Ok, since I was about two cards away from being able to attempt to
pull off the following stunt in a game, I need to know if it was even
worth worrying about.
An offending minion, with thaumaturgy and an ivory bow, blocks Donal
O'Connor (DO/PO/CE). In anticipation of an ag-damage/rotschreck
combo, I'd like for Donal to drop a Thoughts Betrayed before combat
(negating Burst of Sunlight) and use Fast Hands to steal the Ivory Bow
w/ First Strike. T.B. doesn't have a problem, but can Fast Hands
prevent the use of the weapon to threaten ag-damage?
mi...@avana.net wrote in article <37426d72...@news.avana.net>...
[snip]
> T.B. doesn't have a problem, but can Fast Hands
> prevent the use of the weapon to threaten ag-damage?
If a grenade stolen with first strike is never used (and therefore not
burned) (see my previous question answered by LSJ), I would think that the
Ivory Bow or any other weapon also gets stolen before it is used. Seems to
me that you would successfully prevent the other Meth from attempting to
use ag-dam "against a vampire."
KM
mi...@avana.net wrote:
>
> Ok, since I was about two cards away from being able to attempt to
> pull off the following stunt in a game, I need to know if it was even
> worth worrying about.
>
> An offending minion, with thaumaturgy and an ivory bow, blocks Donal
> O'Connor (DO/PO/CE). In anticipation of an ag-damage/rotschreck
> combo, I'd like for Donal to drop a Thoughts Betrayed before combat
> (negating Burst of Sunlight) and use Fast Hands to steal the Ivory Bow> w/ First Strike. T.B. doesn't have a problem, but can Fast Hands> prevent the use of the weapon to threaten ag-damage?
The superior Fast Hands will prevent the use of the weapon, but
it doesn't prevent the attempt to use the weapon. The attempt
comes when the minion announces that he will strike with the
weapon. So Rotschreck can still be played on Donal if the
thaumaturgist chooses "Ivory Bow" as his strike.
--
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
mi...@avana.net wrote:
> In anticipation of an ag-damage/rotschreck
> combo, I'd like for Donal to drop a Thoughts Betrayed before combat
> (negating Burst of Sunlight) and use Fast Hands to steal the Ivory Bow
> w/ First Strike. T.B. doesn't have a problem, but can Fast Hands
> prevent the use of the weapon to threaten ag-damage?
Absolutely. He can't attempt to use the Ivory Bow if he doesn't have
it. If it wasn't at First Strike, he could still use the Bow.
Noal
--
"You can't imagine the extra work I had when I was a god."
-Hirohito, Emperor of Japan (1901-1989)
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
> Ok, since I was about two cards away from being able to attempt to pull
> off the following stunt in a game, I need to know if it was even worth
> worrying about.
>
> An offending minion, with thaumaturgy and an ivory bow, blocks Donal> O'Connor (DO/PO/CE). In anticipation of an ag-damage/rotschreck combo,> I'd like for Donal to drop a Thoughts Betrayed before combat (negating
> Burst of Sunlight) and use Fast Hands to steal the Ivory Bow w/ First
> Strike. T.B. doesn't have a problem, but can Fast Hands prevent the
> use of the weapon to threaten ag-damage?
I'm pretty sure the sequence of combat is close to the following:
1. Determine Range. Use maneuvers to set the range to close or long.
2. Strike. Announce and resolve strikes. (Repeat for additional strikes)
2.1 Announce First Strike
2.2 Announce Strike (non First Strike)
2.3 Resolve First Strike
2.4 Resolve Strike (non First Strike)
3. Press. Use presses to continue into another round or to end combat.
Since the Resolve First Strike phase takes place after the Announce Strike
phase, the opposing minion did get to attempt the damage, he just didn't
get the damage (from the non First Strike) resolved.
Thinking about this though, I have a question or three for the older
players. Did Resolve First Strike used to be before Announce Strike? Did
First Strike used to beat out Dodge or S:CE? Does anyone think that First
Strike should beat out Dodge and S:CE?
p.
>Did Resolve First Strike used to be before Announce Strike?
No, announce then first strike resolves, then normal strikes.
