The Giant's Blood discussion mutated into a discussion of the rules for strike priority, and I thought they deserved their own thread. AaronC makes this point:
> AaronC wrote:
> I agree that First Strike should come before S:CE. S:CE effects represent powers that require concentration to use in the RPG for the most part. You should be able to strike before they think about melding into the earth. It would balance a bit S:CE, which is very powerful.
>
> However, strike: dodge should not be changed, and it would be a bit more involved to change it. Right now strike: dodge simply nullifies the negative effects of a strike. Fairly straightforward. If you change it, you'd have to say that strike: dodge nullifes the effects of a strike unless the strike is made with First Strike. To me, changing the order of resolution is so simple really: First Strike -> Combat Ends -> normal strike (and no, Dodge doesn't happen faster than any other strike: it just nullifes the effect of an opposing strike).
>
> Also, you shouldn't think of First Strike as an attack made on a completely unknowing opponent. It is really more an issue of greater speed or initiative. It is still possible to react quickly when surprised. Check out the video footage of ex-U.S. president Bush dodging a shoe flung at him at a news conference in the Middle East. If we assume that Mr. Bush isn't a member of a race of shapeshifting reptilian humanoids with advanced reflexes, we can see that it is possible to dodge an attack that is made by surprise.
>
I agree entirely with it, and I've seen these sorts of justifications for arguing that First Strike should beat S:CE before. What I haven't seen is a justification for the strike rules as they now stand. According to what logic should S:CE beat First Strike, either in terms of canon, physics, or card balance? Why shouldn't this rule be changed?
Canon reason : it's not alway justified. Form of mist or earth meld are not described in the RPG as being quick - in fact, IIRC they take one entire turn at the very least. Some are somewhat justified, like Majesty (not alway turned on, but which act instantly and don't take a turn to activate), but as far as I know the only alway-on protection one can get is good old Fortitude.
As a side note, firearms are about as effective as a flashlight against a vampire in the RPG. So, we can't say that combat strictly follow RPG canon.
Balance reason : well, for starter, Elimelech will became extremely scary. Dodge and prevention would still work, but thoses are harder and less convenient.
Quick Jab is another problem. It became a non-discipline S:CE hoser ; 1 damage is not usually scary, except when aggravated. So, a lot of not-so-strong clan became a lot stronger (like Gangrel Antitribu), and certains already good vampire become even stronger (for example, Hektor can Psyche!, IG, and quick jab his way throught defense. Good luck going throught that)
Other card granting first strike are far from being easy to use, even if they became awesome.
Mistress Fanchon became much more dangerous.
Undodgable aggravated hand strike unpreventable by fortitude at first Strike.
Samantha even more so since she can also play Drawing out the Beast.
Lots of cards though, probably not so unbalanced as it sounds.
> DeathInABottle wrote:
> Why shouldn't this rule be changed?
>
Because it stands the test of time and all the cards were designed with that rule in head? Because there's no good reason to change them?
The rules concerning first strike vs dodge are balanced as they are. Rules aren't be changed for the sake of a minority that found them not enough rpg-like.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Chaitan wrote:
> Mistress Fanchon became much more dangerous.
>
> Undodgable aggravated hand strike unpreventable by fortitude at first Strike
>
Well, it's not so different from now, since she could play Psyche anyway. The only addition is that she can play Shadow Feint to be sure not to waste her strike card. And if she really want that, Thought betrayed is not banned, and it take care of almost all S:CE and dodge.
Unlike Ankha, I don't think the rule should be left alone because it 'stand the test of time', but there must be a compelling game need to change it.
In other word, changing it because there is a consensus that S:CE and/or dodge are too hard to counter would be fine (it does not seem to be the case). Changing it because first strike card are weak is dodgy at best (twisting the knife is worse, for example). Changing it to fit lore is too dangerous for such a small benefit.
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > DeathInABottle wrote:
> > Why shouldn't this rule be changed?
> >
> Because it stands the test of time and all the cards were designed with that rule in head? Because there's no good reason to change them?
>
> The rules concerning first strike vs dodge are balanced as they are. Rules aren't be changed for the sake of a minority that found them not enough rpg-like.
>
And other cards were printed with first strike beating s:ce in mind and priced very high ? There was no good reason to change it in first place, changing it now would be just as fair as it was before.
Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.
Well, Mistress can play Thoughts Betrayed now and Samantha has access to an expensive retainer which negate S:CE also.
