends resolves, or if there : > are no presses to continue at the end of a round. With any of these : > methods, there is a 'round ends' phase that you pass through on the : > way to 'combat ends', and only after 'round ends' is over do you : > actually leave 'combat'. : I'd word it that the round ends when the combat ends, but OK. My take on this derived from the Rules Outline details on how to handle combat. It's divided into sections A-H; G is Round Ends, and H is Combat Ends. That division led me to the idea that 'round ends' is essentially a time period in the same way that 'establish range' or 'as combat is entered' are time periods. Of course, the Rules Outline may not be a definitive document, but it's the best thing we've had, I think. ;-) Although I just noticed what looks like an error in the combat section: in E.2.d, it says to go to step F if one or both combatants are no longer ready, but step F is Presses - I think that should probably say to go to G, 'Round Ends'. : > During the end-of-round phase, you can : > play Pulled Fangs; : Unless some special effect is ending combat (like Rotschreck, Strike: : Combat Ends, etc.). Such effects' resolutions cannot be interrupted, : and once the effect is resolved, combat is over. Combat cards (like : Pulled Fangs) cannot be played after combat. If Strike:Combat Ends does this, the Rules Outline may need to be changed to reflect that. It says at E.2.a.i, under Resolving Strikes, that when a Strike:Combat Ends resolves, you go to step G (Round Ends) and that any damage done by the strike is applied after combat (after step H). I agree that Rotschreck may end combat 'instantaneously'; Elysium probably does the same thing. But I would like it, for consistency's sake, if all combats ended the same way. Also, for Strike:Combat Ends, Drawing out the Beast has historically been able to inflict damage before the combat is actually over - but it can only do that if it 'knows' that the round is ending. I don't know if there's ever been a ruling on whether DotB damage occurs vs Rotschreck. : There's no special "end of round" phase: Pulled Fangs can at the end : of a round (during the press step, after all presses) and can be : played if the round is ending prematurely (with the opposing vampire : going to torpor, for instance). Looking at the updated rulebook, it appears that the intent was to simplify things in some respects, and combat is now described as having three steps in each round: Determine Range, Strike, and Press. But that still doesn't seem to include everything: before-range effects have to be played 'before the acting minion decides whether or not to play a maneuver at the start of this phase'. So I would say we might as well keep the 'end of round' phase from the Rules Outline, unless there's some compelling reason to get rid of it. (aside on the new rulebook: It is on the whole very good. But I want to pick some nits on the Strike:Combat Ends description. It does say above it, in the Strikes section, that opposing strikes are resolved simultaneously. But the wording 'This type of strike is always the first to resolve, even before a strike done with First Strike, and ends combat before other strikes can be resolved or any damage dealt' could be taken to imply that an acting minion's S:CE ends combat before the opposing minion's S:CE resolves - it might be good to clarify that, although it's possible that this is something only those used to the old descriptions would even think of. And the 'or any damage dealt' part might want to note that this only means damage from strikes (or other damage dealt at the same time as strikes or later); it won't avoid Weather Control or Drawing out the Beast damage.) Josh ain't no stoppin' the cretins from hoppin'

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: : > > Which, by the way is impossible now, as the first point of aggravated : > > does no damage. : > It does one damage. And it cannot be healed. : Ok, this is bugging me. Everytime I think I have a handle on how : the new agg damage works, I read something that has me wondering all : over again. : Situation: : Vamp A 5/5 in combat with Vamp B 2/2 : Vamp A does 2 Aggro damage to Vamp B : Does Vamp B drop into Torpor with 0 blood? Or 1 blood? 