First Strike & Dodge. You tell me!!!

hu...@ecf.toronto.edu (HU IAN) writes: >The rules states that first strike occurs before your opponent's strike. >The rules also state that dodge negates your opponent's strike. >Thus: Does first strike happen before dodge? Or does dodge negate first >strike? DTR ruling: the dodge wins, except against Combat Ends. I'm not aware of any significant disagreement with this ruling. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

The rules states that first strike occurs before your opponent's strike. The rules also state that dodge negates your opponent's strike. Thus: Does first strike happen before dodge? Or does dodge negate first strike? (Ah ha!)

[ quoted text not captured ] Just a wild guess(our house rules): Since the First Strike is resolved first, it can't be dodged. Majesty completely negates any strikes(as stated in the rules) Dodged Bombs, and Bursts of Sunlight do not hurt the either vampire (since the strike was negated - this seems illogical, but this is a card game, not an RPG) Wolf companions, Spawning Pools, and Weather Controls are not strikes and cannot be dodged Combat cards with a cost, which are dodged have their effects negated, not their cost as well tony, Prince of Iowa City

Intimate apperal (abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote: : On Sat, 1 Apr 1995, HU IAN wrote: : > The rules states that first strike occurs before your opponent's strike. : > The rules also state that dodge negates your opponent's strike. : > : > Thus: Does first strike happen before dodge? Or does dodge negate first : > strike? : > : > (Ah ha!) : > : > : > : > : Just a wild guess(our house rules): : Since the First Strike is resolved first, it can't be dodged. This is not true, dodge does negate strikes done with first strike. It makes little sense, but that's how they ruled it. : Majesty completely negates any strikes(as stated in the rules) : Dodged Bombs, and Bursts of Sunlight do not hurt the either vampire (since : the strike was negated - this seems illogical, but this is a card game, : not an RPG) : Wolf companions, Spawning Pools, and Weather Controls are not strikes and : cannot be dodged : Combat cards with a cost, which are dodged have their effects negated, : not their cost as well ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is why the Tremere hate the Toreador! : tony, Prince of Iowa City All the other examples are correct. Larrx...

Larry Harriman (la...@bu.edu) wrote: : Intimate apperal (abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote: : : Since the First Strike is resolved first, it can't be dodged. : This is not true, dodge does negate strikes done with first strike. It makes : little sense, but that's how they ruled it. : : Majesty completely negates any strikes(as stated in the rules) Almost. Majesty _Ends Combat_; no strike may even be played by the blocker if the Majesty was played by the Acting Minion. Shane Travis | A man who carries a cat by the tail learns sht...@duke.usask.ca | something he can learn no other way. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Mark Twain

The usual warning ... In article <3lnnvp$d...@tribune.usask.ca> sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >Larry Harriman (la...@bu.edu) wrote: > >: : Majesty completely negates any strikes(as stated in the rules) > >Almost. Majesty _Ends Combat_; no strike may even be played by the >blocker if the Majesty was played by the Acting Minion. I doubt the reasonable-ness of this ruling. Why can't I play a Majesty to untap just because my opponent played a Strike: Combat Ends? The original rules didn't say that Strike: Combat Ends should be resolved before strikes are /played/. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <3lp6e0$d...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > I doubt the reasonable-ness of this ruling. Why can't I play > a Majesty to untap just because my opponent played a Strike: > Combat Ends? The original rules didn't say that Strike: Combat > Ends should be resolved before strikes are /played/. The rules state that a cobat ends happens "immediately", therefore if the acting minion plays a combat ends type card, the combat ends before the blocking minion can play a strike. I would tend to agree with the desire to play another strike to cycle a card, or for some other benifit (like playing a Majesty to untap the blocking vampire), but the rule is pretty clear that it happens before the blocking minion can do anything. stephen

Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote: : sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: : >Larry Harriman (la...@bu.edu) wrote: : > : >: : Majesty completely negates any strikes(as stated in the rules) : > : >Almost. Majesty _Ends Combat_; no strike may even be played by the : >blocker if the Majesty was played by the Acting Minion. : I doubt the reasonable-ness of this ruling. Why can't I play : a Majesty to untap just because my opponent played a Strike: : Combat Ends? The original rules didn't say that Strike: Combat : Ends should be resolved before strikes are /played/. Note: Nowhere did I say that it is reasonable. I (should have) said that it is a DTR, which as we all know is often mutually incompatable with reasonable. I do not have a problem with people ending combat immediately _after_ both players have played their strikes (even if the acting minion played a Combat Ends) but the way I described is the official way to play. Now if the DTR had any sense, they'd change a lot of larger things before they got all the way down to this one... :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) writes: >In article <3lp6e0$d...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) >wrote: >> I doubt the reasonable-ness of this ruling. Why can't I play >> a Majesty to untap just because my opponent played a Strike: >> Combat Ends? The original rules didn't say that Strike: Combat >> Ends should be resolved before strikes are /played/. >The rules state that a cobat ends happens "immediately", therefore if the >acting minion plays a combat ends type card, the combat ends before the >blocking minion can play a strike. The rules also state that the normal hand strike does one damage. That damage doesn't occur until the strike resolves, however. The rules also state that a strike to Destroy Equipment will force a piece of equipment to be put in the owner's ash heap. That doesn't happen until the strike resolves, however. Dodge doesn't even prevent a First Strike from occuring - it simply (retro-actively) cancels the effect (when the Dodge resolves, of course), just like a Strike: Combat Ends would. In fact, no strike has any effect until it resolves, per the rulebook. Enter: Design Team [Groan from the audience :-] DT: Well, looking at the text under Strike: Combat Ends (taken out of context), The combat ends immediately upon the play of the card. [Aside] We'll just ignore that it says it cancels a strike with First Strike, since now there is no strike to cancel. And we'll ignore the the fact that the bloody entry we're taking out of context even starts with "This is considered a strike" and "The *strike* ends combat" (Instead of "the *declaration* of the strike ends combat", as we have Because-We-Say-So'ed). [Again to Captive Audience] Hope you enjoy what used to be a logical, somewhat consistent game... [Exeunt DT, never to be heard from again.] >I would tend to agree with the desire to play another strike to cycle a >card, or for some other benifit (like playing a Majesty to untap the >blocking vampire), but the rule is pretty clear that it happens before the >blocking minion can do anything. Eh? "Rules" and "Clear" in the same sentence? You shall be hanged for the offense, sir :-) >stephen

In article <hippo-03049...@gill.hrc.utexas.edu> hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) writes: >The rules state that a cobat ends happens "immediately", therefore if the >acting minion plays a combat ends type card, the combat ends before the >blocking minion can play a strike. There is still the question of whether the wording is /intended/ to mean such. It can be argued that strikes (even "Combat Ends") are not resolved until the Strike Resolution phase, when, at that time, Combat Ends "immediately". The careless WotC people would have written the rules that way, regardless of which one is the /intended/ interpretation. The rules also state, in parenthesis, "(before any damage is dealt or any strike's effects take place)". This may even imply that the Strike: Combat Ends is not actually resolved until the Strike Resolution Phase, at which time it is resolved before any other strikes or damage effects. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3lpgbl$e...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > Eh? "Rules" and "Clear" in the same sentence? You shall be hanged for the > offense, sir :-) I guess it would be too much to hope that the DT would help to clarify rules, rather than tending to muddy the waters considerably more. I attempt to follow the rules to the letter, and (when possible) to the spirit as well. But, just like in every other game, and especially in a CCG with too many variables to completely playtest, there will be parts of the rules where strictly following them will result in at least a modicum of unreasonableness. Perhaps the best way to solve these problems is to come to some sort of agreement (I know, here I go asking for miracles again) and present them to WoTC. I am sure that among the elders of this group, many more hours of the game have been played than the DT, (if only because there are many more of us), and that experience would be helpful to them. This, of course, assumes that they really care about our opinions. Perhaps we should look into forming an 'official' group for ruling on complicated rules issues. At least we could be sure to have an answer available to everybody. The DT seems to be absent or unavailable far too often. It's just an idea, but why not? stephen

In article <3lpkat$v...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > The rules also state, in parenthesis, "(before any damage is dealt > or any strike's effects take place)". This may even imply > that the Strike: Combat Ends is not actually resolved until the > Strike Resolution Phase, at which time it is resolved before any > other strikes or damage effects. Or that wording could have been placed there to clarify that if the blocking minion played a Strike:Combat ends, that it would not take the effect of whatever strike was levelled against it. I don't think we disagree on our preferred reading of the rule. I would like a blocking minion to have a chance to play a strike card if it so desires. I just think that going by a strict reading of the rules, and the DTR, that it's not allowed. As you said, this is another example of a need to clarify the wording of the rules to make it explicit as to the method for dealing with these cards. Unfortunately, I believe that any set of rules will have it's ambiguities and it's unreasonable (but strictly legal) interpretations. It's up to the players to decide to play within the spirit of the rules, or at least to decide upon an interpretation to play with. stephen

hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) wrote: > Perhaps we should look into forming an 'official' group for ruling on > complicated rules issues. At least we could be sure to have an answer > available to everybody. The DT seems to be absent or unavailable far too > often. > It's just an idea, but why not? Peace Stephen, Because the elders are being manipulated by the antideluvians and are too busy fighting amongst themselves to come to a resonable conclusion. 8^) Seriously, I'm more than happy to try something like that, BUT I _seriously_ doubt that WotC would ever sanction anything we did (regardless of how playable/balanced Jyhad became as a result). Some people have already "poo-pooed" the idea. What do you say (in no particular order) Curt, Alan, Joe, Scott, and Shane? Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) wrote: >> Perhaps we should look into forming an 'official' group for ruling on >> complicated rules issues. At least we could be sure to have an answer >> available to everybody. The DT seems to be absent or unavailable far too >> often. >> It's just an idea, but why not? >Peace Stephen, >Because the elders are being manipulated by the antideluvians and are too >busy fighting amongst themselves to come to a resonable conclusion. 8^) >Seriously, I'm more than happy to try something like that, BUT I _seriously_ >doubt that WotC would ever sanction anything we did (regardless of how >playable/balanced Jyhad became as a result). Some people have already >"poo-pooed" the idea. What do you say (in no particular order) Curt, Alan, >Joe, Scott, and Shane? Since WotC is no longer dealing with questions like the proper interpretation of Parity Shift (and I'm not sure I'd care what they said anyway), somebody else has to do it. We're doing it now, just in a disorganized fashion, without keeping records. May as well have procedures to do it better. 2 questions - Who participates? Anybody who cares to write? A self-appointed group? A group elected by the Jyhad posters? How do we provide these conclusions for newbies? Can somebody keep a FAQ? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <hippo-03049...@gill.hrc.utexas.edu> hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) writes: >I am sure that among the elders of this >group, many more hours of the game have been played than the DT, (if only >because there are many more of us), and that experience would be helpful >to them. This, of course, assumes that they really care about our >opinions. > >Perhaps we should look into forming an 'official' group for ruling on >complicated rules issues. At least we could be sure to have an answer >available to everybody. The DT seems to be absent or unavailable far too >often. >It's just an idea, but why not? The first problem that comes to mind is that one of the apparent `elders' in the group is actually a newbie with next to nil playing experience, masquerading as an elder with a Mask of 1000 Faces. What we can be forming is not a `psuedo-offocial' group (I don't want to get into pointless debates as to what should be `official'), but rather call it a group for proposing `suggested house rules' (although such `house rules' would be `recommended for tournament play'). [ quoted text not captured ]

hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) writes >Obviously, I think that the idea of a NETGROUP compiling and listing rules >recommended for tournament play would be wonderful. Even though I am >fairly new to the group, I would be happy to participate in any capacity. >I do think, in answer to some of Shane's responses, that the tthrashing >out of 'decisions' should be as public as possible, allowing for input >from everyone interested. Would it be possible to set up a voting system >where people can formally register their opions, on the record as itt >were? I think that might be beneficial, as well as listing all of the >variations on a given rule. >If we think this is a good idea, when and how do we start? LSJ has just started a compilation of active posters' recommendations. Apparantly there will be no restrictions on who can add. He'll probably get swamped, but I'll be eager to help. Can anybody make an FTP site to keep discussions for future reference? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >>hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) wrote: >>> Perhaps we should look into forming an 'official' group for ruling on >>> complicated rules issues. At least we could be sure to have an answer >>> available to everybody. The DT seems to be absent or unavailable far >too >>> often. >>> It's just an idea, but why not? >>Peace Stephen, >>Because the elders are being manipulated by the antideluvians and are too >>busy fighting amongst themselves to come to a resonable conclusion. 8^) >>Seriously, I'm more than happy to try something like that, BUT I >_seriously_ >>doubt that WotC would ever sanction anything we did (regardless of how >>playable/balanced Jyhad became as a result). Some people have already >>"poo-pooed" the idea. What do you say (in no particular order) Curt, >Alan, >>Joe, Scott, and Shane? >Since WotC is no longer dealing with questions like the proper >interpretation of Parity Shift (and I'm not sure I'd care what they said >anyway), somebody else has to do it. We're doing it now, just in a >disorganized fashion, without keeping records. May as well have >procedures to do it better. >2 questions - >Who participates? Anybody who cares to write? A self-appointed group? A >group elected by the Jyhad posters? I would say that "we" don't decide anything (except by unanimous opinion, yeah right :-). If any of these opinions ever make it as "Usenet-official", then the options that we're overruled whould also be listed with it. Some play groups prefer to play different ways. >How do we provide these conclusions for newbies? Can somebody keep a FAQ? I'd be happy to maintain a list of house rules (in order of popularity, I guess, for each card) Look for an example list to follow...

