Lets say two vampires are in Combat. The first (probably an Assimite)
plays to get First Strike against
(say a Ventrue) who counters by playing Stike: Combat ends.
Does the Assimite get to do his damage first before the Strike:CE? Or
lets say he used a First Strike:Steal Weapon? I imagine it should come up
with the same answer.
Also I would assume that if the Assimite had been able to blur for
additional strikes that they would be rendered invalid by the S:CE (as per
usual, and only mentioned for clarification).
"Bernard Bresnahan" <Ber...@IZZY.NET> writes:
[ quoted text not captured ]
S:CE would win all the above situations. S:CE is applied at the onset
of strike resolution to cancel the entire strike resolution phase (except
for the damage done by Riposte, which somehow occurs during a strike
resolution phase which it itself cancels).
The strike reolution does not occur, no additional strikes occur, and
combat it terminated immediately.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | 'I know' is just 'I believe'
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | with delusions of grandeur.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Rory wrote:
> Date: Tue, 25 JUN 1996 04:53:41 GMT
> From: Rory <refp...@best.com>
> Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
> Subject: Re: First Strike and Strike:Combat ends>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 1996 02:06:07 -0400, "Bernard Bresnahan"
> <Ber...@IZZY.NET> wrote:
>
> >Lets say two vampires are in Combat. The first (probably an Assimite)
> >plays to get First Strike against
> >(say a Ventrue) who counters by playing Stike: Combat ends.
>
> > Does the Assimite get to do his damage first before the Strike:CE? Or
> >lets say he used a First Strike:Steal Weapon? I imagine it should come up
> >with the same answer.
>
> > Also I would assume that if the Assimite had been able to blur for
> >additional strikes that they would be rendered invalid by the S:CE (as per
> >usual, and only mentioned for clarification).
>> Strike combat ends takes precedence over even first strike and dodges.
> This is specifically refered to in the V:tes rulebook and has been
> errated for over a year in the Jhyad rules.
> Rory
> The Ref at refp...@best.com
>
>
>
Really? whoa. this brings up an interesting question then. What if a card
like Majesty were used as an additional strike?? Say I used a combo like:
Acrobatics (to hammer someone with a sign post with an additional strike)
then Majesy to untap my vampire (say Tura Vaughn). Would the S:CE still
take precedence? I remember additional strikes being resolved AFTER
strike resolution. So then, would the two vampires exchange licks and
Tura untap? Would her majesty take precedence over the other vampire's
additional strikes?? Inquiring minds wanna know.
**********************************************************************
"...I'm just a hard-working girl trying to make it in a man's world."
-Catwoman (Issue #30)
***************************************
Dharia McGrew
damc...@mhc.mtholyoke.edu
and of course.....(in other words, LOOK AT IT!!!!)
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~damcgrew
**********************************************************************
Catwoman <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> writes:
>On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Rory wrote:>> On Mon, 24 Jun 1996 02:06:07 -0400, "Bernard Bresnahan"
>> <Ber...@IZZY.NET> wrote:
>> >Lets say two vampires are in Combat. The first (probably an Assimite)
>> >plays to get First Strike against
>> >(say a Ventrue) who counters by playing Stike: Combat ends.
>>>> Strike combat ends takes precedence over even first strike and dodges.
>> This is specifically refered to in the V:tes rulebook and has been
>> errated for over a year in the Jhyad rules.
>>>Really? whoa. this brings up an interesting question then. What if a card
>like Majesty were used as an additional strike?? Say I used a combo like:
>Acrobatics (to hammer someone with a sign post with an additional strike)
>then Majesy to untap my vampire (say Tura Vaughn). Would the S:CE still
>take precedence? I remember additional strikes being resolved AFTER
>strike resolution. So then, would the two vampires exchange licks and
>Tura untap? Would her majesty take precedence over the other vampire's
>additional strikes?? Inquiring minds wanna know.
