first strike-inconsistancies

Greetings all I have just been trolling the site for a response to this and all the results contradict themselves. Basically, if i first strike someone to steal their gun, then they, if having used the manuver from the gun, cannot strike with it, because they no longer have it so they no longer have a strike. OK all well and good, yet if i play a withering at first strike, someone is still free to declare a strike that requires a discipline. Why is this? If a strike with a gun is no longer allowable because said gun is stolen/destroyed with first strike and therefore not allowed to resolve, why is the disciplined strike allowed to resolve? I understand that S:CE "trumps" first strike, no probs but why dodge?, or anything else for that matter? If first stike only means it resolves before other strikes then the gun should still work (my strike is still x ranged damage) If in response to this you say "but i have destroyed your gun therefore you cannot strike with it" then I would respond in a similar situation with: "but i have destroyed your discipline therefore your strike is illegal" Help guys, this seems like a bit of a screw up in the rules cheers Michael

[ quoted text not captured ] A minion is only "using" a discipline when he *plays* the card. If I play Entombment, I'm using Obtenebration. But during the Strike *Resolution* phase, I'm not *using* Obtenebration anymore; the card, which was already legally played, established an effect that's going to happen. But in order for a strike from a .44 magnum to resolve, the equipment needs to be there during Strike Resolution, because "the gun deals 2R damage" is the strike. If the source of the damage is no longer there, the damage doesn't happen. Does this make sense?

In message <1140963823.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, sutekh_23 <bec...@aapt.net.au> writes: >Greetings all >I have just been trolling the site for a response to this and all the >results contradict themselves. Basically, if i first strike someone to >steal their gun, then they, if having used the manuver from the gun, >cannot strike with it, because they no longer have it so they no longer >have a strike. OK all well and good, yet if i play a withering at first >strike, someone is still free to declare a strike that requires a >discipline. No, they've already declared the strike using that discipline. All strikes are chosen (whatever they might be) in one go, and then resolved in the appropriate order. Playing a card requires you have the discipline. Resolving a card that has a delayed resolution doesn't mean that you still have to have the discipline (or access to it). That's common across all cards. If you, for instance, only have access to Obfuscate via Changeling Skin Mask and then lose it in combat, but continue an Obfuscate action via e.g. Form of Mist, you can still successfully resolve the action - even though you don't have Obfuscate anymore. <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9e7c09 bec2e12841> (LSJ replying to me, when I forgot the history and made a mess of it all.) The consistency here is across play vs resolve of cards. You meet the requirements when you play the card. Weapon strikes have a special bit written about them in the rules. This is actually similar to the RTR I mention in the above link where if you need a piece of equipment to take an action (e.g. the burn a location action on a bomb) and you lose it, the action fizzles. There, the equipment is an enabler and losing it before resolution causes a fizzle. So, the consistency is there, it's just across different points to where you're looking. >I understand that S:CE "trumps" first strike, no probs but why >dodge?, Because that's what the designers did. Actually, it's somewhat involved because the Jyhad wording of the rules was a little vague on this. There are several points here, though. - At no point have the Rules Team issued a rules correction on this point. - You might think that e.g. a Celerity card would have been printed in the Jyhad set which was, for example, Strike: Dodge / As above, with First Strike, if Dodge was intended to go at normal strike level. - The V:TES rules changed several basic rules and card texts (aggravated damage, dropping paralyse, 2 strength became +1 strength on many vampires etc.) without changing the rules on Dodge. So, the answer is "designer intent". As to why it hasn't been changed? Most rules are only changed if there's a pressing reason for it. You could tinker with any number of rules without breaking the game - which is why it's inadvisable to do so. So, if Dodge beating First Strike made a large shift in the intended power level of certain cards (such as the changes to aggravated damage in V:TES did, hence it being different now from either Jyhad or V:TES), or if the rule added lots of unnecessary complexity for little benefit (as in Paralyse and the (D) rush between "contested" titles on Princes and Archbishops in the original release of Sabbat), then the rules would be dropped, rewritten or streamlined. Since this has never been the case with Dodge beating First Strike (even if it is unintuitive to some), it's never been changed. (It would be similarly unintuitive the other way round to other people, by the way.) >or anything else for that matter? If first stike only means it >resolves before other strikes then the gun should still work (my strike >is still x ranged damage) If in response to this you say "but i have >destroyed your gun therefore you cannot strike with it" then I would >respond in a similar situation with: "but i have destroyed your >discipline therefore your strike is illegal" Your strike is, because of specific rules, dependent on the presence of the equipment, as other equipment generated effects can be similarly dependent. Because of a blanket (read "consistent") application of a rule on discipline requirements being checked at play but not resolution, my discipline strike isn't dependent in the same fashion. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > > Playing a card requires you have the discipline. Resolving a card that > has a delayed resolution doesn't mean that you still have to have the > discipline (or access to it). That's common across all cards. If you, > for instance, only have access to Obfuscate via Changeling Skin Mask and > then lose it in combat, but continue an Obfuscate action via e.g. Form > of Mist, you can still successfully resolve the action - even though you > don't have Obfuscate anymore. > This is very odd. An action requires a discipline and a ready vampire. If the vampire loses the discipline, the action continues, but if the vampire is no longer ready, the action fails. See: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e147b20e15c9bde1 Umm... care to have a go at explaining that one, James? ;) (BTW, I'm not arguing with the rest of your post - I think first-strike works exactly as it should... now I just wish there was more first-strike in the game)

In message <1140970031.7...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >This is very odd. An action requires a discipline and a ready vampire. > If the vampire loses the discipline, the action continues, but if the >vampire is no longer ready, the action fails. > >See: >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e147b20e15c9bde1 > >Umm... care to have a go at explaining that one, James? ;) One explanation would be that the discipline requirement is not one on the action, but one on playing the card. As in <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/ 9e7c09bec2e12841>, the difference between requiring Obfuscate to play the card and the action itself requiring Obfuscate (when it resolves) is pointed at. So if you fail to meet the requirements of an action when it would resolve, it fizzles. But meeting the discipline requirement is one you meet when playing the card, and does not apply to the action. However, that conflicts with the wording of Orb of Ulain: The ally with this equipment cannot be targeted by (D) actions that require Auspex, Chimerstry, Dominate, Presence or Serpentis. This implies that the actions themselves do require disciplines, rather than just the play of the card. Another explanation, then, would be that while the action does require the discipline, only the "Play / Resolve" check on disciplines is made, and not some standing check on whether the minion still meets the requirements of the action (such as being out of torpor). An alternative avenue of explanation might be that entering torpor simply causes actions to fizzle when they meet resolution (or potentially immediately), though that doesn't follow on from the text of the ruling you cite and would probably need to be a clarification or ruling. Alternatively again, actions that don't specify "May be played by a vampire in torpor" (or whatever) are implicitly saying "(D) [This ready minion....]" but such text is taken as read because it is only the difference that is usually interesting. This would then fail in the same way that Ambush fails if the target untaps during the action and, as an extension of that, "(D) This ready Baali...." would fizzle if the acting vampire stopped being a Baali somehow[0]. Without further clarification from LSJ when he gets back, however, disciplines are not checked for at the end of an action but (some) other criteria are checked. [0] The answer to this question involves Malkavian Time Auction.[1] During an action, a vampire goes to torpor (triggering a Fame) and ousting the controller of a Clan Impersonation you have on your acting vampire, whilst you continue the action using Form of Mist. One could imagine that the opposing vampire was going to go to torpor but saved himself with an Undead Persistence such that he goes to torpor after combat (so you can Strike: Combat Ends with FoM) and then he goes to torpor, his controller being ousted[2], and his controller controls your Clan Impersonation[3]. [1] The answer to all stupid questions involves Malkavian Time Auction, Madness Network or Form of Mist. Protean-wielding Malkavians have a lot to answer for. [2] Assuming that an oust happening to someone else isn't "sufficiently disruptive" to interrupt a Form of Mist. [3] Clan Impersonating to Baali FTW. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >I understand that S:CE "trumps" first strike, no probs but why > >dodge?, > > Because that's what the designers did. Actually, it's somewhat involved > because the Jyhad wording of the rules was a little vague on this. Additionally, there's no timing involved in a dodge. A dodge cancels all effects the opposing minion's strike applies to the dodging minion regardless of when those effects resolve. Dodge also avoids secondary effects from Strike:Combat Ends, such as the damage from superior Catatonic Fear or the untap from basic Meld with the Land. > - The V:TES rules changed several basic rules and card texts (aggravated > damage, dropping paralyse, 2 strength became +1 strength on many > vampires etc.) without changing the rules on Dodge. I thought aggravated damage was changed back to the original Jyhad rules--after a period of time where the first point both sent the vampire to torpor and required him to burn blood to prevent destruction. How are the rules different from the original printing? On this point, it's worth noting that a friend I occasionally play with is very unhappy with the way aggravated damage was re-ammended. The way it works is slightly confusing, and the fact that at times (whenever damage=B+1 where B is the amount of blood on the wounded vampire) aggravated and normal damage do the exact same thing is a bit odd. I wonder if this rule was specifically ammended because Pulled Fangs (which used to inflict 1 aggravated) was being used to burn vampires. Now that PF has been fixed, the rules could be switched back to the original VTES version, but it's very unlikely that this will happen. Some designer insight would be interesting on this matter, but unfortunately LSJ is only likely to respond with "the rules were written as intended", which is far from helpful or interesting. > So, the answer is "designer intent". You know, I noticed this line just now--after writing the above comment. That's irony if anything is. > As to why it hasn't been changed? Most rules are only changed if > there's a pressing reason for it. ...(as in Paralyse and the (D) rush between >"contested" titles on Princes and Archbishops in the original release of Sabbat), then > the rules would be dropped, rewritten or streamlined. Don't forget Close Quarters, a rule from the original Jyhad rulebook that was literally never used on even one single card, even though Storm Sewers had the exact same effect. That's all for me.

In message <1140974980.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, CthuluKitty <vtana...@riseup.net> writes: >> - The V:TES rules changed several basic rules and card texts (aggravated >> damage, dropping paralyse, 2 strength became +1 strength on many >> vampires etc.) without changing the rules on Dodge. > >I thought aggravated damage was changed back to the original Jyhad >rules--after a period of time where the first point both sent the >vampire to torpor and required him to burn blood to prevent >destruction. How are the rules different from the original printing? The original rules were unclear on what happened when multiple points of aggravated damage came from multiple sources. e.g. a Dawn Operation causing aggravated damage in combat, with two separate sources - my hand strike and my Wolf Companion. The ambiguity led to an interpretation, sometimes known as packeting. (A google search for "packet" or "packets" will probably turn up answers as a result.) As with Dodge, it's arguable if this interpretation was "correct", but it became the right way to play until V:TES was printed. Under the packeting rules, the first point of aggravated damage from each packet (separate source) caused you to go to torpor. If you had three separate sources of aggravated damage for a point each, they all sent you to torpor. Amongst other things, this meant that a plain vanilla Ivory Bow could NEVER burn a vampire. Nor could Pulled Fangs. Nor could a 1 strength hit with Sengir Dagger. And so on. Under the V:TES rules, the point that sent you to torpor also caused you to burn a blood (or burn the vampire). This meant that against an empty vampire, Ivory Bow, Pulled Fangs etc. could burn you. This significantly upped their utility on the power curve. Additionally, only the first point (regardless of source) sent you to torpor, so an Ivory Bow wielding Dawn Operation user with a Wolf Companion could burn a vampire on 1 blood, for example. (2 points of agg damage. First sends to torpor and burns a blood. Second burns the vampire.) Under the re-worked rules, official since LSJ's rulings and then, later, printed in Sabbat War, the packeting was removed from the Jyhad rules. The first point of aggravated damage against a non-wounded vampire sends them to torpor, causing them to not burn a blood in the process. Each point after that causes them to burn a blood to prevent destruction. So, being hit with a Wolf Companion who's doing aggravated damage and an Ivory Bow shot can burn you - if you're on zero blood. It's harder to burn a vampire than in the V:TES rules, but easier than in the Jyhad rules. I'm not entirely certain if either set of rules (Jyhad or V:TES) dealt extensively with the concept of dealing with aggravated damage being dealt to a vampire who is already in torpor and can't be arsed to check. (Would it re-send them to torpor, even though they were already there, or would it notice etc.) There may be another quirk there. Bottom line is: in Jyhad, you really wanted 2 agg damage from one