Damage prevention Q

Ok, our local rulesmonger says that agg damage cannot be prevented by cards that do not explicitly say that they can be used to prevent agg damage. ie. Skin of Rock is useless to prevent agg damage. What is the WotC ruling on this because it sounds like bullshit to me Hardrock -- Hardrock Llewynyth a.g.AB founding member (DNRC) hard...@speakeasy.org http://www.speakeasy.org/~hardrock ***************************************************************************** the right honourable Hardrock Llewynyth (Mrs.) Minister in charge of running up stairs two at a time, flinging open the door and shouting, "Ha Ha, caught you Mildred". ---It's a man's life in BabelFish Communications--- And now, a man with a tape recorder up his nose. ****************************************************************Lemon Curry?*

Hardrock Llewynyth wrote: > > Ok, our local rulesmonger says that agg damage cannot be prevented by > cards that do not explicitly say that they can be used to prevent agg > damage. ie. Skin of Rock is useless to prevent agg damage. > > What is the WotC ruling on this because it sounds like bullshit to me V:TES rulebook top of page 49--"If a vampire inflicts aggravated damage, and the victim of the attack can play enough cards to prevent that damage, the victim is not sent to torpor. Under damage prevention, page 48, there is no mention of any card not working to remove aggravated damage. Just remember that according to errata the non-aggravated damage is always removed first, making those last aggravated amounts the most difficult to get at. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- pheersum inhabits the mortal shell of eric schultheis. one channels mailto://phee...@netwizards.net. nature says,"go ahead, have as many babies as you want. something will eat them." ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hardrock Llewynyth wrote: > > Ok, our local rulesmonger says that agg damage cannot be prevented by > cards that do not explicitly say that they can be used to prevent agg > damage. ie. Skin of Rock is useless to prevent agg damage. > > What is the WotC ruling on this because it sounds like bullshit to me > > Hardrock If skin of rock couldn't prevent aggs then it would be obselete compared to resilience : Basic - prevent 1 damage, Superior - prevent 3 non-agg damage. (at no blood cost) Dave W.

hard...@speakeasy.org (Hardrock Llewynyth) writes: >Ok, our local rulesmonger says that agg damage cannot be prevented by >cards that do not explicitly say that they can be used to prevent agg >damage. ie. Skin of Rock is useless to prevent agg damage. >What is the WotC ruling on this because it sounds like bullshit to me You are correct. Damage prevention effects can prevent any type of damage, unless the card text says otherwise (inferior Flesh of Marble, superior Resilience). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Washington, DC: http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | America's work-free Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | drug place

Hardrock Llewynyth wrote: > > Ok, our local rulesmonger says that agg damage cannot be prevented by > cards that do not explicitly say that they can be used to prevent agg > damage. ie. Skin of Rock is useless to prevent agg damage. > > What is the WotC ruling on this because it sounds like bullshit to me > Of course it can prevent aggravated damage. Cards that can not prevent aggravated damage will specifically say so (like the Sabbat card Resilience). Not only can Skin of Rock prevent aggravated, but if you take 4 normal and 1 aggravated you can choose to prevent the one aggravated with inferior SoR.

Pheersum (phee...@netwizards.net) wrote: : Under damage prevention, page 48, there is no mention of any card not : working to remove aggravated damage. Just remember that according to : errata the non-aggravated damage is always removed first, making those : last aggravated amounts the most difficult to get at. Suprised that LSJ missed this, but I'll step in to either prevent misconceptions or make a fool of myself (again)... When totalling up damage, it is applied in the following order: - Blood stolen - Normal damage - Aggravated damage This means that if someone took a combination of aggravated and normal damage, the normal damage would be applied first (to reduce their current blood total) and then the aggravated damage (which would send them to torpor/burn them). This was put into place to prevent people from taking the aggravated damage first (thus sending them to torpor) and then the normal damage (which would reduce them to 0 or below, but not burn them since they were already in torpor). There are _no_ similar restrictions, however, on damage prevention. If my vampire receives a 3 normal and 2 aggravated damage in a round and plays a sup. Skin of Rock, I may choose to: - Prevent 2 agg. dam and take 3 normal - Prevent 1 agg and 1 normal, and take 2 normal followed by 2 agg - Prevent 2 normal, and take 1 normal followed by 2 agg. If this has changed, I'm sure that LSJ will correct me. :-) Shane H.W. Travis | There is nothing more frightful ro...@duke.usask.ca | than ignorance in action. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -Goethe

Pheersum (phee...@netwizards.net) wrote: : Under damage prevention, page 48, there is no mention of any card not : working to remove aggravated damage. Just remember that according to : errata the non-aggravated damage is always removed first, making those : last aggravated amounts the most difficult to get at. Thanks to Shane for pointing me in this direction - I hadn't read this answer as closely as I should have. (BTW, Shane, you shouldn't imply that Stealing Blood is damaging - might confuse someone :-) Anyway, aggravated damage is applied after normal damage. But, when preventing damage, the preventer can choose which damage to prevent - usally choosing to prevent the aggravated damage first. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team