1 blood. The difference being pointed out above is that the first point of agg damage *does* count as damage (so it's not 'no damage'). Under the current rules, any time a vampire takes damage, it has to either burn blood to heal that damage or else go to torpor. Aggravated damage can never be healed. So if a vampire takes one point of agg damage and nothing else, it burns no blood (because it can't be healed), but must go to torpor. (Because it has unhealed damage.) If a vampire is already going to torpor (is 'wounded') and takes further agg damage, it must burn a blood for each agg to avoid beind burned. So if Bear Paw smacks Lupo with a Lucky Blow+Wolf Claws, Lupo has 2 agg damage on him. When we go to damage resolution, Lupo neglects to prevent any of it during damage prevention. So we go to heal/etc. The first point of agg cannot be healed, so Lupo is now wounded. The second point sees that Lupo is already wounded, so he must burn a blood to avoid being burned. He has one, so he burns it. That's all the damage, so Lupo goes to torpor with 1 blood on him. If instead we had Bear Paw with 3 Wolf Companions, and Bear Paw hit Lupo with a 1-damage hand strike plus Wolf Claws, Lupo would be taking 3 normal and 1 aggravated damage. Lupo would burn 1 blood to heal the first point of normal damage. He would burn 1 blood to heal the second point of normal damage. He would become wounded by the third point of normal damage. The single point of agg damage forces Lupo to burn a blood or be destroyed, since he is already wounded. As he has no blood, poor Lupo is burned. This last scenario is where the current system differs most obviously from the old Jyhad system. The old Jyhad system operated under a 'packeting' concept, which essentially meant that agg damage never burned vampires unless there were at least 2 points of agg from a single source of damage. That is no longer the case. It differs from the more recent VTES rules in that, under those rules, every point of agg damage required the recipient to burn a blood to avoid destruction. That is no longer the case. Now the recipient must only burn a blood to avoid destruction if he is already wounded. (It has always been the case that, when resolving damage, normal damage is handled first - ie the recipient burns blood to heal normal damage before it starts burning blood to prevent destruction from agg damage. This is still the case.) Josh hope that wasn't even more confusing... I know other people have put forth explanations before that have been helpful...

Well, I don't think I need to respond to much, if any, of what's been said, so I won't bother. I think we're all on the same level here. It seems that Pulled Fangs as written is not only overly powerful, but the text is very inadequate. The results are a bunch of confusing rulings, clarifications, and finally errata to neuter the card. LSJ, I'm not finding fault with the most recent (anti-agg) errata. Indeed, with the mess this thread has uncovered, it seems to be the simplest and best solution. I will maintain, however, that the errata makes the card marginally useful at best. 1 (albeit unpreventable) extra damage is not worth a card slot, especially since the restriction implies you are already dealing significant damage. Unfortunately I'm not coming up with any great ideas...what I really want is for PF to work like Disarm. I would imagine that in most of its uses since Jyhad came out, PF has been interchangeable with Disarm. It's too bad it had to have the confusion and loopholes to spoil the card. I'd like to scratch all current information on the card, and come up with some other (hopefully simple) change to balance it. Anyone? LSJ, is this feasible, or is this basically it for PF? I mean, if it's pointless to debate then I'll give up, but it would be too bad for players to have to try and replace all their PF with Disarms. ++ "and all my promises are lies ++ ++ all my love is hate ++ ++ I am the politician ++ ++ and I decide your fate" ++ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <19981007225429...@ng127.aol.com>, PDB6 <pd...@aol.com> writes >With the new rules, you need to do X+2 damage, at least one of >which needs to be aggrivated, to burn a vampire (where X=current blood on the >victim). X+2 in one go, as I understand it. Is Pulled Fangs considered to resolve at the same time as the strike that caused the damage? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <19981007224852...@ng127.aol.com>, PDB6 <pd...@aol.com> writes > >jbt wrote: >"I am going to have to argue here that there is actually a much smaller >difference than you think. Pulled Fangs (currently) would burn a vampire with >0 blood and on the way to torpor. Sure it's free, but I would think twice >about even bothering to play it." > >With a good Pot Rush deck, pretty much every vampire you send to torpor goes to >torpor with zero blood. If all it costs to burn them is a single Pulled Fangs >card, I can't for the life of me imagine _not_ wanting to play it. They have a Fame on them, and their Predator has 3 or less pool? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6vh1sb$eu6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, pa...@exis.net writes >Actually, I believe that pulled fangs was designed to burn vampires. Pulled Fangs was completely incapable of burning vampires under the Jyhad rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <19981007225429...