I would like to know, which version of Telepathic Counter is right?
The V:TES version says the the bleed is considered blocked.
But the Sabbat version just says reduce bleed and seems to imply that
the bleed was successful.
Which is right? Infact, in case of cards stating different wordings in
different editions, which do I look at? Latest edition? Latest card
errata?
Also, Damage prevention.
When aggrevated damage is done, does cards like "Skin of Rock" block the
damage?
Is it still considered aggrevated and goes thru or is the damage
negated?
example : Vamp A hits Vamp B with 2 points of aggrevated damage.
Vamp B reduces the damage with superior Skin of Rock, thus reducing the
damage to 0.
Does Vamp B still go to torpor because aggrevated damage was done but
loses no blood, lose the blood and goes to torpor(because Skin of Rock
doesn't state stop aggrevated damage) or prevents the 2 point of damage
and goes on fighting?
--
<x-rich>
************************************************************************************************
<center>Caught between that world and this,
I'd trade my soul for a Bond's girl kiss.
Caught between that world and this,
I'd trade my soul for a state of bliss.
from James : Lost a friend
</center></x-rich>
faust <fa...@post1.com> wrote:
>I would like to know, which version of Telepathic Counter is right?
>The V:TES version says the the bleed is considered blocked.
It may be only semantics or a typo, but the bleed is not considered
blocked. It is considered unsuccessful if reduced below one.
>But the Sabbat version just says reduce bleed and seems to imply that
>the bleed was successful.
>Which is right? Infact, in case of cards stating different wordings in
>different editions, which do I look at? Latest edition? Latest card
>errata?
Here's what I found:
>>From LSJ's posted clarifications/errata/rulings:>>Telepathic Counter - reaction (au):
>> Bleeds can be reduced to negative values. A successful negative
>>bleed is treated as a bleed of zero (and is unsuccessful). [TOM 960419]
>> Is played before the bleed is considered successful, so would be played
>>before cards like Spying Mission, which are only played on a
>>successful bleed. [RTR]
Tom Wylie's ruling 960419 states what you need to know. A bleed
reduced to zero or below is considered an unsuccessful action. I
believe this is true of all bleeds and the methodology used to reduce
them (blocking, Archon Investigation, etc.).
>Also, Damage prevention.
>When aggrevated damage is done, does cards like "Skin of Rock" block the
>damage?
Indeed. Cards does ;-)
>Is it still considered aggrevated and goes thru or is the damage
>negated?
Damge is always considered aggravated, but is reduced by one or two
points(depending on inf/sup. fortitude)
>example : Vamp A hits Vamp B with 2 points of aggrevated damage.
>Vamp B reduces the damage with superior Skin of Rock, thus reducing the
>damage to 0.
>Does Vamp B still go to torpor because aggrevated damage was done but
>loses no blood, lose the blood and goes to torpor(because Skin of Rock
>doesn't state stop aggrevated damage) or prevents the 2 point of damage
>and goes on fighting?
Vamp B prevents the two agg.(bless his resilient corpse) and goes on
fighting like a good Methuselah's minion should...
LSJ will likely tell you "damage is damage", meaning a card must
exclude specific damage types (ala Sabbat Resilience), it otherwise
prevents any type. Also, if you're taking 73 normal plus two
aggravated, you can use your Skin of Rock to prevent the two agg., and
go to torpor with no blood (as opposed to being burnt to cinders)
Regards,
R. David Zopf
guenh...@mindspring.com
Guenhwyvar->Guenivere->Genevive->Jennifer = the cat...got it??
faust wrote:
>
> I would like to know, which version of Telepathic Counter is right?
> The V:TES version says the the bleed is considered blocked.> But the Sabbat version just says reduce bleed and seems to imply that
> the bleed was successful.
The V:tES says nothing about the bleed being blocked.
But it does remind you that bleeds of zero or less are not
considered successful.
The Sabbat version does not have this reminder text, but
it is just reminder text - true wether the card reminds
you or not.
> Which is right? Infact, in case of cards stating different wordings in
> different editions, which do I look at? Latest edition? Latest card
> errata?
Latest card printing with all current errata.
> Also, Damage prevention.
> When aggrevated damage is done, does cards like "Skin of Rock" block the
> damage?
Yes. Damage prevention cards prevent damage.
> Is it still considered aggrevated and goes thru or is the damage
> negated?
