So, I've been thinking about something that's been confusing me.
If you strike a vampire for 2dmg or more with a wooden stake doing
aggravated damage, does the opposing vampire burn?
The wooden stake strike for >1 puts the vampire into a wounded state
e.g. on the way to torpor. So does the aggravated damage wich cannot
be healed, so does this mean that the vampire takes aggravated during
a wounded state? If that is the case does he or she burn, as is the
case with taking aggravated during a undead persistance effect?
Cards in question:
Wooden Stake, Equipment, U/PB , [Jyhad:U, V:TES:U, SW:PB, CE:U/PB,
BH:PTo3]
Melee weapon. Strength damage each strike. If more than 1 damage is
inflicted on an opposing vampire by this weapon in a given combat,
then that vampire is sent into torpor. In that case, this card is
transferred to that vampire, and he or she doesn`t untap as normal
during the untap phase as long as he or she remains in torpor.
Sword of the Righteous, Combat, 1 blood, Valeren/Animalism, C1 ,
[Bloodlines:C1]
Only usable before range is determined.
[ani] Choose a melee weapon on this vampire. This vampire inflicts an
additional point of damage each strike with that weapon for the
remainder of the combat. A vampire can play only one Sword of the
Righteous each combat.
[val] As [ani] above, and the damage this vampire inflicts with the
weapon is aggravated.
[VAL] As [val] above, and prevent 1 damage this round.
/Ivan
On Feb 18, 11:39 am, Myrdin <smurfal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, I've been thinking about something that's been confusing me.
>
> If you strike a vampire for 2dmg or more with a wooden stake doing
> aggravated damage, does the opposing vampire burn?
Depends. If the opposing minion does not prevent the damage, then he
or she will go to torpor, same as for any other source of agg damage.
The vamp will only burn if it has no blood left, and has one point of
agg left to heal.
> so does the aggravated damage wich cannot
> be healed,
Where do you get that agg cannot be healed?
Myrdin <smurf...@gmail.com> writes:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'd say: not necessarily, but possibly. Depends on how much blood the victim
has.
You strike using Wooden Stake and Sword of the Righteous, doing 2 aggravated
damage. (We'll assume your opponent will not prevent the damage with
Fortitude cards or the like.)
First, the Wooden Stake does more than 1 damage, so the opponent is sent to
torpor (card text).
Second, the opponent has to burn two blood to prevent destruction from the
two aggravated damage that has not been handled yet.
If he has the blood, he burns two blood and goes to torpor with the stake.
If he does not have the blood to burn, he burns.
What has probably confused you is the "vampire with Undead Persistence
burning from aggravated damage." That's because, in almost all the cases,
the vampire under the effects of Undead Persistence has already lost all his
blood and is empty.
HG
On 18 Feb, 11:55, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]> HG- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -
Well, compare this to the effect of the following scenario (as I
understand it of course this could be wrong)
Vampire A hits Vampire B for 1 aggravated damage (no prevent)
Vampire B plays undead persistance and presses to continue, also is
now considered wounded.
Vampire A hits Vampire B for 1 aggravated damage again (no prevent)
As I understand it Vampire B burns since it gets hit for aggravated
while in a wounded state. Even if it has blood since while wounded it
cannot burn blood to prevent destruction from aggravated.
As for not being able to heal aggravated, I thought that was the
definition, normal damage can be healed, aggravated cannot and that is
why you go to torpor, what happens is that you burn blood to avoid
destruction.
/Ivan
[ quoted text not captured ]
yes, correct, you burn blood to prevent destruction. But what happens
exactly, is that you burn bnlood to heal damage while wounded, and if
you cannot burn blood to heal agg damage while wounded, you burn.
>
> /Ivan
On Feb 18, 5:44 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:39 am, Myrdin <smurfal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, I've been thinking about something that's been confusing me.
>
> > If you strike a vampire for 2dmg or more with a wooden stake doing
> > aggravated damage, does the opposing vampire burn?
>
> Depends. If the opposing minion does not prevent the damage, then he
> or she will go to torpor, same as for any other source of agg damage.
> The vamp will only burn if it has no blood left, and has one point of
> agg left to heal.
Correct. A sufficient amount of aggravated damage can burn a vampire,
stake or otherwise.