@ng127.aol.com>, PDB6 > <pd...@aol.com> writes > >With the new rules, you need to do X+2 damage, at least one of > >which needs to be aggrivated, to burn a vampire (where X=current > >blood on the victim). > > X+2 in one go, as I understand it. Is Pulled Fangs considered to > resolve at the same time as the strike that caused the damage? Nope. Since the extra point of agg. damage is being done to a wounded vampire with no blood, that vampire is burned. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "'Look at my mask. Isn't it lovely? It raises the dead.' Americans!" -- Giles Official Jyhad/V:tES FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html

In article <6vj5qm$e...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: > (aside on the new rulebook: It is on the whole very good. But I want > to pick some nits on the Strike:Combat Ends description. It does say > above it, in the Strikes section, that opposing strikes are resolved > simultaneously. But the wording 'This type of strike is > always the first to resolve, even before a strike done with First Strike, > and ends combat before other strikes can be resolved or any damage dealt' > could be taken to imply that an acting minion's S:CE ends combat before > the opposing minion's S:CE resolves - it might be good to clarify that, > although it's possible that this is something only those used to the > old descriptions would even think of. This one has always confused me...my playgroup used to always play that you could cycle a strike as the blocker (but this rarely happened) vs. S:CE, but S:CE played by the acting minion pre-empted a S:CE by the blocking minion (this was usually one player trying to get superior Majesty off before superior Earth Meld...or the other way around...), allowing the acting minion to untap, but not the blocking minion. With Cat's Guidance, this wasn't a problem for the blocking Gangrel, but for those Toreador & Ventrue trying to block & untap with Majesty, it didn't work so well...so, what is the *real* deal with it? Are S:CE's simultaneous, or does one (presumably the acting minion's) beat the other? Xian "you can just ignore it....and let hand jam sort them out." -Jasper Phillips [ quoted text not captured ]

> I'd like to scratch all current information on the card, and come up with > some other (hopefully simple) change to balance it. Anyone? After all the shit he took (some of it from me) after completely rewriting ToR III, Return to Innocence, etc...I can safely say, "Not a palm tree's chance in Hell, MI." The current modification, while irritating to those of us who would rather the card be kept in its original form, still has most of its original purpose intact. If the only reason you played it was for the agg dmg, there are other cards out there for you. The extra text is very useful when applied intelligently. I would be extremely opposed to a complete rewrite. If you want to rewrite cards, then reprint them. Noal McDonald Grand Pooba of Westland, MI [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In article <19981007225429...@ng127.aol.com>, PDB6 > <pd...@aol.com> writes > >With the new rules, you need to do X+2 damage, at least one of > >which needs to be aggrivated, to burn a vampire (where X=current blood on the > >victim). > > X+2 in one go, as I understand it. Is Pulled Fangs considered to > resolve at the same time as the strike that caused the damage? Time of resolution is not important - there is no "packeting" ("in one go") to be concerned with. That was the problem with the old Jyhad agg damage rules. But, to answer the question, "no". PF comes later (during the press step) or, if the strike's resolution results in unhealed damage, PF can be played immediately after the strike damage (since the round will be ended prematurely by the opponent going to torpor). [ quoted text not captured ]

j...@inri.com wrote: : I'd like to scratch all current information on the card, and come up with : some other (hopefully simple) change to balance it. Anyone? As the owner of two Pulled Fangs and no Disarms, I would selfishly like Pulled Fangs to be more useful as well. (I'm still amazed by the people who actually have 30+ though - I don't have that many of *any* rare, and I've got quite a few cards.) My old playgroup (in Ithaca) used the "Pulled Fangs is just like Disarm" template for a while, and it was relatively okay, but that makes Pulled Fangs somewhat better than Disarm (usually) since PF doesn't require a discipline. (Disarm is usable by a vamp going to torpor, and of course it has different side effects.) So I'm not sure what the best fix for PF would be. I think using the Disarm template would