>Did
> First Strike used to beat out Dodge or S:CE?
No.
>Does anyone think that First
> Strike should beat out Dodge and S:CE?
NO! Let's not start this again. Some SHOULD and some SHOULDN'T according to
just about everything you could sight from the real world to the game world
(i.e. Role Playing Game). You can't differentiate from the two in something
that should be relatively simpler like this card
game.
Vince
> >>Does anyone think that First Strike should beat out Dodge and S:CE?<<
>
> NO! Let's not start this again. Some SHOULD and some SHOULDN'T according to
> just about everything you could sight from the real world to the game world
> (i.e. Role Playing Game). You can't differentiate from the two in something
> that should be relatively simpler like this card game.
I was just fishing for opinions here. I'm not trying to take from any
role-playing games on this issue (non issue really).
It's just that we all seem to agree that S:CE is too common in tournament
environments. Maybe "all" is too strong, but that's the feeling I get. Anyway,
if First Strike beat out Dodge or S:CE, doesn't it seem like that would help a
few combat decks in tournament environments? I can't see it hurting any decks,
except the S:CE decks. And even those wouldn't be hurt that badly, as First
Strike cards that don't deal solely with weapons aren't in abundance. It may
also be that those cards are all rare and this would create an unpleasant scene.
I'm not positive on any of this by any means. Just throwing out a thought, and
wanting to hear opinions.
p.
Patrick Harris wrote:
>
> > >>Does anyone think that First Strike should beat out Dodge and S:CE?<<
[clip]
> I'm not positive on any of this by any means. Just throwing out a thought, and
> wanting to hear opinions.
I'll make a desperate and probably futile attempt here to try to stave
off the debate (re-debate?) of this issue since it was so recently
discussed.
I'd like to suggest a quick trip to DejaNews to review the many opinions
on the subject and then, if you have anything new to add to the debate,
start another thread.
--
Robert Goudie
rrgo...@earthlink.net
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
> >>>>Does anyone think that First Strike should beat out Dodge and S:CE?> I'm not positive on any of this by any means. Just throwing out a thought, and
> wanting to hear opinions.<<<<
>
> I'll make a desperate and probably futile attempt here to try to stave off the
> debate (re-debate?) of this issue since it was so recently discussed.
>
> I'd like to suggest a quick trip to DejaNews to review the many opinions on the
> subject and then, if you have anything new to add to the debate, start another
> thread.
I checked out DejaNews, but I found the debates to be mainly about whether the
creators of Jyhad intended Dodge to beat out First Strike and how the rules could be
interpreted either way.
I guess what I'm looking for are views on what it would do to gameplay if First
Strike did beat out Dodge or S:CE or both. If I missed the thread at DejaNews with
the opinions I'm looking for, feel free to give me a nudge.
[And if there are no replies to this, I won't linger on it =) ]
p.
Patrick Harris wrote:
>>I guess what I'm looking for are views on what it would do to gameplay if
First
Strike did beat out Dodge or S:CE or both. If I missed the thread at DejaNews
with
the opinions I'm looking for, feel free to give me a nudge.
[And if there are no replies to this, I won't linger on it =) ]>>
What it'll do to game play is in there as well, but to recap:
If FS beats dodge, but not S:CE, it fixes nothing, as dodge isn't really a
problem for combat decks--between presses and additional strikes, both of which
are highly available to all clans who have access to FS (who--the Assamites and
Celerity clans?), dodges have little effect on any clans who have access to FS.
If FS beats S:CE also, it becomes slightly helpful for the Assamites, but no
one else (as the Brujah have access to IG, making the FS plan uneccessary and
inferior in any circumstance), but probably not enough to warrant changing the
rules--as it is, the Assamites have access to Psyche, which will be pretty much
just as efective as FS (if it beat S:CE).
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"Sigfreid?"
"Roy?"
"One of the tigers?"
-Willow
PDB6 <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:19990522110307...@ng50.aol.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
As I've mentioned earlier. S:CE doesn't always represent the ability to
avoid or evade attacks, it sometimes represents the ability to prevent the
attack altogether (or in meaning, that the attack could NEVER have
happened). In the case of Majesty, it means that the vampire has such an
awesome presence that they could not have been attacked in the first place.