Best reason to change it is for clarity I guess.
First strike becomes... well... First.
S:CE could be set to First Strike: Combat Ends. To clarify where in the order it is resolved.
Combat has always been harder to do as a strategy. Changing this rule would go a long way towards making combat a real threat again, bringing variety to the game, but will it overpower the game? We run the risk of making bleeding adn voting too weak, everyone will play combat. I may have to horde alpha glint and the like.
> Chaitan wrote:
> Samantha has access to an expensive retainer which negate S:CE also.
>
Which one ? Dog pack is unavailable to gangrel antitribu.
(regardless, I don't believe Shadow Feint to be stronger than Psyche even if it beat S:CE. It cost a blood and require two discipline after all)
Look, when i brought this up in the GB thread, the fluff stuff wasnt being used as a justification. I havent played vtm in almost ten years now, but i have been playing vtes for a few, and first strike being as weak as it is never made sense. Earth meld and majesty are obnoxiously strong cards, but i dont see a neex to change them. Even allowing some cards that grant first strike that beats sce would be an improvement, and wuick jab would make hosing sce with first strike slightly powerful, but its still a 2. Card combo in most cases that is still nothing to fortitude unless is becomes paired with a third card(thaum or dead hand) . I didnt really expect a huge amount of agreeance, but whats the sense of first strike if its not first? Im not a vtm purest or anything, wwef is a thaum ritual, psychic assault can burn vampires, bashing vs lethal matters in rpg, fortitude is passive, celerity anx protean is stupid broke, and you can powergame a setite from creTion with addictive blood and unbondable merits.
But it is the background. Card submissions should have references, so i used some along with the base logic that first strike sucks, and sce is by itsself the go-to combat package fod most decks. People complain about other things, but in all of vtes my problems are lilliths needs to be mandatory with the skill card, memories of mortality should have just been erratad to not help imbued, and first strike is stupid weak compared to sce, dodge, +strength, additional strikes, and fortitude. So basically all of combat. Muddled vaml hunter with a clak jacket is still the best use of first strike i know of, since eleimele h costs so much.
I was never asking for a rule change, just stating how counter intuitive first strike rules are, and stressing people suggest illogical rules changes to good rules when a bad mechanic is on the books.
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> I havent played vtm in almost ten years
>
It's sad
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> I was [...] just stating how counter intuitive first strike rules are
>
The argument seem pretty compelling for changing the rule, but I believe that making everyone re-learn the read so that future new player have a more logical rule seem a bad trade-off.
Again, I don't believe the rule should stay as it is at all cost. It's just that the change must be worthwhile. Making a rule arguably more logical don't cut it in my opinion.
(I have understood that ReverendRevolver does not try to push the change, but I believe the argument he show is both a good one and needing a caveat)
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> (...)but i have been playing vtes for a few, and first strike being as weak as it is never made sense. Earth meld and majesty are obnoxiously strong cards, but i dont see a neex to change them. Even allowing some cards that grant first strike that beats sce would be an improvement, and wuick jab would make hosing sce with first strike slightly powerful, but its still a 2. Card combo in most cases that is still nothing to fortitude unless is becomes paired with a third card(thaum or dead hand) .
>
Actually, I think a change in the first strike rules might be a good idea.
Time proved that first strike has absolutely no effect in this game (except maybe for canine horde and anesthetic touch) and amounts to nothing.
If First strike would beat S:ce, then suddenly, people will introduce variety in their decks. They would play the more versatile Staredown instead of Majesty, or more Form of mist instead of Earthmeld. Plus, there would be some interesing mindgames -do i play FoM to continue my action, but risk being hit and lose the effect, or should I dodge to be sure ?
I think that would be better for the game, since S:ce has always been the cheesy solution to most fights.
Two years with no new cards, a stagnating metagame... Maybe it's time to be bold and refresh the rules ?
I would be ok to try it out.
I have to convince people from my playgroup though.
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> Reyda wrote:
> If First strike would beat S:ce, then suddenly, people will introduce variety in their decks. They would play the more versatile Staredown instead of Majesty, or more Form of mist instead of Earthmeld.
>
There is a risk, hard to see without playtesting, that it make non combaty deck disappear. It would renew the game, but not add to it.
I agree that a renewed but not richer environment is better than a stagnant one, something not everyone will agree (especially thoses who don't like combat, obviously).