be fairly reasonable, but I'd kinda like to see some minor drawback added in that case. : LSJ, is this feasible, or is this basically it for PF? I mean, if it's : pointless to debate then I'll give up, but it would be too bad for : players to have to try and replace all their PF with Disarms. ...However, I suspect that LSJ is probably averse to re-rewording PF, since it's already been changed once, and any further change would have to be demonstrably much better. Since PF is pretty clearly not real overpowered in its current wording, and it does still have some usability (the no-hunt/torpor if the victim tries can be handy), it may not be worthwhile to actually re-change Pulled Fangs at this point. Josh (the damage for pulled fangs currently *is* preventable by the way, as far as I know)

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: > : Joshua Duffin wrote: > : > Currently, combat ends when a combatant is no longer ready (is burned > : > or goes to torpor), or when a Strike:Combat Ends resolves, or if there > : > are no presses to continue at the end of a round. With any of these > : > methods, there is a 'round ends' phase that you pass through on the > : > way to 'combat ends', and only after 'round ends' is over do you > : > actually leave 'combat'. > > : I'd word it that the round ends when the combat ends, but OK. > > My take on this derived from the Rules Outline details on how to handle > combat. It's divided into sections A-H; G is Round Ends, and H is Combat > Ends. That division led me to the idea that 'round ends' is essentially > a time period in the same way that 'establish range' or 'as combat is > entered' are time periods. That's the nature of outlines. Perhaps the "Round Ends" could be bundled with "Combat Ends" - but that would be complicated since the round can end without the combat ending (when someone presses to continue, for instance). The "Round Ends" and "Combat Ends" are just place holders - used in an attempt to simply matters. Guess it's not enough. :-) > Of course, the Rules Outline may not be a definitive document, but it's > the best thing we've had, I think. ;-) Although I just noticed what looks > like an error in the combat section: in E.2.d, it says to go to step > F if one or both combatants are no longer ready, but step F is Presses - > I think that should probably say to go to G, 'Round Ends'. You're using an old version of the outline. Check the latest version (3.1), available on the Rulemonger page and posted to the NG on Sep 24: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=394386507 > : > During the end-of-round phase, you can > : > play Pulled Fangs; > > : Unless some special effect is ending combat (like Rotschreck, Strike: > : Combat Ends, etc.). Such effects' resolutions cannot be interrupted, > : and once the effect is resolved, combat is over. Combat cards (like > : Pulled Fangs) cannot be played after combat. > > If Strike:Combat Ends does this, the Rules Outline may need to be changed > to reflect that. It says at E.2.a.i, under Resolving Strikes, that when > a Strike:Combat Ends resolves, you go to step G (Round Ends) and that > any damage done by the strike is applied after combat (after step H). Current outline: V.C.2.a. i. Strike: Combat Ends. [6.4.5] (Apply steps E and F). Any damage done by this strike is applied after combat (after step F). V.E. Round Ends. [6.4.4] V.F. Combat Ends So, when resolving S:CE, the round ends and the combat ends and then any damage done by the S:CE is applied. Once that effect (resolution of S:CE) is concluded, combat is over and PF cannot be played. > I agree that Rotschreck may end combat 'instantaneously'; Elysium probably > does the same thing. But I would like it, for consistency's sake, > if all combats ended the same way. Say: death to both combatants? :-) All combats cannot end the same way, since there are so many ways to end combat: failure to press, one of the combatants leaving the ready region, S:CE, Elysium, Illusions of Kindred, etc. > Also, for Strike:Combat Ends, Drawing out the Beast has historically > been able to inflict damage before the combat is actually over - but > it can only do that if it 'knows' that the round is ending. I don't > know if there's ever been a ruling on whether DotB damage occurs vs > Rotschreck. It does. DotB knows the round is ending when the round ends. > : There's no special "end of round" phase: Pulled Fangs can at the end > : of a round (during the press step, after all presses) and can be > : played if the round is ending prematurely (with the opposing vampire > : going to torpor, for instance). > > Looking at the updated rulebook, it appears that the intent was to > simplify things in some respects, and combat is now described as having > three steps in each round: Determine Range, Strike, and Press. But > that still doesn't seem to include everything: before-range effects > have to be played 'before the acting minion decides whether or not > to play a maneuver at the start of this phase'. So I would say we > might as well keep the 'end of round' phase from the Rules Outline, > unless there's some compelling reason to get rid of it. The outline is simply using a placeholder to jump to from other points in the outline. > (aside on the new rulebook: It is on the whole very good. But I want > to pick some nits on the Strike:Combat Ends description. It does say > above it, in the Strikes section, that opposing strikes are resolved > simultaneously. But the wording 'This type of strike is > always the first to resolve, even before a strike done with First Strike, > and ends combat before other strikes can be resolved or any damage dealt' > could be taken to imply that an acting minion's S:CE ends combat before > the opposing minion's S:CE resolves - it might be good to clarify that, It says "this *type* of strike". Since the opposing minion's strike is also this type, I don't see the confusion. > although it's possible that this is something only those used to the > old descriptions would even think of. And the 'or any damage dealt' > part might want to note that this only means damage from strikes (or > other damage dealt at the same time as strikes or later); it won't > avoid Weather Control or Drawing out the Beast damage.) WC damage was inflicted and resolved before strikes were even chosen. DotB's damage happens whenever the round ends, so this is an example of card text overriding the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

xi...@waste.org wrote: > > In article <6vj5qm$e...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, > du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: > > > (aside on the new rulebook: It is on the whole very good. But I want > > to pick some nits on the Strike:Combat Ends description. It does say > > above it, in the Strikes section, that opposing strikes are resolved > > simultaneously. But the wording 'This type of strike is > > always the first to resolve, even before a strike done with First Strike, > > and ends combat before other strikes can be resolved or any damage dealt' > > could be taken to imply that an acting minion's S:CE ends combat before > > the opposing minion's S:CE resolves - it might be good to clarify that, > > although it's possible that this is something only those used to the > > old descriptions would even think of. > > This one has always confused me...my playgroup used to always play that you > could cycle a strike as the blocker (but this rarely happened) vs. S:CE, but > S:CE played by the acting minion pre-empted a S:CE by the blocking minion > (this was usually one player trying to get superior Majesty off before > superior Earth Meld...or the other way around...), allowing the acting minion > to untap, but not the blocking minion. With Cat's Guidance, this wasn't a > problem for the blocking Gangrel, but for those Toreador & Ventrue trying to > block & untap with Majesty, it didn't work so well...so, what is the *real* > deal with it? Are S:CE's simultaneous, or does one (presumably the acting > minion's) beat the other? They resolve simultaneously. [ quoted text not captured ]

j...@inri.com wrote: > Well, I don't think I need to respond to much, if any, of what's been said, > so I won't bother. I think we're all on the same level here. > > It seems that Pulled Fangs as written is not only overly powerful, but > the text is very inadequate. The results are a bunch of confusing > rulings, clarifications, and finally errata to neuter the card. > > LSJ, I'm not finding fault with the most recent (anti-agg) errata. > Indeed, with the mess this thread has uncovered, it seems to be the > simplest and best solution. > > I will maintain, however, that the errata makes the card marginally useful > at best. 1 (albeit unpreventable) extra damage is not worth a card slot, > especially since the restriction implies you are already dealing > significant damage. The damage is not unpreventable. And the card has a greater effect than just 1 extra damage. And the restriction doesn't necessarily imply significant damage - it could imply mere damage prevention (I punch you for one damage and play Skin of Steel to prevent all of the damage done to me - and I pull you fangs). > Unfortunately I'm not coming up with any great ideas...what I really want > is for PF to work like Disarm. I would imagine that in most of its uses > since Jyhad came out, PF has been interchangeable with Disarm. It's too > bad it had to have the confusion and loopholes to spoil the card. > > I'd like to scratch all current information on the card, and come up with > some other (hopefully simple) change to balance it. Anyone? > > LSJ, is this feasible, or is this basically it for PF? Complete re-writes are to be avoided when possible. And, since the current errata on PF makes the card fairly balanced, I think avoiding the re-write is very possible. > I mean, if it's > pointless to debate then I'll give up, but it would be too bad for > players to have to try and replace all their PF with Disarms. That would be strange, since Disarm is not strictly more powerful than PF, and requires potence in addition. [ quoted text not captured ]