The same goes for Staredown in which the vampire's ability to intimidate his
opponent causes the opponent to run in fear (at Superior, at inferior it's
only powerful enough to prevent one attack). Earth Meld for instance is the
ability of a vampire to hide in the ground and Form of Mist similarly turns
the vampire into a mostly invulnerable form. Why should First Strike in
these cases change anything? Does a surprise attack really mean anything to
a vampire that is alread in the ground or who has a strong enough Presence
that he couldn't attack? Does the speed of their attack effect this either?
No.
Ok, so the argument comes down to a game mechanic. As mentioned, some
clans are helpless to S:CE and others aren't. I personally don't have a fix
for the problem because all of the possibilities I've found cause just as
many problems as the current rules. The only thing I think we can hope for
is that some of the few cards that are released in this mini-mini set later
this year will get around S:CE.
Vince
> What it'll do to game play is in there as well, but to recap:
>
> If FS beats dodge, but not S:CE, it fixes nothing, as dodge isn't really a
> problem for combat decks--between presses and additional strikes, both of which
> are highly available to all clans who have access to FS (who--the Assamites and
> Celerity clans?), dodges have little effect on any clans who have access to FS.
>
> If FS beats S:CE also, it becomes slightly helpful for the Assamites, but no one
> else (as the Brujah have access to IG, making the FS plan uneccessary and
> inferior in any circumstance), but probably not enough to warrant changing the
> rules--as it is, the Assamites have access to Psyche, which will be pretty much
> just as efective as FS (if it beat S:CE).
Well, it would also help the Toreador combat decks a bit, but not much. I agree
though, that it wouldn't be enough help to warrant a rules change. Although if it
does help a clan that is hardly effective without the change to be somewhat
effective with it, and the change doesn't really hurt any other clan, I can't see
that it would be much of a problem either.
p.
"Kristyl Meth" <dapa...@riderlaw.com> wrote:
> mi...@avana.net wrote:
> > [Regarding the usability of Rotschreck]> > T.B. doesn't have a problem, but can Fast Hands
> > prevent the use of the weapon to threaten ag-damage?
>> If a grenade stolen with first strike is never used
> (and therefore not burned) (see my previous question
> answered by LSJ), I would think that the Ivory Bow or
> any other weapon also gets stolen before it is used.
> Seems to me that you would successfully prevent the
> other Meth from attempting to use ag-dam "against a
> vampire."
While in the case of a First Strike steal/destroy weapon
(or strike: combat ends), the weapon is not used (so
would not self-burn in the case of a grenade), the
attempt to use the weapon is still there - the attempt
is identified in the "choose strike" phase.
Rotschreck could be played on an Ivory Bow strike even
if the opposing vamp attempts to steal/destroy the Bow
with First Strike (or attempts to strike: combat ends).
--
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
> As I've mentioned earlier. S:CE doesn't always represent the ability to
> avoid or evade attacks, it sometimes represents the ability to prevent the
> attack altogether (or in meaning, that the attack could NEVER have happened).
> In the case of Majesty, it means that the vampire has such an awesome presence
> that they could not have been attacked in the first place. The same goes for
> Staredown in which the vampire's ability to intimidate his opponent causes the
> opponent to run in fear (at Superior, at inferior it's only powerful enough to
> prevent one attack). Earth Meld for instance is the
> ability of a vampire to hide in the ground and Form of Mist similarly turns
> the vampire into a mostly invulnerable form. Why should First Strike in these
> cases change anything? Does a surprise attack really mean anything to a
> vampire that is alread in the ground or who has a strong enough Presence
> that he couldn't attack? Does the speed of their attack effect this either?
> No.
Ah, but now you are talking in terms of the RPG, in which Presence doesn't work
at all on older vampires. And with all of the powers named, which are at least
level 3 powers (5 for Majesty), a little weenie vampire probably wouldn't have
the power listed anyway, as it is too young to have learned it.
> Ok, so the argument comes down to a game mechanic. As mentioned, some
> clans are helpless to S:CE and others aren't. I personally don't have a fix
> for the problem because all of the possibilities I've found cause just as many
> problems as the current rules.
