damage prevention - ruling

Is superior daring the dawn´s damage preventable ? I think it should be, to be different from the inferior version. LSJ , thanks afore for answering... Thomas Stellmach

Thomas Stellmach wrote: > > Is superior daring the dawn´s damage preventable ? No. > I think it should be, to be different from the inferior version. The only difference is that the vampire takes 1 agg instead of 2 agg. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team

In article <33C62C...@regency.wizards.com>, "LSJ (VtES Rep)" <vte...@regency.wizards.com> writes >Thomas Stellmach wrote: >> >> Is superior daring the dawn愀 damage preventable ? > >No. > >> I think it should be, to be different from the inferior version. > >The only difference is that the vampire takes 1 agg instead of 2 agg. > Can I ask a question? I know there was a ruling recently on Damage Prevention (in a group of about 10 recent Rules Team reversals) which I think said "No combat cards outside of combat" eg damage prevention. However, now I have my own internet account (rather than looking at someone else's) I don't have that ruling. How does it stand at the moment? -- James Coupe (note spam proof e-mail address) The owls are not what they seem.

James Coupe wrote: > Can I ask a question? Sure. Ask another. :-) > I know there was a ruling recently on Damage > Prevention (in a group of about 10 recent Rules Team reversals) which I > think said "No combat cards outside of combat" eg damage prevention. This is not a reversal. Combat cards can only be played in combat. That's why they're called combat cards. Errata on superior Rutor's Hand makes the damage create its own combat-strike-resolution phase (so that combat can be played). > However, now I have my own internet account (rather than looking at > someone else's) I don't have that ruling. How does it stand at the > moment? Combat cards can only be played during combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <33CA12...@regency.wizards.com>, "LSJ (VtES Rep)" <vte...@regency.wizards.com> writes >James Coupe wrote: > >> Can I ask a question? > >Sure. Ask another. :-) > >> I know there was a ruling recently on Damage >> Prevention (in a group of about 10 recent Rules Team reversals) which I >> think said "No combat cards outside of combat" eg damage prevention. > >This is not a reversal. Combat cards can only be played in combat. >That's why they're called combat cards. > >Errata on superior Rutor's Hand makes the damage create its own >combat-strike-resolution phase (so that combat can be played). > >> However, now I have my own internet account (rather than looking at >> someone else's) I don't have that ruling. How does it stand at the >> moment? > >Combat cards can only be played during combat. > Thanks, I wasn't aware of the errata that made them start a pretend combat so that you could play the combat cards. Last time I checked the errata it was that you could play combat cards outside of combat for preventable damage like that - seeing that combat cards now could only be played in combat and no mention of what to do if damage could be prevented didn't add up. Thanks. [ quoted text not captured ]