The damage is still aggravated, but (if it is all prevented) the
target doesn't go to torpor.
> example : Vamp A hits Vamp B with 2 points of aggrevated damage.
> Vamp B reduces the damage with superior Skin of Rock, thus reducing the
> damage to 0.
He prevents the damage (he doesn't reduce it).
Vamp B keeps all of his blood (needing none to heal, since all of
the damage is prevented) and doesn't go to torpor (since none of
the aggravated damage went unprevented).
> Does Vamp B still go to torpor because aggrevated damage was done but
> loses no blood, lose the blood and goes to torpor(because Skin of Rock
> doesn't state stop aggrevated damage) or prevents the 2 point of damage
> and goes on fighting?
The third.
(Lose the blank lines in the .sig -- .sig's longer than five lines
are to be avoided.)
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
"LSJ (VtES Rep)" <vte...@regency.wizards.com> wrote:
>faust wrote:>> Also, Damage prevention.
>> When aggrevated damage is done, does cards like "Skin of Rock" block the
>> damage?>Yes. Damage prevention cards prevent damage.
There it is!!! Caine bless him ;-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Richard D. Zopf wrote:
>
> faust <fa...@post1.com> wrote:> >When aggrevated damage is done, does cards like "Skin of Rock" block > >the damage?
>> Indeed. Cards does ;-)
Heh.
> >Is it still considered aggrevated and goes thru or is the damage
> >negated?
>> Damge is always considered aggravated, but is reduced by one or two
> points(depending on inf/sup. fortitude)
I just cant help myself, "Damage is always considered aggravated"? how
about a "The"? Otherwise im sticking my Assault rifles in decks, and
using fortitude from now on.
> LSJ will likely tell you "damage is damage", meaning a card must
> exclude specific damage types (ala Sabbat Resilience), it otherwise
> prevents any type. Also, if you're taking 73 normal plus two
> aggravated, you can use your Skin of Rock to prevent the two agg., and
> go to torpor with no blood (as opposed to being burnt to cinders)
Another Newbie misinformation spreader :>. This is incorrect,
aggravated damage is always prevented last to maximise the chances of
burning the vampire. Its a tough world.
(73? geez thats a big hit)
James B <pedantic mode>
"James B. Floate" <jfl...@tpgi.com.au> wrote:
>Richard D. Zopf wrote:>>
>> faust <fa...@post1.com> wrote:>> >When aggrevated damage is done, does cards like "Skin of Rock" block > >the damage?
>>
>> Indeed. Cards does ;-)> Heh.>> >Is it still considered aggrevated and goes thru or is the damage
>> >negated?
>>
>> Damge is always considered aggravated, but is reduced by one or two
>> points(depending on inf/sup. fortitude)> I just cant help myself, "Damage is always considered aggravated"? how
>about a "The"? Otherwise im sticking my Assault rifles in decks, and
>using fortitude from now on.
How about this; when aggravated damage is done, it is always
considered aggravated, but is reduced by Skin of Rock, according to
the level of Fortitude mastery of the playing minion. You should be a
lawyer, James (kidding, although I'll bet it's less of an insult in
Aus. than it is in the States).
>> LSJ will likely tell you "damage is damage", meaning a card must
>> exclude specific damage types (ala Sabbat Resilience), it otherwise
>> prevents any type. Also, if you're taking 73 normal plus two
>> aggravated, you can use your Skin of Rock to prevent the two agg., and
>> go to torpor with no blood (as opposed to being burnt to cinders)> Another Newbie misinformation spreader :>. This is incorrect,
You'd best make yer smiley wink when you say that pardner ;-)
>aggravated damage is always prevented last to maximise the chances of
>burning the vampire. Its a tough world.
>(73? geez thats a big hit)
While it wasn't clear from my mediocre example, the plus was intended
to refer to a different source for the agg. damage, eg. Blood of Acid,
a pair of Pulled Fangs, etc. Otherwise, your statement is correct.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <33ECD2...@tpgi.com.au>, "James B. Floate"
<jfl...@tpgi.com.au> writes
>Richard D. Zopf wrote:>>
>> faust <fa...@post1.com> wrote:>>> >When aggrevated damage is done, does cards like "Skin of Rock" block > >the>damage?>>
>> Indeed. Cards does ;-)> Heh.>> >Is it still considered aggrevated and goes thru or is the damage
>> >negated?