source to burn a vampire outright. This was what Flamethrower was for. In V:TES, you could do it if the vampire was empty and you had a single point. In the current rules, you need X+2 damage (at least one of which is aggravated) if the vampire is not in, or on their way to, torpor already. >On this point, it's worth noting that a friend I occasionally play with >is very unhappy with the way aggravated damage was re-ammended. The >way it works is slightly confusing, and the fact that at times >(whenever damage=B+1 where B is the amount of blood on the wounded >vampire) aggravated and normal damage do the exact same thing is a bit >odd. It's a little odd, but lots of things in the game are a bit quirky around the edge cases like that. The thing is, you know what these are most of the time - here, it's pretty easy to work out, for example - and plan to not run into them as best you can. To be honest, I'd quite like to see 5 normal damage be slightly weaker (somehow) than 5 aggravated damage in the situation you describe, but there isn't a useful halfway house between the current rules and the V:TES rules that I've ever been able to find. (If you can find one, please feel free!) Corner-case situation: Regenerative Blood doesn't help you against aggravated damage but doesn't against normal damage, and Brother's Blood can't stop a vampire from going to torpor because the first point of aggravated damage is neither healed nor burned to prevent destruction. But then, Sword of Nuln doesn't help you when it comes to aggravated damage (because aggravated damage isn't healed), so there's up and downs. So yes, in principle, I sympathise. In practise, I can't see a useful alteration that wouldn't either be tinkering for the sake of it or unnecessarily complex. >I wonder if this rule was specifically ammended because Pulled >Fangs (which used to inflict 1 aggravated) was being used to burn >vampires. Now that PF has been fixed, the rules could be switched back >to the original VTES version, but it's very unlikely that this will >happen. No. No-one, least of all me, would deny that Pulled Fangs was a powerful card at the time, or would claim that it wasn't one of the reasons why people looked at aggravated damage and said "Hmmm, that's a bit awkward isn't it?" However, the rules on aggravated damage and the text fix to Pulled Fangs were made *at the same time*. http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR7-7.htm The generally accepted wisdom these days goes along these lines: - Aggravated damage in general was too good in V:TES. Whether packeting existed or not in Jyhad, an Ivory Bow on its own couldn't burn a vampire. Nor could Igo with a claw card on an empty Justicar. - On top of that, Pulled Fangs was too good anyway. It gave free aggravated damage, and could stack. With enough copies, you could burn anyone. So it was toned down. From http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/migration.html, I believe that the "doesn't stack" came in SW, though the change to aggravated damage came with the 7/7 rulings. I'd also note that there was a general problem game-wise at the time in that a number of pro-strategies (those that help you win) were quite awkwardly powerful, when their counterpart defensive strategies (those that stop you being ousted / run over by a deck) were a bit rubbish. Specifically, Return to Innocence made horrendous bleedzooka decks possible, and Thoughts Betrayed made combat defence nigh-on impossible against determined opposition. (Horribly aggressive vote was sort of nuked with the Tomb re-write, but also needed Legacy of Pander to be dealt with to complete the set.) And there was essentially a global nuke across a range of rules facets *and* cards, to tone down a lot of strategies. Most such strategies are still viable, but aren't as outright powerful now. Thus giving rise to an environment where a slightly fragile Choir deck can still do well without getting a Tomb of Rameses Arika Soul Gem, Freak Drive, Return to Innocence up its ass second turn. Ditto, a wide variety of combat decks can flourish without Thoughts Betrayed killing them. But pretty much all of the *rule* changes, as opposed to textual changes on cards, came about because of a conspiracy of multiple cards and strategies coming together (or being hosed together). Looking down the list in 7/7 (and 6/23), the significant rules changes have a lot of history to them - (D) not over-riding targets but merely indicating a typically (D) action (which could also be non-directed, if you took the relevant actions) had a whole host of useful applications, particularly with toning down bleed decks which would "randomly" bleed cross-table. (The player's intention may, of course, not be random, but the effect was generally quite a way outside of the predator-prey dynamic that Richard Garfield had been trying to establish, IMO.) Equipment being non-optional was hardly killer, but fixed a wide variety of headaches (largely involving Writ of Acceptance, as noted). Aggravated damage fixed a wide range of perceived problems also. <dropped or streamlined rules> >Don't forget Close Quarters, a rule from the original Jyhad rulebook >that was literally never used on even one single card, even though >Storm Sewers had the exact same effect. Ooh, there's a rule I'd expunged from my memory. Thanks. :-) Always useful to have more examples to hand. [ quoted text not captured ]