Each pair of strikes (yours and your opponent's) resolve in the same
lttle batch. Usually, they resolve simultaneously, but certain
forms of strike will resolve first, in the following order:
1) Strike: Combat Ends
2) Strike: Dodge
3) All strikes done with First Strike
4) All other (normal) strike
If combat hasn't ended after the first pair of strikes have both resolved,
then one or both combatants may gain additional strikes. Each additional
strike comes in a little batch, as above. Each additional strike
will be paired with the opposing minion's additional strike, if any.
A Strike: Combat Ends will only end combat at the point the S:CE resolves
(before any other strikes in the same little batch, but without undoing
the effects of previous strikes which have successfully resolved).
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Working here is a nightmare.
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | I'd quit but I need the sleep.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 24 Jun 1996 02:06:07 -0400, "Bernard Bresnahan"
<Ber...@IZZY.NET> wrote:
>Lets say two vampires are in Combat. The first (probably an Assimite)
>plays to get First Strike against
>(say a Ventrue) who counters by playing Stike: Combat ends.> Does the Assimite get to do his damage first before the Strike:CE? Or>lets say he used a First Strike:Steal Weapon? I imagine it should come up
>with the same answer.> Also I would assume that if the Assimite had been able to blur for
>additional strikes that they would be rendered invalid by the S:CE (as per
>usual, and only mentioned for clarification).
Strike combat ends takes precedence over even first strike and dodges.
This is specifically refered to in the V:tes rulebook and has been
errated for over a year in the Jhyad rules.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Just from a point of game mechanics (not bothering to read the V:TES
rulebook)
it just makes plain sense to me that a First Strike should be resolved
before
all other strikes (I know that I'm falling back somewhat on a Magic:TG
perspective).
For all those folks who whine about Strike:CE I would think this would
help
bring about more play balance as long as First Strike is maintained and
well
regulated throughout further expansions.
I don't know how others feel about this "In the spirit of the game"
especially as I
really don't know much of the V:TES world outside of the CCG. I would
think that
First Strike connotates that my strike happens before yours unless you
have a
First Strike: Combat Ends card (which doesn't exist at this time).
Opinions?
> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote in article
<4qmcvu$8...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...
> Catwoman <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> writes:
> >On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Rory wrote:> >> On Mon, 24 Jun 1996 02:06:07 -0400, "Bernard Bresnahan"
> >> <Ber...@IZZY.NET> wrote:
> >> >Lets say two vampires are in Combat. The first (probably an
Assimite)
> >> >plays to get First Strike against
> >> >(say a Ventrue) who counters by playing Stike: Combat ends.
> >>> >> Strike combat ends takes precedence over even first strike and
dodges.
> >> This is specifically refered to in the V:tes rulebook and has been
> >> errated for over a year in the Jhyad rules.
> >>[ quoted text not captured ]
"Bernard Bresnahan" <Ber...@IZZY.NET> writes:
>Just from a point of game mechanics (not bothering to >read the V:TES
rulebook)
>it just makes plain sense to me that a First Strike should >be resolved
before
>all other strikes (I know that I'm falling back somewhat >on a Magic:TG
perspective).
> For all those folks who whine about Strike:CE I would >think this would
help
>bring about more play balance as long as First Strike is >maintained and
well
>regulated throughout further expansions.
Yes, it would be simpler, and yes, it could control the S:CE. (it would
also help with Dodge /Additional Strike, also something of a problem)
I think, however, that it's too late for an official change. You could
add this to lsj's house rules list.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"Bernard Bresnahan" <Ber...@IZZY.NET> wrote:
>Just from a point of game mechanics (not bothering to read the V:TES
>rulebook)
Perhaps you should? Sorry, cheap shot.
>it just makes plain sense to me that a First Strike should be resolved
>before all other strikes (I know that I'm falling back somewhat on a Magic:TG
Jyhad rulebook: page 36
Combat Ends:
This is considered a strike. The strike ends combat immediately
(before any damage is dealt or any strike's effects take place). Note
that Combat Ends is not affected by Dodge and even cancels strikes
with First Strike.