Another problem is that before this can be introduced, it need some playtesting first, like 6 month. So it may conflict (as in, happen at the same time) with another metagame renewer, the future expansion.
> Reyda wrote:
> Plus, there would be some interesing mindgames -do i play FoM to continue my action, but risk being hit and lose the effect, or should I dodge to be sure ?
>
The supposition is that the opponent can strike hard enough to put you to torpor ? Or is there something else ?
> And other cards were printed with first strike beating s:ce in mind and priced very high ?
>
I dunno about you, but in the little 1994 rulebook that came with the first Jyhad starter, the rules specifically mention that First Strike gets foiled by both dodge and combat ends. It would be fair to assume that every card ever designed would have had that rule in mind.
First Strike is somewhat useless, sure, but that's because in the original design of the game combat was envisioned as a much larger, but also more balanced and subtle component of the game. In this context, first strike is actually massively powerful. Of course it turned out to be "smash or get smashed" and with Majesty and Earth Meld setting the bar for combat ends, that never changed. In the world we have First Strike is pretty useless, but I'm not too sure if making it beat Combat Ends would actually help a lot. It would probably phase out Combat Ends as combat defense, which in turn makes for less variety, not more, as people would just flock to fortitude (again, I might add) instead of relying on poor (ie, non-presence) S:CE to survive.
> There is a risk, hard to see without playtesting, that it make non combaty deck disappear.
>
I agree partially. It wouldn't make non-combat disappear, it would just make the number of playable disciplines smaller.
But in general, anything that makes combat/rush stronger basically degenerates the game. The game's not rage; it's not about who can move the most beads from the cards to the pool. It's a game about politics, strategy and control.
Well, this would make Backstab playable.
I like the idea of this rule change. It would add some variety to combat decks, and require a little more thought behind combat avoidance. I don't think this would overwhelm non-combat decks, just make them require to put a little more thought in defense.
Baron of Berkeley
> Pascal wrote:
> If first strike would resolve earlier than S:CE, should First Strike S:CE resolve earlier than first strike?
>
Why not just resolve S:CE as a first strike?
I believe some problems could be solved by changing S:CE rules to add that it is by definition an additional strike.
This is a quick and dirty idea, but whatever deck uses S:CE, has access to dodges and/or maneuvers as well and does not need additional strikes. This would also somewhat empower combat decks as every other deck (almost) would get diluted.
Ofc, this does not solve First Strike idea, but I'd like to stress, that it seems as it was supposed to be an assasin type of strike: you would benefit from it only if you one-hit your opponent. S:CE problem would get solved with the suggestion above and one-hitting is for the deckbuilder to handle, which is easy with more than one discipline at hand.
Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.
@Chaitan: exactly. There is no need for a special timing for S:CE. There was never any. If you want S:CE to resolve before normal strikes, then there is already a timing for that in the rules: first strike. Just make all S:CE first strikes and be done with it. I don't think it really matters whether first strike should trump S:CE or not, but the current strike resolution is overly complicated.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> I don't think it really matters whether first strike should trump S:CE or not, but the current strike resolution is overly complicated.
>
Well, if S:CE resolve at the same time as first strike strike, then by definition first strike will trump S:CE. Or, you will have to add that S:CE double as dodge, which will eat away any simplification gained.
As a side note, anything that make S:CE more trumpable make Obedience, Mirror walk, and Stone Travel (and non-strike anti combat in general) more powerful. Since thoses card already are pretty powerful ...
Also, it could be imagined to make combat less avoidable but less deadly. For example, and with a lot of oversimplification, if you needed 2 damage to make the opposing vampire burn 1 blood, avoiding combat would be less vital, so having S:CE less powerful would be alright. Of course, it would remove combat as main strategy, but it would be one of the valid way to restrict action of your opponent.
It would be a lot better than throwing around anti-SCE and anti-anti-SCE. It would also require so much adjustement, erratas and change that at best it will be a dream.
> Izaak wrote:
> In the world we have First Strike is pretty useless, but I'm not too sure if making it beat Combat Ends would actually help a lot. It would probably phase out Combat Ends as combat defense, which in turn makes for less variety, not more, as people would just flock to fortitude (again, I might add) instead of relying on poor (ie, non-presence) S:CE to survive.
>
Grapple and Psyche are currently more available for viable fighters than Silence of Death or Shadow Feint. Maybe we'd see a couple more Assamite or !Gangrel aggrapokers but there's nothing new about S:CE hosers and those decks would probably still suck. It's definitely not something that would impact my combat defense choices. The only problem is that I could see Muddled Vampire Hunter and Elimelech being too strong.
