I forget his name - I don't have him, but there's a Sabbat Tremere
that inflicts +1 damage on all strikes that requires Thaumaturgy.
What happens on a steal blood strike? If blood is stolen, and 1
damage occurs, in what order does that happen? Also, if the strike is
for aggravated damage, is the additional 1 damage also aggravated?
an Email reply would be appreciated
Dan
dan.h...@dartmouth.edu
Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> I forget his name - I don't have him, but there's a Sabbat Tremere
> that inflicts +1 damage on all strikes that requires Thaumaturgy.
Reverend Blackwood.
> What happens on a steal blood strike?
If the strike does not deal damage, then it is unaffected. So Theft of
Vitae works as normal, and does not deal damage when played by Rev.
Blackwood.
> Also, if the strike is
> for aggravated damage, is the additional 1 damage also aggravated?
Yes.
James
--
James Hamblin je...@cornell.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only one human captain has ever survived battle with the Minbari fleet.
He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be
somewhere else." -- Ambassador Delenn, "Babylon 5: Severed Dreams"
James Hamblin wrote:
>
> Dan Hollis wrote:
> >
(snipped for space)
> > Also, if the strike is
> > for aggravated damage, is the additional 1 damage also aggravated?
>
Our play group had differing oppinions on whether something like "+1
damage, aggravated" means add one aggravated damage to the normal
damage, or add one damage & make all damage aggravated. But in some old
WoC commentary in Duelist it was clarified that you heal or prevent
aggravated damage last, so it doesn't even matter. Five points of
aggravated damage with four points healed has the same effect under
V:TES rules as Four points of healed regular damage plus one point of
unhealed aggravated damage.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
pheersum inhabits the mortal shell of eric schultheis. one
channels mailto://phee...@sb.net. pheersum manifests at
http://www.sb.net/pheersum/Pheerpage.htm . nature says,"go ahead, have
as many babies as you want. something will eat them."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pheersum (phee...@sb.net) wrote:
: Our play group had differing oppinions on whether something like "+1: damage, aggravated" means add one aggravated damage to the normal
: damage, or add one damage & make all damage aggravated. But in some old
: WoC commentary in Duelist it was clarified that you heal or prevent
: aggravated damage last, so it doesn't even matter. Five points of
: aggravated damage with four points healed has the same effect under
: V:TES rules as Four points of healed regular damage plus one point of
: unhealed aggravated damage.
Ah, but it does matter... because it has been ruled that PREVENTION can
be chosen, it is simply that aggro. must be healed last. So if you can do
1 normal and 4 aggro OR 4 normal and 1 aggro, it makes a _heck_ of a lot
of difference to me, because I can use my flak jacket to _choose_ to
prevent one of the aggro.
I must heal the aggro. last though.
Gotta' love rulings.
-spongy
>Ah, but it does matter... because it has been ruled that PREVENTION can
>be chosen, it is simply that aggro. must be healed last. So if you can do
>1 normal and 4 aggro OR 4 normal and 1 aggro, it makes a _heck_ of a lot
>of difference to me, because I can use my flak jacket to _choose_ to
>prevent one of the aggro.
>I must heal the aggro. last though.
Could you please clarify this.
Say there has been 4 normal and 1 aggro done to a vamp w/Flak Jacket. Can that
vamp choose not to prevent the normal then prevent the one aggro? Or would the
Flak Jacket have to be used on the normal?
Sorrow
--
I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am
anymore |--------------------------------
I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...?
anymore | you never seen anyone try to
I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Sorrow,
On 22 Nov 1996, Sorrow wrote:
> Could you please clarify this.
> Say there has been 4 normal and 1 aggro done to a vamp w/Flak Jacket. Can that
> vamp choose not to prevent the normal then prevent the one aggro? Or would the
> Flak Jacket have to be used on the normal?
>
You are correct. You can choose which damage is prevented.
Algustas
*****You, like me, are a life form that is neither human nor boomer, but
superior to both. That is why I should have killed you twelve years ago,
along with Dr. Stingray.***** Largo, Bubblegum Crash #3, Meltdown
> Sorrow wrote:
> Could you please clarify this.
> Say there has been 4 normal and 1 aggro done to a vamp w/Flak Jacket. Can that
> vamp choose not to prevent the normal then prevent the one aggro? Or would the
> Flak Jacket have to be used on the normal?