Vampire rulebook: page 30
Combat Ends:
This effect ends combat immediately before any damage is dealt or a
strike card's effects take place. If the acting minon's strike is
"combat ends", the blocking minon may still use a strike card, but
this strike will have no effect. Note that "combat ends" is not
affected by a dodge and cancels a First Strike.
> For all those folks who whine about Strike:CE I would think this would
If people whine about strike:CE, just build a deck to deal with that,
bum's rush them, haven uncovered, muddled vampire hunter. Just kill
their vamps using these techniques, eventually they will either run
out library cards or at least out of Strike:CE.
I used to play a deck like that, lots of Majesty, it works, but at a
cost, you don't get the bleed cards or anything else useful. In
short, its a cheesy deck (to borrow a Magic concept).
>First Strike connotates that my strike happens before yours unless you
>have a
>First Strike: Combat Ends card (which doesn't exist at this time).>Opinions?
Well, you've got mine. The rules were tweaked to explain this very
clearly. I don't see a big problem with it. If you want to assault a
vamp, I did point out ways to do it. There is an upper limit to deck
sizes so you WILL run them out of Strike:Combat Ends cards eventually.
You could just use a vote-push deck and wipe out the methuselah
directly. There's an idea...
Gra...@gol.com "bow down before the one you serve" (grin)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Catwoman wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Rory wrote:
>> > Date: Tue, 25 JUN 1996 04:53:41 GMT
> > From: Rory <refp...@best.com>
> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
> > Subject: Re: First Strike and Strike:Combat ends
> >> > On Mon, 24 Jun 1996 02:06:07 -0400, "Bernard Bresnahan"
> > <Ber...@IZZY.NET> wrote:
> >
> > >Lets say two vampires are in Combat. The first (probably an Assimite)
> > >plays to get First Strike against
> > >(say a Ventrue) who counters by playing Stike: Combat ends.
> >> > > Does the Assimite get to do his damage first before the Strike:CE? Or
> > >lets say he used a First Strike:Steal Weapon? I imagine it should come up
> > >with the same answer.
> >
> > > Also I would assume that if the Assimite had been able to blur for
> > >additional strikes that they would be rendered invalid by the S:CE (as per
> > >usual, and only mentioned for clarification).
> >> > Strike combat ends takes precedence over even first strike and dodges.
> > This is specifically refered to in the V:tes rulebook and has been
> > errated for over a year in the Jhyad rules.> > Rory
> > The Ref at refp...@best.com
> >
> >
> >> Really? whoa. this brings up an interesting question then. What if a card
> like Majesty were used as an additional strike?? Say I used a combo like:
> Acrobatics (to hammer someone with a sign post with an additional strike)
> then Majesy to untap my vampire (say Tura Vaughn). Would the S:CE still
> take precedence? I remember additional strikes being resolved AFTER
> strike resolution. So then, would the two vampires exchange licks and
> Tura untap? Would her majesty take precedence over the other vampire's
> additional strikes?? Inquiring minds wanna know.
There is actually a strike resolution phase after each round of strikes.. so
unless you put the vampire in torpor (which sounds pretty likely.. :).. then
you would do the damage, then untap..
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:47:19 -0400, "Bernard Bresnahan"
<Ber...@IZZY.NET> wrote:
>Just from a point of game mechanics (not bothering to read the V:TES
>rulebook)>it just makes plain sense to me that a First Strike should be resolved
>before
>all other strikes (I know that I'm falling back somewhat on a Magic:TG>perspective).> For all those folks who whine about Strike:CE I would think this would>help
>bring about more play balance as long as First Strike is maintained and
>well
>regulated throughout further expansions.>I don't know how others feel about this "In the spirit of the game">especially as I
>really don't know much of the V:TES world outside of the CCG. I would
>think that>First Strike connotates that my strike happens before yours unless you
>have a
>First Strike: Combat Ends card (which doesn't exist at this time).>Opinions?
Well it would perhaps reduce the Strike combat ends problem but
changing it now would simply not be a good idea.
