Rotschreck vs Combat Ends

Sequence of combat: Vampire A declares an action. Vampire B tries to block. "No stealth played, action is blocked and combat begins" Vampire A doesn´t maneuver. Vampire B doesn´t either "Round at close range" Vampire A declares its strike: Superior version of Form of Mist (combat ends continuing the action at +1 stealth) Vampire B controller plays Claws of the dead (protean in both decks, interesting) and a Rotschreck. Is that possible? We haven´t found enough acclaration in the Official C, Rulings and Errata. There´s a sentence that says: "Cannot be played in response to an announcement of a strike (or other effect) that is not effective at the current range." I think that the Rotschreck can not be played under that circunstances, but other people think that you can. Another cases in wich could exist some confusion would be, for example: - Vampire playing CotD has 0 hand damage. - Vampire A plays dodge instead of Combat ends. Darkelf

Vamp A goes to torpor, the action does not continue Darkelf <darkelf@no_spamnavegalia.com> a écrit dans le message : 39bcc0a5$1@news... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <39bcc0a5$1@news>, "Darkelf" <darkelf@no_spamnavegalia.com> wrote: > Sequence of combat: > > Vampire A declares an action. > > Vampire B tries to block. > > "No stealth played, action is blocked and combat begins" > > Vampire A doesn´t maneuver. > > Vampire B doesn´t either > > "Round at close range" > > Vampire A declares its strike: Superior version of Form of Mist (combat ends > continuing the action at +1 stealth) > > Vampire B controller plays Claws of the dead (protean in both decks, > interesting) and a Rotschreck. > > Is that possible? > > We haven´t found enough acclaration in the Official C, Rulings and Errata. > There´s a sentence that says: "Cannot be played in response to an > announcement of a strike (or other effect) that is not effective at the > current range." > > I think that the Rotschreck can not be played under that circunstances, but > other people think that you can. You can: Rotschreck is playable if a blocking minion threats to deal aggravated damage. In your example that#s definetely the case. Rotschreck ends combat immediately, so the strike resolution phase is never reached, thus: No combat ends due to Catatonic Fear.´ > > Another cases in wich could exist some confusion would be, for example: > > - Vampire playing CotD has 0 hand damage. Well, if there’s no threat of inflictiing aggarvated damage, Rotschreck cannot be played. The threat would be there if that vampire played Lucky Blow though. > > - Vampire A plays dodge instead of Combat ends. He goes to torpor - as in the first case, strike resolution is never reached. Rotschreck is an interesting card as you can see in those Malk-out-of-tum-combat decks posted a while ago (check Legbiter's deck archive at legbiter.tripod.com - by the way, all links were dead when I checked a few days ago. Has that been fixed, Lasombra (or whoever runs the page)?) Regards Skaffen Chantry Elder Of Munich "Our hearts discern wild images of Death, Shadows and shoals that edge eternity." Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

My apologies to Lasombra, I just found out that the problem with legbiter.tripod.com is already worked upon. Nasty habit just to type away before knowing what else is discussed on the forum. [ quoted text not captured ]

Darkelf wrote: > [A is blocked by B. Close range] > Vampire A declares its strike: Superior version of Form of Mist (combat ends > continuing the action at +1 stealth) > > Vampire B controller plays Claws of the dead (protean in both decks, > interesting) and a Rotschreck. > > Is that possible? Yes, if B declares his strike as "hands". > Another cases in wich could exist some confusion would be, for example: > - Vampire playing CotD has 0 hand damage. No rotschreck. Attempting to strike for zero damage is not sufficient for "attempting to use aggravated damage". > - Vampire A plays dodge instead of Combat ends. No better. He's still subject to Rotschreck. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

I'm bored, so I'll answer this one. On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Darkelf wrote: > Vampire A declares its strike: Superior version of Form of Mist (combat ends > continuing the action at +1 stealth) > > Vampire B controller plays Claws of the dead (protean in both decks, > interesting) and a Rotschreck. > > Is that possible? I believe yes. Rotschreck can be used both offensively and defensively. In case that "seems wrong" for intuitive reasons, here's a rationale for you. Rotschreck is a defensive instinctual vampiric response, that saves them from destruction in certain situations by sending them prematurely to torpor. However, most instinctive responses can operate at inconventient times ... and not to your particular benefit. One might, for instance, vomit at the sight of something unusually disgusting and unsanitary, even though there may be no rational reason for believing that anything you recently ate was tainted. Or like fainting (going into shock) at the sight of someone ELSE's injury. Similarly, the proximity of a source of aggravated damage might sent a vampire to torpor, even if he had no *rational* reason for believing it would effect him. So Vampire B sees Vampire A sprout those incredibly nasty-looking claws, and his instincts kick in ... even though he knows that his "Form of Mist" will take effect before those claws can quite reach him. > We haven愒 found enough acclaration in the Official C, Rulings and Errata. > There愀 a sentence that says: "Cannot be played in response to an > announcement of a strike (or other effect) that is not effective at the > current range." That merely means (for instance) that you cannot play Rotschreck in response to a long-range aggravated hand strike. (Justifiying playing Rotschreck in such a case might be stretching the above rationale just a little too far). > I think that the Rotschreck can not be played under that circunstances, but > other people think that you can. > > Another cases in wich could exist some confusion would be, for example: > > - Vampire playing CotD has 0 hand damage. I believe 0 aggravated Hand damage counts as "no aggravated damage" for Rotschreck purposes. If you attempt to strike for "no damage" then there is nothing to be classified as aggravated. > - Vampire A plays dodge instead of Combat ends. Rothschreck still affects him.