It can't be healed, so the first point wounds the healthy vampire.
Each successive point, being handled now by a wounded vampire, will
destroy (burn) the vampire unless xe burns a blood to prevent being
destroyed by that point.
> > so does the aggravated damage wich cannot
> > be healed,
>
> Where do you get that agg cannot be healed?
[6.4.6]
"Aggravated damage cannot be healed, and aggravated damage can burn a
vampire if that vampire is already wounded. Aggravated damage is
damage that a vampire cannot heal. Since it cannot be healed, the
vampire doesn't burn any blood to heal it, but instead becomes wounded
(unless the damage is prevented, of course)."
On Feb 18, 6:23 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 12:17 pm, Myrdin <smurfal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, compare this to the effect of the following scenario (as I
> > understand it of course this could be wrong)
>
> > Vampire A hits Vampire B for 1 aggravated damage (no prevent)
> > Vampire B plays undead persistance and presses to continue, also is
> > now considered wounded.
> > Vampire A hits Vampire B for 1 aggravated damage again (no prevent)
> > As I understand it Vampire B burns since it gets hit for aggravated
> > while in a wounded state. Even if it has blood since while wounded it
> > cannot burn blood to prevent destruction from aggravated.
Not at all. It is exactly *because* xe is wounded that the question of
burning blood to prevent destruction comes up at all.
Agg damage only burns wounded vampires. So only wounded vampires need
to consider burning blood to prevent destruction. Vampire A (already
in a wounded state from Undead Persistence) would be burned by the one
point done by vampire B, so Vampire A burns 1 blood to prevent xer
destruction.
> > As for not being able to heal aggravated, I thought that was the
> > definition, normal damage can be healed, aggravated cannot and that is
> > why you go to torpor, what happens is that you burn blood to avoid
> > destruction.
>
> yes, correct, you burn blood to prevent destruction.
Exactly.
> But what happens
> exactly, is that you burn bnlood to heal damage while wounded, and if
> you cannot burn blood to heal agg damage while wounded, you burn.
No. It cannot be healed. The blood burned to handle aggravated damage
is blood spent to prevent destruction (and thus only spent by wounded
vampires, since a point of aggravated damage won't destroy a healthy
vampire).
See [6.4.6] for details.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Another scenario, I might have asked this one before though not in
these specific terms:
Vampire A strikes Coma on Vampire B (no dodge etc)
Vampire B plays undead persistance and continues combat with a press
Vampire A strikes Coma again on Vampire B (no dodge etc)
Does vampire B burn in this case? Since it's tagged as wounded and is
affected by a strike:torpor effect? Since it's wounded and gets sent
to torpor again I assumed it would burn instead.
/Ivan
/Ivan
[ quoted text not captured ]
... Vampire B is wounded at this point.
> Vampire A strikes Coma again on Vampire B (no dodge etc)
Wounding B again (which B ignores because of Undead Persistence).
> Does vampire B burn in this case? Since it's tagged as wounded and is
> affected by a strike:torpor effect? Since it's wounded and gets sent
> to torpor again I assumed it would burn instead.
No. There's nothing that says a "go to torpor" effect will burn a
"going to torpor" vampire, just like applying a "tap the minion"
effect to an already tapped minion (or to a wounded vampire) won't be
promoted to a "burn the minion" effect.
Aggravated damage will burn a wounded vampire, per the rules. But Coma
doesn't do aggravated damage.
I just skimmed some of the above comments, so maybe someone already
covered this.
I was thinking the *real* appeal to all this is that if you strike
with the Wooden Stake using the Sword of the Righteous at superior,
then the 2 points of dam send the vamp to torpor via the WS effect and
so both points of agg must be prevented otherwise the vamp burns - ie:
you effectively do an additional point of agg compared to the SotR
effect on other regular melee weapons, because normal the first point
is soaked up on the "send to torpor" effect, which the WS does
intrinsically. So you should have a *slightly* better chance of
burning vamps in combat using WS-SotR in combat. Esp if u can also
drop a Vengence of Samiel - so u could burn any 3-cap or lower.
However i'm still not sure if it's worthwhile using this WS-SotR
combo, rather than using the shiny new Axe or just a weighted walking
stick, kerrie or bundi...