> Grapple and Psyche are currently more available for viable fighters than Silence of Death or Shadow Feint.
>
Ye, sure I suppose that's true. But there's also Quick Jab to consider which basically gives Tzim and Gangrel easy access to first strike aggropoke. Both those clans sport animalism which is already an amazing discipline to start with. Animalism is traditionally weak to S:CE while being good at dealing with fortitude. First strike beating S:CE will make them trump basically everything.
I mean, it may not break the game or anything, but playing with all your guys in torpor is not too fun. Ye, I too have gotten gamewins on tables where I did like 1 or 2 actions all game, but that's not exactly the standard. During EC2011 Day 2 in Warsaw I spent 3 out of 4 tables twiddling my thumbs because there were Tupdogs seated next to me. Ye, sure I won one of those, eventually making it into the finals, but the only fun game that day was the one where I got to play cards, tap minions and play the actual game.
To make matters worse, smahing stuff doesn't make the smasher win (see: Tupdog), it just makes someone crosstable win. Since I think combat is already too efficient at what it shouldn't be doing in the first place, anything that makes combat stronger is bad in my book.
Sometimes I wish VTES had 15-card sideboards so you could hate out degenerate archtypes like this. Incidentally this would also allow hating out MMPA and you could actually sideboard in cards to fit the meta inbetween games. As icing on the cake, this would add an actual level of skill to the deckbuilding part of the game because you can't just copy a popular, successfull decklist because you're going to end up being hated out.
> Izaak wrote:
> To make matters worse, smahing stuff doesn't make the smasher win (see: Tupdog), it just makes someone crosstable win. Since I think combat is already too efficient at what it shouldn't be doing in the first place, anything that makes combat stronger is bad in my book.
>
Wouldn't say too efficient but certainly efficient enough as it is. I guess my point was that Firstest Strike wouldn't make combat stronger in any but the lowest tiers. Some decks might get bumped from terrible to not very good, if that. I mean, Quick Jab + Claws/Marauder? A rush, two cards and a blood to make someone lose two blood and a rescue action? That just doesn't begin to cut it.
> Some decks might get bumped from terrible to not very good, if that. I mean, Quick Jab + Claws/Marauder? A rush, two cards and a blood to make someone lose two blood and a rescue action? That just doesn't begin to cut it.
>
No, of course not . That's because beating things up just for the sake of beating things up is bad. That's why combat is generally bad without a proper gameplan.
Making the beating things up part easier, won't make the decks better. I'm not quite waiting for more people to try and play the new and improved first strike and ruin some tables with it.
> Izaak wrote:
>
> > Some decks might get bumped from terrible to not very good, if that. I mean, Quick Jab + Claws/Marauder? A rush, two cards and a blood to make someone lose two blood and a rescue action? That just doesn't begin to cut it.
> >
> No, of course not . That's because beating things up just for the sake of beating things up is bad. That's why combat is generally bad without a proper gameplan.
>
> Making the beating things up part easier, won't make the decks better. I'm not quite waiting for more people to try and play the new and improved first strike and ruin some tables with it.
>
Combat still wouldnt be any different. Meta wise i mean, obviously changing a keyword to suck less makes it different mechanically. But honestly, are tupdogs rushing all your guys, setting range as a pre, grappling, and agg poking or punching for 3+ going to make you any less metagamed by doin it with first strike? Did knocking one bead off of a tupdog who didnt prevent make ghatuch differnce?
Combat is like stealthbleed, in that it hands out unearned vps if played poorly. But ive been ousted by both proper and terribly stupid decks of both kinds, and i can normally say im just as ousted with both, and i only stay salty about it if the players has the idiocy to blame someone else for them not getting the table after playing like a head-in-ass crackhead. ( to date i think thats happened twice, one local player and one guy that mercifully stopped showing up, truzt me, we r never hurting for players that badly) .
Anyway, it doesnt matter if your vamps get torped, banished, mind raped, pentexed, sense depped, diablerized, or burned outright, minion removal is what it is and can go either direction for players using it, and im more ocncerned with nahkthorheb chameleon banishing my lodin than i ever am with muaziz eating my jimmy dunn or tupdogs turning my muddled vamp hunter into goo.