> The original rules were unclear on what happened when multiple points of > aggravated damage came from multiple sources. e.g. a Dawn Operation > causing aggravated damage in combat, with two separate sources - my hand > strike and my Wolf Companion. Now I see. I don't remember the packeting rules at all, and I don't think any such situations ever occured back when I was playing pre-VTES Jyhad (I was never a serious player in this period--hell I was only 10 years old...). Hence my incorrect assumption that the rules had been changed back to the original. > To be honest, I'd quite like to see 5 normal damage be slightly weaker > (somehow) than 5 aggravated damage in the situation you describe, but > there isn't a useful halfway house between the current rules and the > V:TES rules that I've ever been able to find. (If you can find one, > please feel free!) There probably isn't any way to deal with the "problem" that wouldn't be excessively complicated. I'm not really bothered personally by the way agg. damage works; I was just stating the opinion of a friend. > However, the rules on aggravated damage and the text fix to Pulled Fangs > were made *at the same time*. Right you are. I wonder how things would have played out if agg. damage was left the way it was in VTES and Pulled Fangs was fixed to its current text. I suppose there may have been some playtesting in this direction, but one can never be sure. While Ivory Bow and Claws for 1 were both potentially overpowered in the VTES rules (not to mention a few other effects that existed at the time), it really seems like old-fashioned Pulled Fangs was by far the biggest problem. > Ooh, there's a rule I'd expunged from my memory. Thanks. :-) > > Always useful to have more examples to hand. You're welcome of course, even though I sort of liked being the only player who knew that rule existed.

James Coupe wrote: > > To be honest, I'd quite like to see 5 normal damage be slightly weaker > (somehow) than 5 aggravated damage in the situation you describe, but > there isn't a useful halfway house between the current rules and the > V:TES rules that I've ever been able to find. (If you can find one, > please feel free!) > I have one idea, though it's not necessarily a serious suggestion. What if agg damage rules were more like the RPG? In the RPG, aggravated damage can only be prevented by fortitude (or similar effects), rather than being "Soaked" (in the RPG, Soak rolls are automatically given to every vampire, based on their Stamina, though it is cool that the card Soak retains this distinction between agg and non-agg damage). In addition, aggravated wounds cannot be healed normally (i.e. by burning blood), but have to heal "naturally" taking a lot of time. It's been a while since I've played the RPG, so forgive me if this isn't exactly correct - it's at least close. With current agg-damage rules, the first point of (unprevented) agg damage is very strong. It sends the opposing vamp to torpor. The second (and subsequent, up to X+1, where X is the blood on the vamp) point of agg damage is much weaker - just the same as normal damage. The X+2 (th) point of agg damage is again very strong, as it burns the vampire. There seems to be some inconguity here. In the RPG, many strike effects are agg that are not agg in the card game, because while those strike effects are supposed to be powerful, they're not supposed to immediately put the other vampire out of commission if even 1 point isn't prevented. Again, this isn't a serious suggestion, just kind of a thought experiment. I definitely don't expect this to be implemented, and wouldn't even think of *wanting* it to be implemented until some more thought and/or testing was put into it. In any case, it would almost turn VTES into a completely different game, at least combat-wise... What if aggravated damage reduced a vampire's capacity by X, permanently (until healed), and also made them burn a blood. This damage would not immediately send them to torpor. If a vampire takes more damage than he has blood to burn, he would be sent to torpor (whether that damage is aggravated or normal). If a vampire takes aggravated damage when his capacity is 0 (which includes times when he takes, say, 4 agg when his capacity is only 3), he is burned. In addition, a vamp with capacity lowered by agg damage would need to be able to heal the agg. Any one (or possibly all) of these could work: a) The vampire takes a +1 stealth action to "heal", removing all aggravated damage. b) During your untap phase, spend a pool to completely heal one of your vampires. c) Any other vampire may take a +1 stealth action to heal this vampire. This might require tapping both vampires. A vampire with 0 capacity might be allowed to "heal" instead of hunting. Or maybe he's required to hunt anyway, and can only be healed by some outside help? Anyway, seems like it'd be interesting, at the very least. Would severely cripple aggo-poke, and would probably improve decks that seek to burn vamps with excessive agg-damage. Although, on the whole, it might weaken combat decks by a fair amount, which IMHO would be bad...