>>
>> Damge is always considered aggravated, but is reduced by one or two
>> points(depending on inf/sup. fortitude)> I just cant help myself, "Damage is always considered aggravated"? how
>about a "The"? Otherwise im sticking my Assault rifles in decks, and
>using fortitude from now on.
>>> LSJ will likely tell you "damage is damage", meaning a card must
>> exclude specific damage types (ala Sabbat Resilience), it otherwise
>> prevents any type. Also, if you're taking 73 normal plus two
>> aggravated, you can use your Skin of Rock to prevent the two agg., and
>> go to torpor with no blood (as opposed to being burnt to cinders)>
> Another Newbie misinformation spreader :>. This is incorrect,>aggravated damage is always prevented last to maximise the chances of
>burning the vampire. Its a tough world.
>(73? geez thats a big hit)
Hmmmm.... I've never seen that in the rules at all. I know that
aggravated damage is *applied* to a vampire after normal damage is
applied to them so that they are going to torpor when they take the
aggro damage, otherwise they'd take the aggro damage, go to torpor
immediately and then take normal damage which doesn't do anything
really. However, I've *never* seen it that a damage prevention card
prevents normal damage first. the rules on resolving/preventing damage
are....
Damage Prevention
Prevention cards may only be played during strike resolution. [RTR]
Cannot be used to prevent more damage than is dealt. [RTR 961113]
AND
VI. HOW TO RESOLVE DAMAGE (Heal damage/Prevent Destruction).
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Normal damage is resolved before aggravated damage. [RTR]
NOTE: Damage prevention cards can only be played during the strike
resolution
phase of combat (section V.D.2.b). [RTR]
A. Vampires burn one blood to heal each point of normal damage. (8.1)
B. Vampires who cannot heal all of the damage (damage > blood) must
spend all
of their blood and then will be placed in torpor after any
aggravated
damage is applied (see step C).
C. Vampires burn one blood (to prevent destruction) for each point of
aggravated damage. (21)
D. Allies and Retainers burn one life counter for each point of
damage.
E. Check for Vampires going to Torpor or Minions or Retainers burning.
1. If a Vampire cannot pay for all aggravated damage (aggravated
damage
in excess of blood) then it is burned without going to torpor.
(21)
2. Vampires which have taken at least one point of aggravated damage
but
were not burned are placed in Torpor. (21)
3. If a Vampire could not heal all of the damage (damage in excess
of
blood) then it is placed in Torpor with no blood. (21)
4. Allies and Retainers that have zero life counters are burned.
(21)
Nowhere does it say in any of those anything about damage prevention
being done in a specific order. I suppose if you wanted to you could
prevent normal damage first (say, you wanted your vamp to go into torpor
to trigger the Fame on it but not do enough damage to burn it outright
thus not triggering the fame), but there isn't, to my knowledge, an
official ruling on which is prevented first (as far as I'm concerned,
you pick (though I'd normally prevent the agg dam first).
>
> James B <pedantic mode>
--
James Coupe (remove .nospam to reply)
Some people do it for compassion, Some people do it for the fashion
Some people do it to be funny, Some people do it for the money
Some people do it for enslavement, Some people do it on the pavement
Some people do it for enjoyment, Some people do it for employment
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In article <33ECD2...@tpgi.com.au>, "James B. Floate"
> <jfl...@tpgi.com.au> writes
> >Richard D. Zopf wrote:
> >> LSJ will likely tell you "damage is damage", meaning a card must
> >> exclude specific damage types (ala Sabbat Resilience), it otherwise
> >> prevents any type. Also, if you're taking 73 normal plus two
> >> aggravated, you can use your Skin of Rock to prevent the two agg., and
> >> go to torpor with no blood (as opposed to being burnt to cinders)
> >
> > Another Newbie misinformation spreader :>. This is incorrect,
> >aggravated damage is always prevented last to maximise the chances of
> >burning the vampire. Its a tough world.
> >(73? geez thats a big hit)
>
> Hmmmm.... I've never seen that in the rules at all. I know that
> aggravated damage is *applied* to a vampire after normal damage is
> applied to them so that they are going to torpor when they take the
> aggro damage, otherwise they'd take the aggro damage, go to torpor
> immediately and then take normal damage which doesn't do anything
> really. However, I've *never* seen it that a damage prevention card
> prevents normal damage first. the rules on resolving/preventing damage
> are....