Same here.
> The only thing I think we can hope for is that some of the few cards that are
> released in this mini-mini set later this year will get around S:CE.
We'll see.
p.
> Rotschreck could be played on an Ivory Bow strike even
> if the opposing vamp attempts to steal/destroy the Bow
> with First Strike (or attempts to strike: combat ends).
So, if I steal Ivory Bow with first strike and my opponent uses Ivory Bow,
then I play Rotz to end combat, who's got the Ivory Bow? Neither strike
resolves, so my opponent keeps it, right?
KM
"vtesrep" <vte...@wizards.com (LSJ)> wrote:
> the attempt to use the weapon is still there - the attempt
> is identified in the "choose strike" phase.
>> Rotschreck could be played on an Ivory Bow strike even
> if the opposing vamp attempts to steal/destroy the Bow
> with First Strike (or attempts to strike: combat ends).
However, your revised rule book contradicts your ruling.
6.4.5. Strike Effects
First Strike.
If the opposing minion was striking with a weapon that is stolen or
destroyed with First Strike, then the opposing minion simply loses his
strike altogether.
Since the strike is lost altogether, no attempt is actually made.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > Rotschreck could be played on an Ivory Bow strike even if the opposing
> vamp attempts to steal/destroy the Bow with First Strike (or attempts to
> strike: combat ends).
>> So, if I steal Ivory Bow with first strike and my opponent uses Ivory Bow,
> then I play Rotz to end combat, who's got the Ivory Bow? Neither strike
> resolves, so my opponent keeps it, right?
Well, you couldn't play Rotschreck because you weren't attempting to use
aggravated damage. But if your opponent played it then yes, he'd keep the
Ivory Bow and you'd go to torpor from the Rotschreck.
p.
> However, your revised rule book contradicts your ruling.
>
> 6.4.5. Strike Effects
> First Strike.
> If the opposing minion was striking with a weapon that is stolen or
> destroyed with First Strike, then the opposing minion simply loses his
> strike altogether.
>
> Since the strike is lost altogether, no attempt is actually made.
You lose the strike, but not the attempt. I think that's why you aren't
allowed to then choose a different strike if your strike is cancelled in
such a way. You're stuck with nothing, rather than being able to choose a
replacement strike. I think that shows that the attempt was still made.
p.
>> 6.4.5. Strike Effects
>> First Strike.
>> If the opposing minion was striking with a weapon that is stolen or
>> destroyed with First Strike, then the opposing minion simply loses
>> his strike altogether.
>>
>> Since the strike is lost altogether, no attempt is actually made.>
> You lose the strike, but not the attempt.
Actually, according to the wording, I'd say you lose both.
You lose the strike altogether means (to me) that you
don't get a strike at all, same as with Hidden Lurker, etc.
> You're stuck with nothing, rather than being able to choose a
> replacement strike. I think that shows that the attempt was still
> made.
Look at your wording again. "You're stuck with nothing."
Nothing doesn't indicate even an attempt. Logically, you
can't attempt to strike with a weapon you don't have.
To be honest, I would prefer to force the minion whose weapon
was being stolen to choose a different strike. It would clear
up the timing issue altogether.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Actually, according to the wording, I'd say you lose both. You lose the
> strike altogether means (to me) that you don't get a strike at all, same
> as with Hidden Lurker, etc.
The wording may be sketchy, but the difference is that you did get to try
to play the card before the strike is taken away (unlike HL where you
didn't even get to try).
> >>You're stuck with nothing, rather than being able to choose a
> replacement strike. I think that shows that the attempt was still
> made.<<
>
> Look at your wording again. "You're stuck with nothing." Nothing
> doesn't indicate even an attempt. Logically, you can't attempt to
> strike with a weapon you don't have.
I agree that you can't strike with a weapon that you don't have. But the
ruling that you don't get a different strike leads me to think that you
did actually get the attempt to use the weapon. Therefore the Rotschreck
can be played.
For instance, if you don't intend to use the weapon, and try to strike
with something else, your attempt is successful and weapon gets stolen by
the opposing minion. If you choose the weapon and it gets stolen, your
attempt is not successful. It's not really like Hidden Lurker where you
never had a strike attempt of any kind to begin with.