xi...@waste.org wrote: : This one has always confused me...my playgroup used to always play that you : could cycle a strike as the blocker (but this rarely happened) vs. S:CE, but : S:CE played by the acting minion pre-empted a S:CE by the blocking minion : (this was usually one player trying to get superior Majesty off before : superior Earth Meld...or the other way around...), allowing the acting minion : to untap, but not the blocking minion. With Cat's Guidance, this : wasn't a : problem for the blocking Gangrel, but for those Toreador & Ventrue trying to : block & untap with Majesty, it didn't work so well...so, what is the *real* : deal with it? Are S:CE's simultaneous, or does one (presumably the acting : minion's) beat the other? Historically, the rule is that opposing Strike:Combat Ends strikes resolve simultaneously. (I think that long long ago, in a galaxy far far away, this may not have been the case. But it has worked this way for a long time now.) So if the acting player Majesties and untaps, the blocking player may also Majesty and untap. It has always been the case that you could cycle a strike as the blocker vs S:CE; it just usually won't do anything useful. Josh 'king solomon's mines, exit seventy five'

LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: : Joshua Duffin wrote: : > : > My take on this derived from the Rules Outline details on how to handle : > combat. It's divided into sections A-H; G is Round Ends, and H is Combat : > Ends. That division led me to the idea that 'round ends' is essentially : > a time period in the same way that 'establish range' or 'as combat is : > entered' are time periods. : That's the nature of outlines. Perhaps the "Round Ends" could : be bundled with "Combat Ends" - but that would be complicated : since the round can end without the combat ending (when someone : presses to continue, for instance). : The "Round Ends" and "Combat Ends" are just place holders - used : in an attempt to simply matters. Guess it's not enough. :-) Heh. Guess not. I suppose what I want is definitive rules for 'timing' in combat. (I don't like the word 'timing' either, since there is no 'timing' in Jyhad in the sense of 'timing' in Magic. But there are clearly ideas of 'time' involved in when things are and can be played...) So I was figuring that the organization of the Rules Outline was meant to define the various segments of time that are available in combat. : > Of course, the Rules Outline may not be a definitive document, but it's : > the best thing we've had, I think. ;-) Although I just noticed what looks : > like an error in the combat section: in E.2.d, it says to go to step : > F if one or both combatants are no longer ready, but step F is Presses - : > I think that should probably say to go to G, 'Round Ends'. : You're using an old version of the outline. Check the latest : version (3.1), available on the Rulemonger page and posted to : the NG on Sep 24: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=394386507 You're right, I was looking at an old version. I was using the Mike Bohlmann Rulemonger mirror, which evidently is slightly out of date; the George Fink mirror has the newer version you're referring to. : Current outline: : V.C.2.a. i. Strike: Combat Ends. [6.4.5] (Apply steps E and F). Any damage : done : by this strike is applied after combat (after step F). : V.E. Round Ends. [6.4.4] : V.F. Combat Ends : So, when resolving S:CE, the round ends and the combat ends and : then any damage done by the S:CE is applied. : Once that effect (resolution of S:CE) is concluded, combat is over : and PF cannot be played. I can see that now... I don't really *like* it, but I can see it... :-) : > I agree that Rotschreck may end combat 'instantaneously'; Elysium probably : > does the same thing. But I would like it, for consistency's sake, : > if all combats ended the same way. : Say: death to both combatants? :-) Yes, that would be acceptable. ;) : All combats cannot end the same way, since there are so many ways : to end combat: failure to press, one of the combatants leaving : the ready region, S:CE, Elysium, Illusions of Kindred, etc. Well, not all combats can have the same *results*, but I would find it pleasing if the rules handled them in the same way. It seems to me that it would be *possible* for all these methods of ending combat to pass through an 'end of round phase' before they get to 'end of combat' at which point the combat is over. I don't think it would even break anything at the moment - it would potentially allow things like Pulled Fangs against S:CE and Rotschreck which is not the way it currently works, but I don't think that would be a substantially 'bad' way for it to work. : > Also, for Strike:Combat Ends, Drawing out the Beast has historically : > been able to inflict damage before the combat is actually over - but : > it can only do that if it 'knows' that the round is ending. I don't : > know if there's ever been a ruling on whether DotB damage occurs vs : > Rotschreck. : It does. DotB knows the round is ending when the round ends. To me this implies that there is some time available in which the round is ending - in that time period it should be possible to play Pulled Fangs. I don't like the contradiction (in my mind) of DotB seeing the end of the round as it comes along, but Pulled Fangs not being able to see it. Of course, it may be that I'm the only person this sort of thing matters to... : > Looking at the updated rulebook, it appears that the intent was to : > simplify things in some respects, and combat is now described as having : > three steps in each round: Determine Range, Strike, and Press. But : > that still doesn't seem to include everything: before-range effects : > have to be played 'before the acting minion decides whether or not : > to play a maneuver at the start of this phase'. So I would say we : > might as well keep the 'end of round' phase from the Rules Outline, : > unless there's some compelling reason to get rid of it. : The outline is simply using a placeholder to jump to from other : points in the outline. Yes; this bothers me. :-) : > (aside on the new rulebook: It is on the whole very good. But I want : > to pick some nits on the Strike:Combat Ends description. It does say : > above it, in the Strikes section, that opposing strikes are resolved : > simultaneously. But the wording 'This type of strike is : > always the first to resolve, even before a strike done with First Strike, : > and ends combat before other strikes can be resolved or any damage dealt' : > could be taken to imply that an acting minion's S:CE ends combat before : > the opposing minion's S:CE resolves - it might be good to clarify that, : It says "this *type* of strike". Since the opposing minion's strike : is also this type, I don't see the confusion. It's not very confusing, but the 'before other strikes can be resolved' could potentially be taken to mean that the other vampire's strike wouldn't get to resolve. The Rules Outline makes it clear that strikes of the same type always resolve simultaneously, but I don't think the rulebook itself does. : > old descriptions would even think of. And the 'or any damage dealt' : > part might want to note that this only means damage from strikes (or : > other damage dealt at the same time as strikes or later); it won't : > avoid Weather Control or Drawing out the Beast damage.) : WC damage was inflicted and resolved before strikes were even chosen. : DotB's damage happens whenever the round ends, so this is an example : of card text overriding the rules. Well, I know that, and you know that, but it's possible that someone who doesn't already know how these cards interact would think it works the other way. :-) Josh playing newbie's advocate (or something)

> So, when resolving S:CE, the round ends and the combat ends and > then any damage done by the S:CE is applied. I 've a question that's been bugging me. If I play Dawn Operations and Catatonic Fear, is the damage from Catatonic Fear aggravated? Noal McDonald Archbishop of Westland, MI [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > If I play Dawn Operations and Catatonic Fear, is the damage from > Catatonic Fear aggravated? No. Dawn Op only affects damage done during the block-combat, and damage from CataFear is done after the combat ends (from the resolution of S:CE). Mr. Hamblin - perhaps this question is ready for the FAQ. (Search DejaNews for "Fear & Dawn & ~a vtesrep@*") -- 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 -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> > If I play Dawn Operations and Catatonic Fear, is the damage from > > Catatonic Fear aggravated? > > No. Dawn Op only affects damage done during the block-combat, and > damage from CataFear is done after the combat ends (from the resolution > of S:CE). *nods* I tought so. I just wanted to make sure before I tried it. Thanks, Noal McDonald Duke of Westland, MI [ quoted text not captured ]