Also the theme of the combat ends cards is a more appropriate to going
first.
And the last thing is that first strike card effects would become to
powerful. Celerity and Muddled with the occasional shattered or eaten
weapon.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Bernard Bresnahan wrote:
>
> Just from a point of game mechanics (not bothering to read the V:TES
> rulebook)
> it just makes plain sense to me that a First Strike should be resolved
> before
> all other strikes (I know that I'm falling back somewhat on a Magic:TG
> perspective).
>
> For all those folks who whine about Strike:CE I would think this would
> help
> bring about more play balance as long as First Strike is maintained and
> well
> regulated throughout further expansions.
>
> I don't know how others feel about this "In the spirit of the game"
> especially as I
> really don't know much of the V:TES world outside of the CCG. I would
> think that
> First Strike connotates that my strike happens before yours unless you
> have a
> First Strike: Combat Ends card (which doesn't exist at this time).
>
> Opinions?
>> > sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote in article
> <4qmcvu$8...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...
> > Catwoman <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> writes:> > >On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Rory wrote:> > >> On Mon, 24 Jun 1996 02:06:07 -0400, "Bernard Bresnahan"
> > >> <Ber...@IZZY.NET> wrote:
> > >> >Lets say two vampires are in Combat. The first (probably an
> Assimite)
> > >> >plays to get First Strike against
> > >> >(say a Ventrue) who counters by playing Stike: Combat ends.
> > >>> > >> Strike combat ends takes precedence over even first strike and
> dodges.
> > >> This is specifically refered to in the V:tes rulebook and has been
> > >> errated for over a year in the Jhyad rules.
> > >>> > >Really? whoa. this brings up an interesting question then. What if a
> card
> > >like Majesty were used as an additional strike?? Say I used a combo
> like:
> > >Acrobatics (to hammer someone with a sign post with an additional
> strike)
> > >then Majesy to untap my vampire (say Tura Vaughn). Would the S:CE still
>
> > >take precedence? I remember additional strikes being resolved AFTER
> > >strike resolution. So then, would the two vampires exchange licks and
> > >Tura untap? Would her majesty take precedence over the other vampire's
> > >additional strikes?? Inquiring minds wanna know.
> >> > Each pair of strikes (yours and your opponent's) resolve in the same
> > lttle batch. Usually, they resolve simultaneously, but certain
> > forms of strike will resolve first, in the following order:
> >
> > 1) Strike: Combat Ends
> > 2) Strike: Dodge
> > 3) All strikes done with First Strike
> > 4) All other (normal) strike
> >
> > If combat hasn't ended after the first pair of strikes have both
> resolved,
> > then one or both combatants may gain additional strikes. Each
> additional
> > strike comes in a little batch, as above. Each additional strike
> > will be paired with the opposing minion's additional strike, if any.
> >
> > A Strike: Combat Ends will only end combat at the point the S:CE
> resolves
> > (before any other strikes in the same little batch, but without undoing
> > the effects of previous strikes which have successfully resolved).
> >
> > --
> > L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Working here is a
> nightmare.
> > http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | I'd quit but I need the
> sleep.
> > Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |> >It is best visualized as SCE occuring in the Choose Strike phase after both players
have declared their strikes, but before the Strike Resolution. In this way, SCE will
take effect before FS.
The only other comment I have concerns those cards that do damage at the end of a
round (Drawing out the beast). These Cards should still get to do their 1 point of
damage when an SCE is played because the SCE ends the combat, and therefore the round.
On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Bernard Bresnahan wrote:
>
> I'm sorry if it came off like I was whining about S:CE. Personally they
> don't
> slow me down much at all. Normally "Rules Lawyering" drives me a bit nuts
> (partially why I no longer enjoy M:TG) but I thought I'd put in my two
> cents this
> time.>
> > > For all those folks who whine about Strike:CE I would think this
> would
> > If people whine about strike:CE, just build a deck to deal with that,
>> > >First Strike connotates that my strike happens before yours unless you
> > >have a First Strike: Combat Ends card (which doesn't exist at this
> time).
