agg damage

can someone please explain to me the reasoning behind the 7/7 rulings on aggravated damage? as far as i see it, in the v:tes rulebook (i no longer have a copy of the jyhad rulebook, but i thought it went along the same lines), if a vampire takes 1 point of normal damage, he/she burns 1 blood, or, if he/she has no blood to burn, he/she goes to torpor at the end of strike resolution. if he/she takes 1 point of aggravated damage, he/she burns 1 blood AND goes to torpor at the end of strike resolution, or, if he/she has no blood to burn, he/she is burned at the end of strike resolution. then according to what i read about 7/7, the 1st point of aggravated damage received does not burn a blood, but counts as 1 "unhealed point of damage", and only if a vampire already has 1 or more "unhealed point(s) of damage" will taking 1 point of aggravated damage bring about the burning of 1 blood, or the burning of the vampire if it had no blood to burn. this seems to me to make it incredibly hard to burn a vampire in combat. was this the intention, so there would be more diablerie? i recall someone (i can't remember whom) posting on this newsgroup that the 7/7 rulings (excuse me if the quote isn't very accurate) "meant that the ivory bow, or a vamp with a single point of agg hand damage could now burn a vampire, whereas they couldn't before the 7/7 rulings". this seems complete garbage. 7/7 now makes this impossible. before 7/7 a vampire could be burned in combat if it was blocked while attempting to hunt because it had no blood, and took 1 agg damage. so, was 7/7 to stop things like this happening, or have i got all my facts wrong (sorry if i have). i still think that the rule in the v:tes rulebook is best. btw why the ruling that you can't increase stealth unless you need to? to stop people cycling through their cards too quickly? ben

In article <F2KK8t.5B3.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>, b...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Ben O\'Leary) wrote: > can someone please explain to me the reasoning behind the 7/7 rulings on aggravated > damage? WoD reasoning: agg damage is merely damage that cannot be healed. Failing to heal this damage is the same as failing to heal any other damage. Additionally, agg damage has the capability to destroy a vampire who is already wounded. Card Game reasoning: agg damage was designed to have an effect approximately equivalent to the effect it has under the 7/7 rulings. The original design was slightly different in that it had a concept of "packeting" damage that was confusing and often led to strange results (like making regular damage occasionally more damaging than agg damage). The current rules model the original effect very well while avoiding the complications and odd situations arising from packeting. > as far as i see it, in the v:tes rulebook (i no longer have a copy of the jyhad > rulebook, but i thought it went along the same lines), if a vampire takes 1 point of > normal damage, he/she burns 1 blood, or, if he/she has no blood to burn, he/she goes > to torpor at the end of strike resolution. if he/she takes 1 point of aggravated > damage, he/she burns 1 blood AND goes to torpor at the end of strike resolution, or, > if he/she has no blood to burn, he/she is burned at the end of strike resolution. > > then according to what i read about 7/7, the 1st point of aggravated damage received does not burn a > blood, but counts as 1 "unhealed point of damage", and only if a vampire already has > 1 or more "unhealed point(s) of damage" will taking 1 point of aggravated damage > bring about the burning of 1 blood, or the burning of the vampire if it had no blood > to burn. Right, very similar to the original (Jyhad) rules. The rules that all the cards in the base set that deal aggravated damage (except Wooden Stake) were designed under. > this seems to me to make it incredibly hard to burn a vampire in combat. was this the > intention, so there would be more diablerie? That was probably part of the original intention, yes. The intention of the 7/7 rule was to restore the original power level. > i recall someone (i can't remember whom) posting on this newsgroup that the 7/7 > rulings (excuse me if the quote isn't very accurate) "meant that the ivory bow, or a > vamp with a single point of agg hand damage could now burn a vampire, whereas they > couldn't before the 7/7 rulings". this seems complete garbage. Almost complete garbage. The single point by itself won't burn a ready vampire, contrary to the post you refer to, but the one damage from an Ivory Bow can burn him if he first takes enough damage to "unready" him from, say, Weather Control or a Wolf Companion. > 7/7 now makes this > impossible. before 7/7 a vampire could be burned in combat if it was blocked while > attempting to hunt because it had no blood, and took 1 agg damage. so, was 7/7 to > stop things like this happening, or have i got all my facts wrong (sorry if i have). 7/7 wasn't to stop this in particular - it was just to restore aggravated damage to the power level it was designed to have (and remove the excess power given to it by the V:TES rules change). > i still think that the rule in the v:tes rulebook is best. > > btw why the ruling that you can't increase stealth unless you need to? to stop people > cycling through their cards too quickly? Most likely, yes. Again, that is a rule that the game was designed with and, apart from a couple of months in 1997, has always been a part of the game. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