Combat is very hard to win with, but dedicated combat can metagame most of what everyone hates in a mwtagame. Tupdogs included can be squashed with good old akunanse walls or count germaine grapple.
First strike still wouldnt matter in the scheme of things, save maybe canine hoarding a flash grenade or jack dawson withering with first strike.
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> Combat still wouldnt be any different.
>
You may be right, but that has little to do with the discussion at hand. The discussion is about adjusting a part of the rules to make a few more cards more playable and to balance a bit another part of the game that is rather powerful.
Your point seems to be: Since powerful combat exists and does not regularly win games or tournaments, there is no reason to make any change to make non-powerful combat options only mediocre, since that too won't win games or tournaments easily. Additionally combat already disrupts the real game of VTES, in which it should not be necessary to put any answer to combat in your deck.
The discussion is not about winning games or winning tournaments. It's about optimal game design and about creating more deck options and value for our existing cards, even if for non-tournament-worthy decks.
This discussion also assumes that combat is a basic part of the game, which is certainly a debatable point, but is a point we have to accept here, I think. (And I should point out that combat decks do regularly do well. EC 2012 final featured two combat decks. I can think of two combat decks that have won tournaments in the last six months in California.)
Anyway: I too think that First Strike should resolve before Strike: Combat Ends. Even if it is a small detail, I think it's a worthy detail to be considered by Pascal and the community.
> AaronC wrote:
> . Additionally combat already disrupts the real game of VTES, in which it should not be necessary to put any answer to combat in your deck.
> (...)
> Anyway: I too think that First Strike should resolve before Strike: Combat Ends. Even if it is a small detail, I think it's a worthy detail to considered by Pascal and the community.
>
I really like the way you put it.
It' true that most tournament player I know really think that combat is hopeless and to be crude, a little for " stupid" and almost don't include it in their deckbuilding - preferring to deal " verbally" with it.
The words I've heard a lot : " why do you rush me ?" "-well, because I'm your predator and I'll get pool and VP out of you"
Nowadays a deck with 15-20 combat cards is already considered a combat deck !
This simple change can go a long way and offer tools for weaker clans. I'd vote for
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
Just to be clear, i think that combat is a precision instrument that requires finess, negotiation, and alot of forethought/ chess skills to play. I see votes and stealthbleed as bludgeoning tools any moron with some obfuscate, bleed pump, or titles can win with.
I never suggested a change, because i only do that if im really behind something game affectimg ( see lilliths should have to fetch skill card, because there should be a card that does that) .
However, i do not oppose anything reyda or aaron are saying, and think it would be ok if not good/healthy for the game to change this rule. Opposition seems to be the valid point of danse about to come out, the valid point of it wont matter much, why tamper with rules, and the invalid point of some people dont like combat. Sce is why combat has always struggled. Not only do you typically sacrifice bleed defense, pool damage pressure that is direct, and bloat slots to fighty or prevention cards, but some tool with presence kills your whole deck if you dont draw grapple, thoughts betrayed, pzyche, tele tracking, lapse, or a dog pack. Lame. So if muddled vaml hunter daggers you, build a deck with fortitude. If eleimelech pops claws, run glancing blows. Sce works more than fine, but too good. Its stupid efficient, and "efficient combat" means you run 36 red cards and play them fluidly without clumping, while combat ends being efficient means less than ten majesties. If a non earth meld deck has more than a dowzen total combat cards ina sce strategy, your either playing in my meta from 4 years ago, or building badly.
Combats great. Attrition makes vtes games what they are, it spotlights strategy, and many twda entries have strengths mid to late game to prove it( Hughs stickmen, Loughmans Carna, the numerous Omaya decks, even table poison imbued) . Combat adds to that. Why keep it nerfed? Build better decks.
Id love to see fs get some love and sce nerfed. Still dont think the world will end if it doesnt, but it would be cool. I could play my quick draw McGinley deck against weenie presence and only worry about staredown @ inferior making me waste a dragonsbreath 38.
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> I could play my quick draw McGinley deck against weenie presence and only worry about staredown @ inferior making me waste a dragonsbreath 38.
>
So you would feel compelled to waste your gun and a DBR even after you saw them dodge?
Well, anyone can feel free to try First Strke resolving pre-SCE.
Amongst other things I would highly recommend (in a competitive environment):
- Elimelech + Coma
- Muddled Vampire Hunter
- Quick Jab (Basilia, Samantha, Hector & Dogs of War, ..)
