Strike Resolution and a Nifty combo that probably doesn't work - LSJ?

Suppose i have a vampire with superior celerity and dementation. Suppose they Fast React or Hidden Lurker themselves onto somebody. First round; strike hands. Blur at superior. Second round, first strike is Garotte, second strike is Coma. May i now burn the garotte to burn the vampire? Name: Garrote [FN] Cardtype: Equipment Cost: 1 pool Melee weapon. Strike: strength damage, only usable at close range. If the opposing vampire goes into torpor during *the strike resolution step* of *this strike* and the bearer remains ready, the bearer may burn this card to burn the opposing vampire. This is not considered diablerie. Name: Coma [Sabbat, SW] Cardtype: Combat Cost: 3 blood Discipline: Dementation [dem] Strike: opposing vampire goes into torpor. [DEM] As above, and that vampire does not untap during his or her controller's next untap phase. It's really a question about whether there is one resolution step for each strike, and secondarily a queston about what *this strike* means [i suspect that there is one resolution step for each strike [rather than, for example, one per round]; and that *this strike* means *the strike which is being talked about on this card, ie a melee weapon strike for strength damage with the garotte*]. Thanks in advance for any help!

legbiter wrote: > > Suppose i have a vampire with superior celerity and dementation. > Suppose they Fast React or Hidden Lurker themselves onto somebody. > First round; strike hands. Blur at superior. Second round, first > strike is Garotte, second strike is Coma. May i now burn the garotte > to burn the vampire? No. > It's really a question about whether there is one resolution step for > each strike, and secondarily a queston about what *this strike* means > [i suspect that there is one resolution step for each strike [rather > than, for example, one per round]; and that *this strike* means *the > strike which is being talked about on this card, ie a melee weapon > strike for strength damage with the garotte*]. Correct: There is one resolution step for each pair of strikes (yours and your opponent's). "This strike" means the Garrote strike. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.02041...@posting.google.com>... > Suppose i have a vampire with superior celerity and dementation. > Suppose they Fast React or Hidden Lurker themselves onto somebody. > First round; strike hands. Blur at superior. Second round, first > strike is Garotte, second strike is Coma. May i now burn the garotte > to burn the vampire? -snip- What I don´t understand is why would you wan´t to strike three time with hands during the first round (while the hidden lurker/fast reaction) was in effect, and then use the garrote during the second round. The obviouse thing to do would be to have a ghoul retainer use the garrote while the vampire strikes with come. Would that work?

Daz <wb...@hotmail.com> skrev i diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:b57b2dc9.02041...@posting.google.com ... [ quoted text not captured ] I'd also like to know if it works the other way around, for instance if the vampire strikes with garrote and ghoul retainer with Ivory Bow? (assuming no prevent) also, would this combo work (i.e. burning the garrote and the opposing vampire) even if the garrotte strike is dodged or prevented in any way? -- Henrik Isaksson

Henrik Isaksson wrote: > Daz <wb...@hotmail.com> skrev i > > The obviouse thing to do would be to have a ghoul retainer use the > > garrote while the vampire strikes with come. > > Would that work? Yes. > I'd also like to know if it works the other way around, for instance if the > vampire strikes with garrote and ghoul retainer with Ivory Bow? (assuming no Yes. > prevent) also, would this combo work (i.e. burning the garrote and the > opposing vampire) even if the garrotte strike is dodged or prevented in any > way? Even if dodged? good question. Since the strike is still resolved, though, the Garrote can still be used to burn the torpor-bound opponent. Even if the damage is prevented? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CBC648D...@white-wolf.com... > Henrik Isaksson wrote: > > would this combo work (i.e. burning the garrote and the > > opposing vampire) even if the garrotte strike is dodged or prevented in any > > way? > > Even if dodged? good question. > Since the strike is still resolved, though, the Garrote can still be > used to burn the torpor-bound opponent. So the burn-effect is not an effect of the strike, but only a sort of "other effect" of the weapon? "Dodge: A dodge strike deals no damage, but it protects the dodging minion and his possessions from the effects of the opposing strike." [6.4.5] Josh

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Henrik Isaksson wrote: > > > would this combo work (i.e. burning the garrote and the > > > opposing vampire) even if the garrotte strike is dodged or prevented in > any > > > way? > > > > Even if dodged? good question. > > Since the strike is still resolved, though, the Garrote can still be > > used to burn the torpor-bound opponent. > > So the burn-effect is not an effect of the strike, but only > a sort of "other effect" of the weapon? Right. It's something that can be done if something else (opposing vampire to torpor) happens during the resolution of the strike. [ quoted text not captured ]