In article <F2KK8t.5B3.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>, Ben O\'Leary <b...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >can someone please explain to me the reasoning behind the 7/7 rulings on aggravated >damage? The botched V:tES agg damage rulings made agg damage too strong. Since Sabbat, burning vampires is too easy and diablerie/bloodhunts have faded in importance as a result. This is considered harmful. >this seems to me to make it incredibly hard to burn a vampire in combat. was this the >intention, so there would be more diablerie? well, I for one wouldn't say 'incredibly hard,' as only 1 extra point of damage is required (and it doesn't even need to be agg -- only 1 point has to be agg to burn, the rest can be normal), but yes, that was the intent as I understand it. >i still think that the rule in the v:tes rulebook is best. many of us disagree with you, but you are free to play how you like -- it's your game. >btw why the ruling that you can't increase stealth unless you need to? to stop people >cycling through their cards too quickly? exactly. and it's not a ruling, but rather a rule. it's been in place since the game began. gomi -- you say they taught you how to read and write yeah, they taught you how to count i say they taught you how to buy and sell your own body by the pound

In article <F2KK8t.5B3.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>, Ben O'Leary <b...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> writes >can someone please explain to me the reasoning behind the 7/7 rulings on >aggravated >damage? > Sure. >as far as i see it, in the v:tes rulebook Well, the V:TES rules wording is now redundant, of course. >(i no longer have a copy of the jyhad >rulebook, but i thought it went along the same lines), if a vampire takes 1 >point of >normal damage, he/she burns 1 blood, or, if he/she has no blood to burn, he/she >goes >to torpor at the end of strike resolution. if he/she takes 1 point of aggravated >damage, he/she burns 1 blood AND goes to torpor at the end of strike resolution, >or, >if he/she has no blood to burn, he/she is burned at the end of strike >resolution. This is, as far as I can see, more or less correct. > >then according to what i read about 7/7, the 1st point of aggravated damage >received does not burn a >blood, but counts as 1 "unhealed point of damage", and only if a vampire already >has >1 or more "unhealed point(s) of damage" will taking 1 point of aggravated damage >bring about the burning of 1 blood, or the burning of the vampire if it had no >blood >to burn. > This, as far as I can see, is correct. >this seems to me to make it incredibly hard to burn a vampire in combat. Not really. At any point, deal X+2 damage to a vampire where X is the amount of blood they are currently on and they don't have any points of unhealed damage. At least 1 point of damage you deal must be aggravated. Then they burn. No problem. A 0 blood vampire can be killed with a lucky blow and a claw card, for example (2 damage, at least 1 aggravated). >was >this the >intention, so there would be more diablerie? The intention wasn't necessarily for more diablerie. The thing is, in V:TM, burning vampires outright (no diablerie) is very hard. Jyhad also made it very hard - because every *source* of aggravated damage was packetted so you had to get 2 points of aggravated damage from one source. When V:TES tried to stream-line the rules, it made it very easy to do. > >i recall someone (i can't remember whom) posting on this newsgroup that the 7/7 >rulings (excuse me if the quote isn't very accurate) "meant that the ivory bow, >or a >vamp with a single point of agg hand damage could now burn a vampire, whereas >they >couldn't before the 7/7 rulings". Erm, you've probably misquoted me and got it the wrong way round. It is designed to make it harder to burn vampires with aggravated damage in small amounts. Between V:TES' release, and 7/7, it was very easy to burn a vampire. Jyhad made it difficult. Post 7/7 makes it more difficult (but not quite as bad as Jyhad). >this seems complete garbage. 7/7 now makes >this >impossible. With only an ivory bow or any other source simply of 1 point of aggravated damage, yes, most probably. >before 7/7 a vampire could be burned in combat if it was blocked >while >attempting to hunt because it had no blood, and took 1 agg damage. Before V:TES, it wouldn't have been. >so, was 7/7 >to >stop things like this happening, or have i got all my facts wrong (sorry if i >have). A few of the facts, yes. But generally, 7/7 is designed to tone down small sources of agg. damage. > >i still think that the rule in the v:tes rulebook is best. The ruling in the V:TES rulebook is fairly simple. Since the game cards weren't changed radically from Jyhad to V:TES, the change in the rules made some things much easier. Burning vampires very easily with a piece of equipment is not a good thing, so it was altered by the now Rules Team. > > >btw why the ruling that you can't increase stealth unless you need to? to stop >people >cycling through their cards too quickly? Basically, yes. This isn't a ruling, though, it's in the rulebook. In a Malkavian Stealth Bleed deck, they could just throw down stealth to get to their bleed. By not blocking and not providing an opportunity to cycle stealth, they won't get enough bleed in hand. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