But if you do try it, please send me your feedback
> Pascal wrote:
> Well, anyone can feel free to try First Strke resolving pre-SCE.
>
Just to be sure, resolving at the same time would do the trick too, no ?
(Elimelech have other dangerous options by the way : Claw of the dead, Assault Rifle, Ivory Bow ...)
The idea of first strike send-to-torpor with no damage is that the only option left to survive it (barring Undead Persistance / Undying Tenacity) is Dodge.
Fortitude remains just as good against agg damage, should it be inflicted with first strike or not.
Also, how do you resolve "at the same time" a S:CE (which ends the combat) and something that needs later resolving (damage) ?
The proposed sequence of strike resolution (as it has been suggested here), I suppose, would be:
[0] Dodge. Dodges don't resolve, they just prevent anything bad from happening to you.
[1] First Strike
[1.a] S:CE with first strike
[1.b] other first strikes
[1.c] damage inflicted by 1.b
[2] Normal strikes
[2.a] S:CE without first strike
[2.b] other normal strikes
[2.c] damage inflicted during normal strike resolution (strikes + environmental, basically)
> Pascal wrote:
> Also, how do you resolve "at the same time" a S:CE (which ends the combat) and something that needs later resolving (damage) ?
>
In the same way as coma resolve vs a regular strike ? Coma do end the combat too, since your opponent go to torpor, and I don't remember that it prevent damage done by your opponent. Ditto for inf' anesthesic touch.
> Ohlmann wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Also, how do you resolve "at the same time" a S:CE (which ends the combat) and something that needs later resolving (damage) ?
> >
> In the same way as coma resolve vs a regular strike ? Coma do end the combat too, since your opponent go to torpor, and I don't remember that it prevent damage done by your opponent. Ditto for inf' anesthesic touch.
>
The rules have S:CE resolve before Coma. The rules have S:CE resolve before damage-inflicting strikes.
"In the same way" doesn't apply at all, since "S:CE" and "damage-inflicting strikes" don't resolve "at the same time".
> Robert wrote:
>
> > ReverendRevolver wrote:
> > I could play my quick draw McGinley deck against weenie presence and only worry about staredown @ inferior making me waste a dragonsbreath 38.
> >
> So you would feel compelled to waste your gun and a DBR even after you saw them dodge?
>
Sorry, worded it weird. Inf staredown would be my only concern, since majesty, cat fear, force of personality, unholy pennance,gotsdams special, etc would all be after my dbr 38 special. Dodging is still dodgy, even for ruths exploding sixguns.
As for testing, my city's prince and most of the players are combat fans and probably already have decks that would work well at testing. Ill throw it out there when we play tomorrow.
Hum... this is getting overly complicated...
Yes combat is quite nerfed in Vtes. Whats the point of playing 3 or 4 combat cards to have everything killed with S:CE.
If you are playing a straight combat deck the odds are that you will finish trashing the table and not really getting any vp's.
IMO the problem is not first-strike. A vampire should have a limit of the S:CE that he can play per turn, a bit just like On the Qui Vivre. Take it to the "unreal world" and how many combats can you really avoid?
But changing combat at this point will challenge everything that as evolved around VTES deck building rules. Its clearly brings different issues that might not be welcome.
Why not just make more cards like Dog Pack available? - That wont really spoil the current mechanics and give a bit more power to combat decks...
> Pascal wrote:
> The rules have S:CE resolve before Coma. The rules have S:CE resolve before damage-inflicting strikes.
>
You lost me.
If we change the rule so that S:CE resolve at the same time as first strike, instead of before, why would they resolve before first strike damage-inflicting strike ?
> Ohlmann wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > The rules have S:CE resolve before Coma. The rules have S:CE resolve before damage-inflicting strikes.
> >
> You lost me.
>
> If we change the rule so that S:CE resolve at the same time as first strike, instead of before, why would they resolve before first strike damage-inflicting strike ?
>
I think that what has been discussed here isn't about SCE and First Strike resolving simultaneously, but rather having First Strike resolve before SCE.
> Pascal wrote:
> Also, how do you resolve "at the same time" a S:CE (which ends the combat) and something that needs later resolving (damage) ?
>
I imagine something similar as how Anesthetic Touch work.
i.e. Deal damage. Prevent damage. Other stuff like disarm/pulled fangs. Combat Ends immediately after that.
> Pascal wrote:
> I think that what has been discussed here isn't about SCE and First Strike resolving simultaneously, but rather having First Strike resolve before SCE.