Yes. The one agg can be prevented by the flak jacket. It occurs
in this order...4 normal damage is resolved. You choose not to prevent
this.
The 1 agg. is resolved. You choose to prevent this.
The normal damage is resolved first to give combat decks a better
chance of burning vampires.
In article <3293C3...@cornell.edu> James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes:
>Dan Hollis wrote:>> I forget his name - I don't have him, but there's a Sabbat Tremere
>> that inflicts +1 damage on all strikes that requires Thaumaturgy.
[snip]
>> Also, if the strike is
>> for aggravated damage, is the additional 1 damage also aggravated?>Yes.
So, if he plays a Burst of Daylight, he takes 2 damage to himself as well as
to his opponent?
Loki | once sysop of TWWOL | f3...@unb.ca (preferred)
Brynjolfr Myrkjartanarson | now law student | d_fl...@husky1.stmarys.ca
http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~d_flemmi/
m...@siwash.bc.ca (Darin Clisby) writes:
>I thought it said in the rules book that aggravated damage is *last*
>to be absorbed?
It is the last applied.
Thatis, it is the last damage that you burn blood for.
However, you prevent damage before you start burning blood for
any of it, and you do not have to prevent it in the order in which
it will be applied. You can prevent any of it - including
just the aggravated part.
This is all broken down quite extensively in my rules
outline, to be posted on Monday (as it is at the beginning of
every month).
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Eschew
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | Obfuscation
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
f3...@unb.ca (Loki) writes:
>In article <3293C3...@cornell.edu> James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes:>>Dan Hollis wrote:>>> I forget his name - I don't have him, but there's a Sabbat Tremere
>>> that inflicts +1 damage on all strikes that requires Thaumaturgy.>[snip]>>> Also, if the strike is
>>> for aggravated damage, is the additional 1 damage also aggravated?>>Yes.>So, if he plays a Burst of Daylight, he takes 2 damage to himself as well as
>to his opponent?
At inferior, yes. (Until an errata/ruling comes along to overturn
card text).
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 30 Nov 1996 19:48:06 GMT, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott
Johnson) wrote:
>f3...@unb.ca (Loki) writes:>>In article <3293C3...@cornell.edu> James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes:>>>Dan Hollis wrote:>>>> I forget his name - I don't have him, but there's a Sabbat Tremere
>>>> that inflicts +1 damage on all strikes that requires Thaumaturgy.>>[snip]>>>> Also, if the strike is
>>>> for aggravated damage, is the additional 1 damage also aggravated?>>>Yes.
L. Scott. How does BlackWood's ability interact with the ruling on
combining Burning Wrath and Increased Strength? (As I understood it ,
it ran that the only damage from Burning Wrath that was aggravated was
the damage specifically stated as Aggravated in the strike.)
a) Do Burning Wrath and Increased Strength interact differently than I
remember them being ruled to interact?
and
b) How does this Apply to Blackwood's special ability?
>>So, if he plays a Burst of Daylight, he takes 2 damage to himself as well as
>>to his opponent?>
>At inferior, yes. (Until an errata/ruling comes along to overturn
>card text).
So, was Burning Wrath's effect a ruling specific to it, then? Is that
what's causing me this problem?
Alec Chang
te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) writes:
>L. Scott. How does BlackWood's ability interact with the ruling on
>combining Burning Wrath and Increased Strength? (As I understood it ,
>it ran that the only damage from Burning Wrath that was aggravated was
>the damage specifically stated as Aggravated in the strike.)
As I understand it:
If you add damage, the added damage is of the same type as the base
strike.
If you add damage of a particular type, then the nature of the base strike
isn't changed to match (this is the ruling on Burning Wrath - which
ignores the comma in card text).
>a) Do Burning Wrath and Increased Strength interact differently than I
>remember them being ruled to interact?
Only slightly, as above.
>and
>b) How does this Apply to Blackwood's special ability?
Blackwood increases the damage done, but the increase still matches the
base strike's damage type.
>So, was Burning Wrath's effect a ruling specific to it, then? Is that
>what's causing me this problem?
I suppose - it is a general rule, but is different from Blackwood
(adding damage of a specific type rather than just increasing the damage).
(Besides, as written, Burning Wrath akes all of the damage aggravated,
which fits with the rest of the world and makes everything much easier
to undersatnd. Too bad we can't get a ruling to back up the grammar).
[ quoted text not captured ]