Also, if the vamp doesn't burn, it gets ur WS and u then hv to find a
new melee weapon - kinda sucks.
technobabble66 <stuj...@hotmail.com> writes:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Except if your vampire has innate +1 or more strength - from Blooding by the
Code, for example. *Then* Wooden Stakes shine. You can send vampires to
torpor, even if you have no combat cards in your hand.
(And some Warding the Beast to get those stakes back, but that's probably too
many moving parts...)
HG
[ quoted text not captured ]
Doesn't WS's effect take place after damage is done. All this talk of
the WS wounding the opposing vampire first then dealing the agg.
damage is kind of misplaced.
Wooden Stake, Equipment, U/PB , [Jyhad:U, V:TES:U, SW:PB, CE:U/PB,
BH:PTo3]
Melee weapon. Strength damage each strike. If more than 1 damage is
inflicted on an opposing vampire by this weapon in a given combat,
then that vampire is sent into torpor. In that case, this card is
transferred to that vampire, and he or she doesn`t untap as normal
during the untap phase as long as he or she remains in torpor.
Sword of the Righteous, Combat, 1 blood, Valeren/Animalism, C1 ,
[Bloodlines:C1]
Only usable before range is determined.
[ani] Choose a melee weapon on this vampire. This vampire inflicts an
additional point of damage each strike with that weapon for the
remainder of the combat. A vampire can play only one Sword of the
Righteous each combat.
[val] As [ani] above, and the damage this vampire inflicts with the
weapon is aggravated.
[VAL] As [val] above, and prevent 1 damage this round.
So, the stake would do 2 agg. This agg. would be either prevented or
resolved in the Strike Resolution phase. If it was not prevented
(thus the vampire became wounded and then burned 1 blood to prevent
destruction) THEN the WS's ability would go into effect (since more
than 1 point of damage has been done) and would move to the vampire
already on his way to torpor. The only additional effect would be the
vampire not untapping as normal. Am I correct in this understanding?
Jeff Poole
On Feb 18, 12:54 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Doesn't WS's effect take place after damage is done. All this talk of
> the WS wounding the opposing vampire first then dealing the agg.
> damage is kind of misplaced.
Yes.
> Wooden Stake, Equipment, U/PB , [Jyhad:U, V:TES:U, SW:PB, CE:U/PB,
> BH:PTo3]
> Melee weapon. Strength damage each strike. If more than 1 damage is
> inflicted on an opposing vampire by this weapon in a given combat,
> then that vampire is sent into torpor. In that case, this card is
> transferred to that vampire, and he or she doesn`t untap as normal
> during the untap phase as long as he or she remains in torpor.
>
> Sword of the Righteous, Combat, 1 blood, Valeren/Animalism, C1 ,
> [Bloodlines:C1]
> Only usable before range is determined.
> [ani] Choose a melee weapon on this vampire. This vampire inflicts an
> additional point of damage each strike with that weapon for the
> remainder of the combat. A vampire can play only one Sword of the
> Righteous each combat.
> [val] As [ani] above, and the damage this vampire inflicts with the
> weapon is aggravated.
> [VAL] As [val] above, and prevent 1 damage this round.
>
> So, the stake would do 2 agg. This agg. would be either prevented or
> resolved in the Strike Resolution phase. If it was not prevented
> (thus the vampire became wounded and then burned 1 blood to prevent
> destruction) THEN the WS's ability would go into effect (since more
> than 1 point of damage has been done) and would move to the vampire
> already on his way to torpor. The only additional effect would be the
> vampire not untapping as normal. Am I correct in this understanding?
Yes.
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:47:23 -0800 (PST), LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 18, 5:44ï¿œam, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:>> On Feb 18, 11:39ï¿œam, Myrdin <smurfal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > So, I've been thinking about something that's been confusing me.
>>
>> > If you strike a vampire for 2dmg or more with a wooden stake doing
>> > aggravated damage, does the opposing vampire burn?
>>
>> Depends. If the opposing minion does not prevent the damage, then he
>> or she will go to torpor, same as for any other source of agg damage.
>> The vamp will only burn if it has no blood left, and has one point of
>> agg left to heal.>
> Correct. A sufficient amount of aggravated damage can burn a vampire,
> stake or otherwise.
> It can't be healed, so the first point wounds the healthy vampire.