So in effect "first strike" basically means: "If you can bin me before I strike then you won't suffer any strike, but if you cannot, first strike does nothing." Is that what we are saying here?

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah that's basically what it does. I sense a complaining tone in this, though I could be wrong. Be advised that this issue has been discussed to death and noone cares anymore.

No, i'm not complaing, just looking for clarification as to why it works differently for a weapon strike vs a disciplined strike, thats all. As this question has been answered, all is good.

Chris Berger wrote: > What if aggravated damage reduced a vampire's capacity by X, > permanently (until healed), and also made them burn a blood. This > damage would not immediately send them to torpor. If a vampire takes > more damage than he has blood to burn, he would be sent to torpor > (whether that damage is aggravated or normal). If a vampire takes > aggravated damage when his capacity is 0 (which includes times when he > takes, say, 4 agg when his capacity is only 3), he is burned. coooooooooooooooool!!!! > In addition, a vamp with capacity lowered by agg damage would need to > be able to heal the agg. Any one (or possibly all) of these could > work: > a) The vampire takes a +1 stealth action to "heal", removing all > aggravated damage. that costs 2 blood, but can be done like rescuing from torpor (ie: another vampire can do it and pay all or part of the cost) > b) During your untap phase, spend a pool to completely heal one of your > vampires. meh. > c) Any other vampire may take a +1 stealth action to heal this vampire. > This might require tapping both vampires. see a) above. > A vampire with 0 capacity might be allowed to "heal" instead of > hunting. Or maybe he's required to hunt anyway, and can only be healed > by some outside help? or maybe goes to torpor? and thus needs outside help to heal. and/or have a 'agged vamps can't leave torpor' rule? would avoid fame abuse, and make things like regeneration actually see play. > Anyway, seems like it'd be interesting, at the very least. Would > severely cripple aggo-poke, and would probably improve decks that seek > to burn vamps with excessive agg-damage. Although, on the whole, it > might weaken combat decks by a fair amount, which IMHO would be bad... i'd be keen to see some hard rules written up and give it a whirl! just have to convince my playgroup..... -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

In message <1141006481....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: ... Overall, I really actually quite like this idea. I don't think it'd work integrating it into the game now, wholesale, but it's really cute. I think it could make an interesting degenerative disease for a combat / minion mangling Build Your Own Storyline, to see which clan or which sect can take control of the cure, and which was responsible for setting it off in the first place. You know, that sparks a thought involving a storyline in which each table has five players - one Camarilla, one Sabbat, one Anarch, one (non-Anarch) Independent and one Laibon. Anyway. >In the RPG, many >strike effects are agg that are not agg in the card game, because while >those strike effects are supposed to be powerful, they're not supposed >to immediately put the other vampire out of commission if even 1 point >isn't prevented. Well, agg in the card game is a largely massive over-simplification of the RPG. As is torpor in general. Not that I think it's a *bad* over- simplification. It's just been very, very simplified from the complexities RPG. Which is about right for a card game, which doesn't want too many bizarre quirks lurking around. You want the rules to provide clever interactions, without being too baroque. >What if aggravated damage reduced a vampire's capacity by X, >permanently (until healed), and also made them burn a blood. This >damage would not immediately send them to torpor. If a vampire takes >more damage than he has blood to burn, he would be sent to torpor >(whether that damage is aggravated or normal). If a vampire takes >aggravated damage when his capacity is 0 (which includes times when he >takes, say, 4 agg when his capacity is only 3), he is burned. There's a couple of problems here, mostly practical rather than theoretical. One (very minor) problem is that a vampire's capacity can't hit zero in the card game. Some random loon of no consequence had a bizarre discussion with LSJ about capacities hitting zero (or negative) shortly after a rules change to prevent that happening. Read all about it here: <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8fcf02 d82ddadf55> **** > I have a [1-cap vamp attempts Purity of the Beast, blocked by > Violet who reduces his capacity to zero while he continues the action > with Form of Mist, so winds up at -1 capacity.] > Would that be possible, under the old rules? And can I claim "Stupid > Interaction of Cards of the Month"? Yeah :-). Another way (under the old rules): have a vamp whose capacity is increased by a few skill cards played by another Meth. Then have that vampire be reduced to 1 capacity by whatever effects (Violet, Purity, Child Mind, or IC Wrath), then let the Meth who controls the skill cards get ousted. (With the current rules, the vampire would simply be left at 1 