Correct. The minion preventing damage chooses which point(s) of damage
to prevent. He can choose to prevent the aggravated damage.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Richard D. Zopf wrote:
>
> How about this; when aggravated damage is done, it is always
> considered aggravated, but is reduced by Skin of Rock, according to
> the level of Fortitude mastery of the playing minion. You should be a
> lawyer, James (kidding, although I'll bet it's less of an insult in
> Aus. than it is in the States).
:> Bahahahahahahahahahaha.
Nope. Its an enormous insult here, worse then the States, thats where
we perceive our "lawyer infestation" to have come from. So, son, im
gonna hav 'ta ask youse to step outside this here mailin' list and go at
it for muh honour.
Actually, I have to admit its LSJ who brings it out, either im really
on my game or he toasts me. Im a philosophy student, so we have to pay
close attention to words and stuff like that y'know? :>
> >> LSJ will likely tell you "damage is damage", meaning a card must
> >> exclude specific damage types (ala Sabbat Resilience), it otherwise
> >> prevents any type. Also, if you're taking 73 normal plus two
> >> aggravated, you can use your Skin of Rock to prevent the two agg.,
> >> and go to torpor with no blood (as opposed to being burnt to > >> cinders)
>
> > Another Newbie misinformation spreader :>. This is incorrect,> You'd best make yer smiley wink when you say that pardner ;-)
hehe :>
> >aggravated damage is always prevented last to maximise the chances of
> >burning the vampire. Its a tough world.
> >(73? geez thats a big hit)> While it wasn't clear from my mediocre example, the plus was intended
> to refer to a different source for the agg. damage, eg. Blood of Acid,
> a pair of Pulled Fangs, etc. Otherwise, your statement is correct.
Otherwise, Otherwise? geez. Some Richard Zopf's. Theres just no arguing
with them! Im gonna have to disagree again. Despite my colourful
language I was merely parotting LSJ. Thats what I was told when I asked
the question. Aggro damage last, maximise toasts.
With the Pulled Fangs, we had a similar problem in our group. Someone
plays with pulled fangs constantly (ARGHGAGRHG!), and people with
fortitude decks got sick of having to take the lucky dip on the 5-6
pulled fangs. So they wanted to be able to take all the normal damage,
then prevent the pulled fangs to stop it burning them (if they only had
1 fortitude card). I was, tragically, forced to rule that once you get
to pulled fangs its too late to prevent it. Strike choice, strike
resolution, damage resolution, pulled fangs, taste of vitae, psyche
(prob left something out-its always the way) So, in our group you either
prevent the damage, or suck in the pulled fangs like an outmoded-male-
-stereotype (for Gwen). The reasoning being that pulled fangs has an
"only when" clause for if you do more damage. Therefore if you do more
damage, then you can play pulled fangs, and its too late for someone to
go back and change how much damage you did.
I have retreated from "this is how you play", to "In our group". Its a
sad day when a frothing manic makes concessions. :>
James B.
James Coupe wrote:
Hullo J.C.
> Nowhere does it say in any of those anything about damage prevention
> being done in a specific order. I suppose if you wanted to you could
> prevent normal damage first (say, you wanted your vamp to go into
> torpor to trigger the Fame on it but not do enough damage to burn it outright
> thus not triggering the fame), but there isn't, to my knowledge, an
> official ruling on which is prevented first (as far as I'm concerned,
> you pick (though I'd normally prevent the agg dam first).
Was it absolutely necessary to quote the rules at me? <sigh>
Well, in an official sense you really licked my butt. If you want to
call it a house rule, call it a house rule. I believe that I was told by
LSJ that thats how things worked. We have playtested it, and we like it.
I think it makes more sense that way.
James B.
In article <33F20A...@tpgi.com.au>, "James B. Floate"
<jfl...@tpgi.com.au> writes
> Was it absolutely necessary to quote the rules at me? <sigh>
Sorry! I just thought it might help because then at least you could see
where I was getting my info from and then say, "Ah yes but..." and know
that I hadn't already thought of that. It also makes it easier for
people who don't know or read or refer to the rules errata, and newbies
to follow an argument. I also sometimes see people say, "Oh, can you
post the exact text of card such and such since I don't have that card,"
or whatever, as part of a post.
>
> Well, in an official sense you really licked my butt. If you want to
>call it a house rule, call it a house rule. I believe that I was told by
>LSJ that thats how things worked. We have playtested it, and we like it.
>I think it makes more sense that way.