> Each successive point, being handled now by a wounded vampire, will
> destroy (burn) the vampire unless xe burns a blood to prevent being
> destroyed by that point.
What's not clear for me is when the stake's send-to-torpor effect is
applied? Is it after the damage has already been suffered and handled
(in which case it doesn't do much other then redundantly wound an
already wounded minion), or is it before?
E.g.: Arika attempts a Return to Innocence and plays Dawn Operation.
She is blocked by Frederick the Weak with a Wooden Stake. Arika
strikes to equip a Molotov Cocktail; Frederick strikes Channeling
the Beast, inflicting 2 aggravated damage with the Wooden Stake.
Arika, not having foreseen this possibility, is fresh out of prevent
and takes 2 aggravated damage from the Wooden Stake. Does she:
a) become wounded from the first point of aggravated damage, then
have to burn a blood to prevent destruction from the second point,
and then, having taken more than 1 damage from it, get the Wooden
Stake (which does nothing to her at this point as she is already
wounded); or
b) get the stake and become wounded because of having taken more
than one damage from the Wooden Stake; then have to burn two
blood from the two points of aggravated damage to prevent her
destruction?
--
Regards,
Daneel
On Feb 19, 5:05 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
> What's not clear for me is when the stake's send-to-torpor effect is
> applied? Is it after the damage has already been suffered and handled
> (in which case it doesn't do much other then redundantly wound an
> already wounded minion), or is it before?
After.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/63b9f2b13aee25d2> E.g.: Arika attempts a Return to Innocence and plays Dawn Operation.
> She is blocked by Frederick the Weak with a Wooden Stake. Arika
> strikes to equip a Molotov Cocktail; Frederick strikes Channeling
> the Beast, inflicting 2 aggravated damage with the Wooden Stake.
> Arika, not having foreseen this possibility, is fresh out of prevent
> and takes 2 aggravated damage from the Wooden Stake. Does she:
Eliminating the information that doesn't apply to the question:
Someone hits Arika with a Dawn Operation-modified Wooden Stake at +1
damage for a total of 2 agg damage. She doesn't prevent any. Does she:
> a) become wounded from the first point of aggravated damage, then
> have to burn a blood to prevent destruction from the second point,
> and then, having taken more than 1 damage from it, get the Wooden
> Stake (which does nothing to her at this point as she is already
> wounded); or
>
> b) get the stake and become wounded because of having taken more
> than one damage from the Wooden Stake; then have to burn two
> blood from the two points of aggravated damage to prevent her
> destruction?
A.
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 03:42:34 -0800 (PST), LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:05ￜam, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:>> What's not clear for me is when the stake's send-to-torpor effect is>> ￜ applied? Is it after the damage has already been suffered and handled
>> ￜ (in which case it doesn't do much other then redundantly wound an
>> ￜ already wounded minion), or is it before?>
> After.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/63b9f2b13aee25d2
>>> E.g.: Arika attempts a Return to Innocence and plays Dawn Operation.>> ￜ She is blocked by Frederick the Weak with a Wooden Stake. Arika
>> ￜ strikes to equip a Molotov Cocktail; Frederick strikes Channeling
>> ￜ the Beast, inflicting 2 aggravated damage with the Wooden Stake.
>> ￜ Arika, not having foreseen this possibility, is fresh out of prevent
>> ￜ and takes 2 aggravated damage from the Wooden Stake. Does she:>
> Eliminating the information that doesn't apply to the question:
>
> Someone hits Arika with a Dawn Operation-modified Wooden Stake at +1
> damage for a total of 2 agg damage. She doesn't prevent any. Does she:
You could have eliminated also Arika, and the Dawon Operation as well.
So tell me, what's your beef with Frederick the Weak? :)
>> a) become wounded from the first point of aggravated damage, then>> ￜ have to burn a blood to prevent destruction from the second point,
>> ￜ and then, having taken more than 1 damage from it, get the Wooden
>> ￜ Stake (which does nothing to her at this point as she is already
>> ￜ wounded); or>>
>> b) get the stake and become wounded because of having taken more>> ￜ than one damage from the Wooden Stake; then have to burn two
>> ￜ blood from the two points of aggravated damage to prevent her
>> ￜ destruction?>
> A.
Thanks for the reply!
--
Regards,
Daneel