capacity). **** Secondly, you have a lot of overhead here. Keeping track of capacity reductions is a pain. A better - but equivalent? - way of tracking it might be to have "wound" counters which count against a vampire's capacity. Whenever a vampire has more wound counters than capacity (e.g. 8 on Gitane St Clair), they burn. Wound counters bump off blood. (Ever play Mage: The Ascension? The same deal as there, with Paradox bumping off Quintessence on the 20 dot wheel you keep track of them on.) Wound counters would then be burnable using actions, and card text in the game could trivially interfere with wound counters. Obeah cards that suddenly removed all of them, Thanatosis Necrotic Infection cards that prevented wound counters being burned, Setites with some sort of Comforting Lure that turns wounds into Corruption counters, and so on. Easier to interact with than "capacity reduction due to aggravated damage", and more evocative too. Also potentially more funny, when Fortitude cards could (say) let you keep working with too many wound counters, so you suddenly get Rufina Soledad (who really is Stephanie Beecham, you know) with 4 Enduring Stamina cards on her which let her treat her capacity as three higher when determining if she burns from her wounds. Additionally, 2 aggravated damage could burn a 1 cap - which it can't do now. So whilst a 1 point agg damage wouldn't burn someone, it could cause them to do sick and wrong things when hitting multiple points of agg damage. It's mostly a power increase, which isn't terribly warranted. >A vampire with 0 capacity might be allowed to "heal" instead of >hunting. Or maybe he's required to hunt anyway, and can only be healed >by some outside help? Potentially, healing might require blood OR pool e.g. 1 or 2 blood, or 1 pool. If you don't have the blood, you can pay pool to represent some sort of significant aid. You might also find in such a game that Trifles or Allies which helped out here might well be of use. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > > Secondly, you have a lot of overhead here. Keeping track of capacity > reductions is a pain. A better - but equivalent? - way of tracking it > might be to have "wound" counters which count against a vampire's > capacity. Whenever a vampire has more wound counters than capacity > (e.g. 8 on Gitane St Clair), they burn. Wound counters bump off blood. > (Ever play Mage: The Ascension? The same deal as there, with Paradox > bumping off Quintessence on the 20 dot wheel you keep track of them on.) > I do like the idea of wound counters. I was planning on keeping track of agg-damage reductions in capacity with other-colored counters, and the idea of getting rid of the capacity-reducing aspect altogether is probably even better. Each point of aggravated damage = 1 wound counter. Blood + wound counters cannot be greater than capacity (extra blood drains off). A vampire with wound counters > capacity is burned. The only question left is: does a vampire burn blood when he takes aggravated damage? If not, suddenly agg damage is not necessarily better than normal damage. So I think a vampire would have to burn a blood to agg damage to "prevent destruction". > Wound counters would then be burnable using actions, and card text in > the game could trivially interfere with wound counters. Obeah cards > that suddenly removed all of them, Thanatosis Necrotic Infection cards > that prevented wound counters being burned, Setites with some sort of > Comforting Lure that turns wounds into Corruption counters, and so on. > Easier to interact with than "capacity reduction due to aggravated > damage", and more evocative too. Also potentially more funny, when > Fortitude cards could (say) let you keep working with too many wound > counters, so you suddenly get Rufina Soledad (who really is Stephanie > Beecham, you know) with 4 Enduring Stamina cards on her which let her > treat her capacity as three higher when determining if she burns from > her wounds. > If someone were to set up a Create-Your-Own Storyline tournament using these agg rules, I think you would have to add rules to existing card (like, Restoration also removes 1 wound counter; Renewed Vigor (for) lets you ignore 1 wound while it's on you, Renewed Vigor (OBE) removes all wound counters, etc...) . Although I suppose you could also make library cards that could be printed out and kept in a sleave in front of regular cards. > > Additionally, 2 aggravated damage could burn a 1 cap - which it can't do > now. So whilst a 1 point agg damage wouldn't burn someone, it could > cause them to do sick and wrong things when hitting multiple points of > agg damage. It's mostly a power increase, which isn't terribly > warranted. > Well, it's a power increase for multiple points of agg, but it's a power decrease for aggro-poke, which is pretty strong currently. > >A vampire with 0 capacity might be allowed to "heal" instead of > >hunting. Or maybe he's required to hunt anyway, and can only be healed > >by some outside help? > > Potentially, healing might require blood OR pool e.g. 1 or 2 blood, or 1 > pool. If you don't have the blood, you can pay pool to represent some > sort of significant aid. > Perhaps it takes an action (either by the wounded vamp or another vamp), burning 2 wounds for every blood spent or 3 wounds for every pool spent. Or something like that.