>
OK.
My point is, it's not necessary to make first strike happen before S:CE ; it's suffisant to make S:CE simply resolve at the same time, which I believe lead to something simpler, you only have two step instead of four
(and it disallow "first strike S:CE", which is a good thing because I really don't want to see request for first first strike)
> Pascal wrote:
> Also, how do you resolve "at the same time" a S:CE (which ends the combat) and something that needs later resolving (damage) ?
>
That is already a common situation and poses no problem whatsoever. The general rule is that non-damage effects are resolved first, but unless they are performed with first strike, they don't influence the opposing strike.
Strike: burn equipment. If you burn the opponent's weapon without first strike, he still gets to beat you with it, although the weapon is technically burnt before resolving its damage.
I am pretty sure it is the same for strike: steal blood against an ally.
Besides, Combat Ends does not end the combat, it merely fast-forwards it to the end of the round. That is still in the combat, there is still time to resolve the damage. (Yes, the ruling about other effects of S:CE resolving after the combat is bogus too: the damage from Catatonic fear could happen inside the combat without breaking any timing rule).
Either I don't get it, or something isn't clear.
> Rulebook wrote:
> Combat Ends. This effect ends combat immediately. This type of strike is always the first to resolve, even before a strike done with first strike, and it ends combat before other strikes or other strike resolution effects are resolved. Combat ends is effective at any range. Combat ends is not affected by a dodge, since dodge only cancels effects that are directed at the dodging minion.
>
Majesty resolves before Aid from Bats. As Majesty skips to the end of combat, Aid from Bat's damage was never inflicted. You don't take these Carrion Crows damage.
Currently, S:CE resolves *before* any other non-dodge (well, these don't really resolve), non-first strike effect happens. And it skips that strike.
Coma isn't a S:CE. Theft of Vitae against a Shambling horde with 1 life isn't a S:CE. Fast Hands isn't a S:CE. Anesthetic Touch isn't a S:CE. Cards that read "Strike: combat ends [and ..]" are S:CEs.
> Pascal wrote:
> Either I don't get it, or something isn't clear.
>
> > Rulebook wrote:
> > Combat Ends. This effect ends combat immediately. This type of strike is always the first to resolve, even before a strike done with first strike, and it ends combat before other strikes or other strike resolution effects are resolved. Combat ends is effective at any range. Combat ends is not affected by a dodge, since dodge only cancels effects that are directed at the dodging minion.
> >
This is the current state.
The "natural" change to get first strike beat S:CE is :
> Rulebook wrote:
> Combat Ends. This effect ends combat immediately. This type of strike is always the first to resolve, even before a strike done with first strike before strike that should resolve at the same time but after strike with first strike, and it ends combat before other non-first strike strikes or other strike resolution effects are resolved. Combat ends is effective at any range. Combat ends is not affected by a dodge, since dodge only cancels effects that are directed at the dodging minion.
>
I believe it's simpler if the change is :
> Rulebook wrote:
> Combat Ends. This effect ends combat immediately. This type of strike is always the first to resolve, even before a strike done with first strike, and it ends combat before other strikes or other strike resolution effects are resolved.. Other strike effect are resolved as normal, but combat end immediatly after their resolutions. Combat end have first strike if not otherwise precised. Combat ends is effective at any range. Combat ends is not affected by a dodge, since dodge only cancels effects that are directed at the dodging minion.
>
In essence, S:CE stop having a specific timing ; it resolve on the same timing as first strike. First strike is added to every S:CE by default, because without that S:CE are basically useless.
> Pascal wrote:
>
> Currently, S:CE resolves *before* any other non-dodge (well, these don't really resolve),
>
Which, imho, is a total nonsense ("dodge" as a strike not really resolving)
Emiliano
vekn.net administrators staff
> Ohlmann wrote:
> Other strike effect are resolved as normal, but combat end immediatly after their resolutions.
>
That part is not even required, except as a clarification, since it is just the default rule.
> Ohlmann wrote:
> I believe it's simpler if the change is :
>
> > Rulebook wrote:
> > Combat Ends. This effect ends combat immediately. This type of strike is always the first to resolve, even before a strike done with first strike, and it ends combat before other strikes or other strike resolution effects are resolved.. Other strike effect are resolved as normal, but combat end immediatly after their resolutions. Combat end have first strike if not otherwise precised. Combat ends is effective at any range. Combat ends is not affected by a dodge, since dodge only cancels effects that are directed at the dodging minion.