ok now i'm confused..... let me see if i got this AGG damage thing straight..... if a minion hit by 1 point of agravated damage he doesn't have to burn a point of blood to heal it....he just goes to Torpor after damage is dealt (regardless of how much blood he has remaining on him), however if atleast one extra point of damage is dealt to him (regardless if this extra point is AGG or not), he has to heal that one extra point (by burning a blood), but if he can't heal the extra point then the minion is burned.... i think that sounds about right......

I know LSJ will get to this, but... WaRPeD wrote: > <--snip "I'm confused" part--> > if a minion hit by 1 point of agravated damage he doesn't have to burn a > point of blood to heal it....he just goes to Torpor after damage is dealt > (regardless of how much blood he has remaining on him), This is correct. You cannot heal aggravated damage. A vampire with unhealed damage goes to torpor. > however if atleast > one extra point of damage is dealt to him (regardless if this extra point > is AGG or not), he has to heal that one extra point (by burning a blood), > but if he can't heal the extra point then the minion is burned.... You account for the blood properly, however, your terms are just a bit off. When a vampire with unhealed damage takes additional points of damage, he is not "healing" the damage, he is burning a blood to prevent his destruction. (That "getting burned" thing) If a vampire has unhealed damage and cannot burn a blood to prevent destruction, then he is burned. Thanks, Rob Grau Wondering what will happen to Mir in the Leonid Meteor Shower.

"WaRPeD" <warp...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ok now i'm confused..... > > let me see if i got this AGG damage thing straight..... > > if a minion hit by 1 point of agravated damage he doesn't have to burn a > point of blood to heal it More properly: he cannot heal it, so doesn't burn a blood trying. > ....he just goes to Torpor after damage is dealt > (regardless of how much blood he has remaining on him), he goes to torpor after damage is dealt if he has received any damage that he has failed to heal, correct. > however if atleast > one extra point of damage is dealt to him (regardless if this extra point > is AGG or not), he has to heal that one extra point (by burning a blood), > but if he can't heal the extra point then the minion is burned.... No. All damage is sorted so that normal damage is handled first, before any agg damage. For each point of (regular) damage, the vampire burns one blood to heal. If he cannot (i.e., he has no blood left), then the damage will cause him to go to torpor (i.e., it causes him to become no longer Ready). A point of agg done to a ready vampire will simply cause him to go to torpor (just like any other damage that the vampire doesn't heal). The "extra" kick you're trying to describe above is: A point of agg damage done to a vampire who is no longer ready (i.e., who is already in torpor, on his way to torpor, or otherwise has unhealed damage already inflicted on him) will burn the vampire unless the vampire burns a blood to prevent destruction. The last effect normally applies to "extra" agg damage done beyond the first point of agg (because the first point simply served to unready the formerly ready vampire), but it can also apply to the first point of agg done after a vampire has taken more normal damage than he could heal (thus becoming unready from the normal damage before having to handle the agg damage and then being burned by the agg damage). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <72vs04$pgk$1...@hubble.csuchico.edu>, Cy H. Myers <cym...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote: > How do these rules interact with Undead Persistence inferior? Is a >vampire who has played undead persistence always considered unready? Will a >single point of agg damage in the next round of combat burn him? Is he >immune to being burned bacause he'll never be on his way to torpor? The Persistent vampire is 'wounded' and, as such, burns a blood for each normal damage (and, if unable, becomes redundantly 'wounded', effectively ignoring the damage). Aggravated damage also demands the burning of a blood to prevent destruction -- no blood means the persistent vampire burns. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <72ui2t$usk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >For each point of (regular) damage, the vampire burns one blood to heal. >If he cannot (i.e., he has no blood left), then the damage will cause >him to go to torpor (i.e., it causes him to become no longer Ready). > >A point of agg done to a ready vampire will simply cause him to go to >torpor (just like any other damage that the vampire doesn't heal). > >The "extra" kick you're trying to describe above is: >A point of agg damage done to a vampire who is no longer ready (i.e., who >is already in torpor, on his way to torpor, or otherwise has unhealed >damage already inflicted on him) will burn the vampire unless the vampire >burns a blood to prevent destruction. > >The last effect normally applies to "extra" agg damage done beyond the >first point of agg (because the first point simply served to unready the >formerly ready vampire), but it can also apply to the first point of >agg done after a vampire has taken more normal damage than he could heal >(thus becoming unready from the normal damage before having to handle the >agg damage and then being burned by the agg damage). > How do these rules interact with Undead Persistence inferior? Is a vampire who has played undead persistence always considered unready? Will a single point of agg damage in the next round of combat burn him? Is he immune to being burned bacause he'll never be on his way to torpor? Thanks, Cy Myers