> >
Actually it is possible to have a "First Strike: Combat Ends" using Backstab
> > >Opinions?
> > Well, you've got mine. The rules were tweaked to explain this very
> > clearly. I don't see a big problem with it. If you want to assault a
> > vamp, I did point out ways to do it.
>
I'm perfectly happy with S:CE taking precedence over first strike. What I
don't like so much is Dodge taking precedence over first strike.
Particularly in the case of the Backstab card. It just doesn't make sense
that you can dodge someone who is backstabing you unless they detect you
which would nullify the card in the first place. I can see a card like
Read Intentions being able to pull this off (thus being FS:Dodge) but not
Vampiric speed or, especially, Dodge.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Bastet wrote:
[Re: Bernard B.'s disappointment with timing of First Strike]
> I'm perfectly happy with S:CE taking precedence over first strike. What I
> don't like so much is Dodge taking precedence over first strike.
To me, it makes sense, and makes things more balanced. From a VtM point
of view, as long as you have some dice left, you can always attempt to
dodge. Dodging cards' timing represents, to me, that mechanic. From a
balance point of view, I can't imagine Muddled Vampire Hunter costing 2
pool if it was able to beat Dodge.
> Particularly in the case of the Backstab card. It just doesn't make sense
> that you can dodge someone who is backstabing you unless they detect you
> which would nullify the card in the first place. I can see a card like
> Read Intentions being able to pull this off (thus being FS:Dodge) but not
> Vampiric speed or, especially, Dodge.
I think my biggest concern is play balance. See Muddled, above.
@ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++
# Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+*
@#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++)
@#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?
> The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.NXT.3.91.960708103859.301B-100000@pentose>...
> On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Bastet wrote:
>
> [Re: Bernard B.'s disappointment with timing of First Strike]
>
> > I'm perfectly happy with S:CE taking precedence over first strike.
What I
> > don't like so much is Dodge taking precedence over first strike.
>
> To me, it makes sense, and makes things more balanced. From a VtM point> of view, as long as you have some dice left, you can always attempt to
> dodge. Dodging cards' timing represents, to me, that mechanic. From a
> balance point of view, I can't imagine Muddled Vampire Hunter costing 2
> pool if it was able to beat Dodge.
>
> > Particularly in the case of the Backstab card. It just doesn't make
sense
> > that you can dodge someone who is backstabing you unless they detect
you
> > which would nullify the card in the first place. I can see a card like> > Read Intentions being able to pull this off (thus being FS:Dodge) but
not
> > Vampiric speed or, especially, Dodge.
>
> I think my biggest concern is play balance. See Muddled, above.
>
I agree that balanace is the thing, though I could argue that in the case
of muddled (above) that if I'm holding a manuever card that he's never
a major threat. I'd just like to see the cards worded in a sensible way
that
makes sense to anyone. I know that if I were a new player to the game
that
well written & defined cards would make my life that less complex.
After all, aren't games supposed to be fun?
The Corrupter wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Bastet wrote:
>
> [Re: Bernard B.'s disappointment with timing of First Strike]
>
> > I'm perfectly happy with S:CE taking precedence over first strike. What I
> > don't like so much is Dodge taking precedence over first strike.
>
> To me, it makes sense, and makes things more balanced. From a VtM point
> of view, as long as you have some dice left, you can always attempt to
> dodge. Dodging cards' timing represents, to me, that mechanic. From a
> balance point of view, I can't imagine Muddled Vampire Hunter costing 2
> pool if it was able to beat Dodge.> I agree that muddles would become a little more powerful if you were
not able to Dodge him, But I do agree that a dodge should not beat a
First Strike, How about Dodge beating First Strike if it is a Celeritous
Dodge?, SideSlip,Vamperic Speed(At sup)etc, this I can see but not
regular dodges, and between Dodges and S:CE, Combat Decks got crushed
last week in my play circle.
Errol T.