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: : >Some people have already : >"poo-pooed" the idea. What do you say (in no particular order) Curt, Alan, : >Joe, Scott, and Shane? Well, I'm all for it. I will (continue to) lend support wherever possible. : Since WotC is no longer dealing with questions like the proper : interpretation of Parity Shift (and I'm not sure I'd care what they said : anyway), somebody else has to do it. We're doing it now, just in a : disorganized fashion, without keeping records. May as well have : procedures to do it better. : 2 questions - : Who participates? Anybody who cares to write? A self-appointed group? A : group elected by the Jyhad posters? Immediate thoughts off the top of my head: The way someone would 'become' one of the 'core group' would be to do what every other one of the people mentioned above did - read the newsgroup, answer questions, contribute reasonably to discussions and show that you are knowledgable about the game, and stick around long enough for people to recognize these contributions. The 'netgroup' would start with the people mentioned above by James (plus maybe one or two others, and James himself) and other people would be added (or could petition to be added) based on their postings in this group. Ideas for discussion formats: 1) Discussions between 'netgroup' on rulings gets taken to e-mail and mailing lists. PRO - fast, needn't worry about 'cluttering up' newsgroup. CON - too private, too inbred. Would others follow the decisions, or even the logic of the decisions if they couldn't see the process taking place? 2) People post questions for discussion/answers (as they do now), possibly prefacing them with a NETGROUP: header or some such. Anyone can come on and discuss it, as it is done now, but the 'final answer' would have to be hammered out by the netgroup members. Answer drafts could be written up and voted on(maybe this part could be done through e-mail) and posted after either consensus was reached (not always going to be possible) or some majority agreed (2/3 is usually good). Those voting for and against the final ruling could even be recorded so people could go 'on record' if they so desired. : How do we provide these conclusions for newbies? Can somebody keep a FAQ? I think there would have to be one. The 'official' answers should also be included in any such document so that people can see exactly where the netgroup has deviated from official WotC DTRs. I suggested something like this to Scott when I first saw his Card Rulings file - that he add to it/keep a separate listing of 'common sense' ways to play the cards. He begged off due to lack of time, and suggested I do it. I started it, but it didn't get very far. I would be willing to keep such a document should no one else volunteer for the job. So? How does that sound? [ quoted text not captured ]

Obviously, I think that the idea of a NETGROUP compiling and listing rules recommended for tournament play would be wonderful. Even though I am fairly new to the group, I would be happy to participate in any capacity. I do think, in answer to some of Shane's responses, that the tthrashing out of 'decisions' should be as public as possible, allowing for input from everyone interested. Would it be possible to set up a voting system where people can formally register their opions, on the record as itt were? I think that might be beneficial, as well as listing all of the variations on a given rule. If we think this is a good idea, when and how do we start? stephen

In article <3lsu4e$7...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >I'd be happy to maintain a list of house rules (in order of popularity, >I guess, for each card) > >Look for an example list to follow... Ah. This makes more sense now. Ignore my first paragraph in the messagethat follows up to your list. I got that one before this one on my server. The little light bulb over my head just went on. But the rest of the suggestions are still good (I think). | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

>This is not true, dodge does negate strikes done with first strike. It makes >little sense, but that's how they ruled it. > It makes perfect since if look at it this way. Even though the dodge don't say so, the design team has ruled, in effect, that a dodge is inherently a first strike action. I wonder if this thread would even exist if the rule had the following simple statement. 'All dodges are done at first strike.' Chris

In article <3lue1h$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >Can anybody make an FTP site to keep discussions for future reference? I have an ftp site where I've posted the DTR's, and I'll be glad to put other Jyhad stuff there as long as I have the site (which should be for at least 18 months more). I don't know exactly what you want to keep there, though. It's: ftp://discus.ise.vt.edu/pub/outgoing/jsciv, anonymous logon. [ quoted text not captured ]