I look at it as though, if the weapon were a gun, he takes it as you are
firing, but you hit nothing. Same effect. You are stuck with that
strike, but there isn't an effect.
> To be honest, I would prefer to force the minion whose weapon was being
> stolen to choose a different strike. It would clear up the timing issue
> altogether.
I would prefer it that way as well I think. But then I'd prefer it if FS
actually resolved before normal strikes were stated. That's just me
though.
p.
[ quoted text not captured ]
You can play Rotschreck on your own vampire, if you're of a mind to.
And yes, the steal/destroy strike would not resolve, so the Bow would
remain with the other minion.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Patrick Harris wrote:
>
> > However, your revised rule book contradicts your ruling.
> >> > 6.4.5. Strike Effects
> > First Strike.
> > If the opposing minion was striking with a weapon that is stolen or
> > destroyed with First Strike, then the opposing minion simply loses his
> > strike altogether.
> >
> > Since the strike is lost altogether, no attempt is actually made.
>> You lose the strike, but not the attempt. I think that's why you aren't
> allowed to then choose a different strike if your strike is cancelled in> such a way. You're stuck with nothing, rather than being able to choose a> replacement strike. I think that shows that the attempt was still made.
Correct. There is no contradiction. The attempt is not the strike
itself. It is the attempt to strike. The attempt is still made even
though the strike would be lost.
[ quoted text not captured ]
dhar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >> 6.4.5. Strike Effects
> >> First Strike.
> >> If the opposing minion was striking with a weapon that is stolen or
> >> destroyed with First Strike, then the opposing minion simply loses
> >> his strike altogether.
> >>
> >> Since the strike is lost altogether, no attempt is actually made.
> >
> > You lose the strike, but not the attempt.
>> Actually, according to the wording, I'd say you lose both.
You'd read something into the wording, then.
Something that isn't there.
> You lose the strike altogether means (to me) that you
> don't get a strike at all, same as with Hidden Lurker, etc.
This is unlike Hidden Lurker.
You don't lose the strike until the opposing strike (the one that is
stealing/destroying your weapon) resolves. Then, during strike
resolution, you'd find yourself incapable of performing the strike
you were attempting to use.
But Rotschreck would be played well before that point - before
strike resolution altogether - at a time when your attempt is
even still valid (since you still have the weapon).
> > You're stuck with nothing, rather than being able to choose a
> > replacement strike. I think that shows that the attempt was still
> > made.
>> Look at your wording again. "You're stuck with nothing."
> Nothing doesn't indicate even an attempt. Logically, you
But you don't get "stuck" with nothing until the strike
resolution. Then the "nothing" you are stuck with is "no
strike". You have already passed the attempt step.
> can't attempt to strike with a weapon you don't have.
You do still have the weapon when you announce the attempt (choose
your strike).
> To be honest, I would prefer to force the minion whose weapon
> was being stolen to choose a different strike. It would clear
> up the timing issue altogether.
Great. And if the "steal weapon" strike was a "Blood Rage"
strike instead, would the minion get to switch to a non-weapon
strike?
This clears up nothing and would actually complicate things.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> >>>>Well, you couldn't play Rotschreck because you weren't attempting to use
> aggravated damage. But if your opponent played it then yes, he'd keep the Ivory
> Bow and you'd go to torpor from the Rotschreck.<<<<
>
> You can play Rotschreck on your own vampire, if you're of a mind to.
If you're of a crazy mind to. =)
With Fame changed I can't think of a reason you'd want to do that, except as a
last resort way to either ditch the card, save your vampire from being burned
outright in combat or gain blood through diablerie. Hmm... or keep the Ivory
Bow. Okay, there are reasons. But they're all very risky, I think.
I was just thinking in terms of who was attempting the aggravated damage. In this
case the opposing vampire was attempting the aggravated, so he couldn't play
Rotscreck on the opposing vampire. I see what you mean though, in that he could
play it instead on himself if he wanted.
> And yes, the steal/destroy strike would not resolve, so the Bow would remain
> with the other minion.
One of those crazy reasons. =)
p.