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > Cy H. Myers <cym...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote: > > How do these rules interact with Undead Persistence inferior? Is a > >vampire who has played undead persistence always considered unready? Will a > >single point of agg damage in the next round of combat burn him? Is he > >immune to being burned bacause he'll never be on his way to torpor? > > The Persistent vampire is 'wounded' and, as such, burns a blood for > each normal damage (and, if unable, becomes redundantly 'wounded', > effectively ignoring the damage). Aggravated damage also demands the > burning of a blood to prevent destruction -- no blood means the persistent > vampire burns. Right. A point of agg damage done to a vampire who: * is in torpor * is on his way to torpor and/or * has taken damage that he failed to heal will burn him unless he burns a blood to prevent destruction. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote in message <36541B...@wizards.com>... >A point of agg damage done to a vampire who: > > * is in torpor > * is on his way to torpor >and/or > * has taken damage that he failed to heal > >will burn him unless he burns a blood to prevent destruction. > A quick question. Does the vampire receiving this extra damage HAVE to burn the blood, or do they have the option to burn the blood? Lets say that I do not wish to have my vampire enter torpor, because it has LOTS of equipment and I know it will be diablerized. Can I forgo the burn a blood for the extra Agro damage and let my vampire be burned? Raille

> A quick question. Does the vampire receiving this extra damage HAVE to burn > the blood, or do they have the option to burn the blood? burning the blood is compulsory. > Lets say that I do not wish to have my vampire enter torpor, because it has > LOTS of equipment and I know it will be diablerized. Can I forgo the burn a > blood for the extra Agro damage and let my vampire be burned? no. Dave, I thought I explained it fairly well in the Michigan Jyhad League Rules Team debates, but I'll go over 7/7 again on a case by case basis. Case 1) Big, mean Raven has bum rushed poor innocent Roland Bishop. Raven is 5/5 and Roland is at 4/4. She hits him for 1 agg. and he punches back. Roland will go to torpor with all 4 blood on him. Case 2) Raven beats up on Roland again...only this time she has done her Ritual Challenge. She will hit Roland for 2 agg. The first point will send him to torpor and the 2nd point requires him to burn a blood if he has it. If he doesn't, he's burned. So...if Roland has 4 blood, he will go to torpor with 3 blood. If Roland had no blood, he's burned. Case 3) Rake, armed with a Ghoul Retainer and an Ivory Bow attacks poor Roland. Rake is at 6/6 and Roland is at 4/4. Roland plays Torn Signpost, Increased Strength and Pushing the Limit for 8 points of damage...which of course sends Roland to torpor. Since Roland is already going to torpor with no blood, the 1 agg damage from the Ghoul Retainer's Ivory Bow will burn him. I hope this helps, Dave Noal McDonald The Great Gatsby of Westland, MI -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote in message <73hcvv$382$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >I hope this helps, Dave > >Noal McDonald >The Great Gatsby of Westland, MI > It does. My question came up after read so many posts about vampires *may* that I thought I would check. Thanks. Raille

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > A quick question. Does the vampire receiving this extra damage HAVE to burn > > the blood, or do they have the option to burn the blood? > > burning the blood is compulsory. > > > Lets say that I do not wish to have my vampire enter torpor, because it has > > LOTS of equipment and I know it will be diablerized. Can I forgo the burn a > > blood for the extra Agro damage and let my vampire be burned? > > no. Correct. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]