I suppose it could work well that way, but I think it does give combat
decks a bit too much of an advantage if you can prevent seven hundred
damage apart from that 1 little annoying bit left over which happens to
be aggravated meaning you go to torpor or, probably, are burned (knowing
my luck, anyway). Of course, if your group plays a lot of combat decks
it does help to tone them down a bit (we don't play pulled fangs that
much, round here - I much prefer to burn the vampire outright (Seven
hundred increased strengths, burning wrath and stuff like that).
I was just wondering how it made more sense that way, cos I can't think
of any points in favour of it being either way (other than the rules).
I mean if I punch your face and poke a red hot cigarette at you, which
one would you be more likely to step to the side of, or be able to take
well. Like I say, can't think of any points either way.
--
James Coupe (remove .nospam to reply by e-mail)
I think I saw another ship in the sky today. A big white one. I've never seen
a big white one. Only six small black ones. Perhaps six small black ones can
look like one big white one. Perhaps I would like a glass of whisky. Yes, that
seems more likely.
James Coupe wrote:
<cut some stuff which was fair enough about posting card text>
> I was just wondering how it made more sense that way, cos I can't think
> of any points in favour of it being either way (other than the rules).
> I mean if I punch your face and poke a red hot cigarette at you, which
> one would you be more likely to step to the side of, or be able to take
> well. Like I say, can't think of any points either way.
Heh, heh. Well, you asked for it. :>
I think that you have conceptually separated the two lots of damage
too far, so that they must now seem irreconcileable. I completely agree
with your assessment of the example, these are two sources of damage and
can be treated separately. However, your example is quite different to
what a pulled fangs is supposed to represent. The pulled fangs is not a
cigar following a punch. Example to follow.
I play a Torn Signpost with the calm but menacing Helena Casimir. Tusk
is beginning to doubt his controller's wisdom as he pulls out a
disguised bastard sword greeted by a slight eyebrow raise from Helena.
Neither of them maneuver and Helena grabs the slimy Nosfa in an Immortal
Grapple, a hold she learned several centuries ago. Tusk, on the verge of
panic, grunts it up a little with an undead strength, Helena laughs and
shows him how to do it with one of her own. Tusk takes 5 points as the
foaming Ventrue chief whip shows him how to really use potence, and
Helena takes nothing because she has skin of steel! (Clang!)
(- Requirements met, Helena plays a pulled fangs, knocking the poor
Nosfa into torpor with no blood. Assuming he was on full 6 before the
unfortunate encounter)
With a last burst of effort, Helena rams her hand into the sad Nosfa's
mouth reefing out his teeth as the final blow. Helena bends down to
check that he isnt finally dead (they might need him later), delicately
brushes her cloak, and walks off into the night.
The pulled fangs occurs as the result of the last punch, and not as a
seperate incident. Whether the vampire actually pulled out the teeth on
purpose, or if it was the result of massive head trauma isnt clear, and
the card game combat system wisely doesnt go into that detail.
Therefore,
I argue that the pulled fangs is prevented after the punch (or whatever)
because there can be no pulling of fangs if there is no damage. So if
you can prevent the pulled fangs damage, why couldnt you prevent the
damage that caused the pulled fangs? So what im saying (finally) is that
the pulled fangs changes the nature of the hit, rather than hit a second
time. So either you prevent the whole lot, or you take the whole lot.
(phew, that wasnt easy) If Helena hadnt played the pulled fangs Tusk
mightve just gotten squashed with some broken bones or dislocations etc.
something healable at any rate. But the playing of the pulled fangs
results in rewriting the story so that Helena actually rips out his
fangs rather then some other kind of damage. (it might have been better
if I had constructed the story so that I had 2 seperate endings and
could show the difference between them, in terms of story and then game
mechanics, but you can pretend I did)
Im not sure anyone else is reading this thread anymore :>,
James B.
(Actually James C., i'd like to thank you for challenging my explanatory
powers severely)
In article <33F798...@tpgi.com.au>, "James B. Floate"
<jfl...@tpgi.com.au> writes
> Im not sure anyone else is reading this thread anymore :>,
I noticed that. Fun, isn't it?
(Actually, I'm paid by the *real* people behind the internet (you know,
the hush hush government conspiracy people) to keep the amount of stuff
on the news groups as low as possible - whenever I reply to a thread, it
more or less stops immediately - bit of a bugger, that).
[ quoted text not captured ]