In message <1141186652....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >If someone were to set up a Create-Your-Own Storyline tournament using >these agg rules, I think you would have to add rules to existing card >(like, Restoration also removes 1 wound counter; Renewed Vigor (for) >lets you ignore 1 wound while it's on you, Renewed Vigor (OBE) removes >all wound counters, etc...) . Although I suppose you could also make >library cards that could be printed out and kept in a sleave in front >of regular cards. Since BYOS tournaments are entirely unofficial (in the grand scheme of rankings), I'd be tempted to do the second one and circulate a couple of PDFs of new or updated cards - probably new, so that people can use the old normal one if they want. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1140970031.7...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > >This is very odd. An action requires a discipline and a ready vampire. > > If the vampire loses the discipline, the action continues, but if the > >vampire is no longer ready, the action fails. > > > >See: > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e147b20e15c9bde1 > > > >Umm... care to have a go at explaining that one, James? ;) > > One explanation would be that the discipline requirement is not one on > the action, but one on playing the card. It is of playing the card, correct. It is also therefore something that the action requires (but not necessarily requires for successful resolution). See also using Inscription to perform a Cryptic Mission. Playing CM requires Thaumaturgy. The action requires Thaumaturgy. The action resolves quite nicely even though the acting vampire does not have Thaumaturgy. Or using your Thaumaturgy Discipline card to enable a CM, getting blocked, Weaknessed (removing the Thaumaturgy), and continuing from the subsequent round with Form of Mist. The action continues and resolves (if unblocked) just fine. > As in <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/ > 9e7c09bec2e12841>, the difference between requiring Obfuscate to play > the card and the action itself requiring Obfuscate (when it resolves) is > pointed at. > > So if you fail to meet the requirements of an action when it would > resolve, it fizzles. But meeting the discipline requirement is one you > meet when playing the card, and does not apply to the action. > > However, that conflicts with the wording of Orb of Ulain: > > The ally with this equipment cannot be targeted by (D) actions > that require Auspex, Chimerstry, Dominate, Presence or > Serpentis. > > This implies that the actions themselves do require disciplines, rather > than just the play of the card. No conflict. The action requires the Discipline. Just like a Sewer Lid requires Potence (and will benefit from Increased Strength even if the Potence-enabling Hand of Conrad is destroyed with first strike). > Another explanation, then, would be that while the action does require > the discipline, only the "Play / Resolve" check on disciplines is made, > and not some standing check on whether the minion still meets the > requirements of the action (such as being out of torpor). Correct. > Alternatively again, actions that don't specify "May be played by a > vampire in torpor" (or whatever) are implicitly saying "(D) [This ready > minion....]" but such text is taken as read because it is only the > difference that is usually interesting. This would then fail in the > same way that Ambush fails if the target untaps during the action and, > as an extension of that, "(D) This ready Baali...." would fizzle if the > acting vampire stopped being a Baali somehow[0]. Resolution of an action requires a ready acting minion just as resolution of a strike requires a ready striking minion. The action to burn a building with Bomb requires a Bomb at resolution just as the strike to inflict 5R damage with a Bomb requires a Bomb at resolution.