> >
> In essence, S:CE stop having a specific timing ; it resolve on the same timing as first strike. First strike is added to every S:CE by default, because without that S:CE are basically useless.
>
I don't think current players would find it simpler to know that if you get punched for 1 agg, your majesty is useless. Or maybe they will, but they might think it's not that good an idea
> Pascal wrote:
> Well, anyone can feel free to try First Strke resolving pre-SCE.
> Amongst other things I would highly recommend (in a competitive environment):
> - Elimelech + Coma
> - Muddled Vampire Hunter
> - Quick Jab (Basilia, Samantha, Hector & Dogs of War, ..)
>
> But if you do try it, please send me your feedback
>
I'm glad to see that a few people are offering to playtest the possible change. Elimelech + Coma would be devastating, of course, but he is an 11 cap, and Coma does cost 3 blood - and dodge would still beat it. And dodge or prevent would both beat MVH and Quick Jab agg. Elimelech sounds like he would become broken, but I think playtesting - especially where playtesters deliberately start including more dodge cards to adjust to the new meta - would have to determine that.
> DeathInABottle wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Well, anyone can feel free to try First Strke resolving pre-SCE.
> > Amongst other things I would highly recommend (in a competitive environment):
> > - Elimelech + Coma
> > - Muddled Vampire Hunter
> > - Quick Jab (Basilia, Samantha, Hector & Dogs of War, ..)
> >
> > But if you do try it, please send me your feedback
> >
> I'm glad to see that a few people are offering to playtest the possible change. Elimelech + Coma would be devastating, of course, but he is an 11 cap, and Coma does cost 3 blood - and dodge would still beat it. And dodge or prevent would both beat MVH and Quick Jab agg. Elimelech sounds like he would become broken, but I think playtesting - especially where playtesters deliberately start including more dodge cards to adjust to the new meta - would have to determine that.
>
I'm glad to see there are people having time to playtest so useless changes.
I have also a request: I've always thought that Memories of Mortality shouldn't be playable on a Call the Great Beast. It's a demon. It can't have any memories of when it was human. Can someone playtest that to see if it's balanced?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> DeathInABottle wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Well, anyone can feel free to try First Strke resolving pre-SCE.
> > Amongst other things I would highly recommend (in a competitive environment):
> > - Elimelech + Coma
> > - Muddled Vampire Hunter
> > - Quick Jab (Basilia, Samantha, Hector & Dogs of War, ..)
> >
> > But if you do try it, please send me your feedback
> >
> I'm glad to see that a few people are offering to playtest the possible change. Elimelech + Coma would be devastating, of course, but he is an 11 cap, and Coma does cost 3 blood - and dodge would still beat it. And dodge or prevent would both beat MVH and Quick Jab agg. Elimelech sounds like he would become broken, but I think playtesting - especially where playtesters deliberately start including more dodge cards to adjust to the new meta - would have to determine that.
>
Im looking into eleimelech coma along with malks using bow or flamethrower as combat defense with shadow feint, since a solid number have little cel, a more or less useless thing by itsself. But adv quentin king, ruth mcginley, antoine the lost, lord fiona the colonel, lily, artemis, hannibal, and others can shadow feint coma. Its a two card combo costing a total of 4 blood, so i cant see it ever being actually broken. After i talk to other players, i think ill also modify my infinite earth meld to include more form of mist, so dodvy satyrs and henry taylors are used as a acid test against the clear enemy of sce under alternate rules.
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > DeathInABottle wrote:
> >
> > > Pascal wrote:
> > > Well, anyone can feel free to try First Strke resolving pre-SCE.
> > > Amongst other things I would highly recommend (in a competitive environment):
> > > - Elimelech + Coma
> > > - Muddled Vampire Hunter
> > > - Quick Jab (Basilia, Samantha, Hector & Dogs of War, ..)
> > >
> > > But if you do try it, please send me your feedback
> > >
> > I'm glad to see that a few people are offering to playtest the possible change. Elimelech + Coma would be devastating, of course, but he is an 11 cap, and Coma does cost 3 blood - and dodge would still beat it. And dodge or prevent would both beat MVH and Quick Jab agg. Elimelech sounds like he would become broken, but I think playtesting - especially where playtesters deliberately start including more dodge cards to adjust to the new meta - would have to determine that.
> >
> I'm glad to see there are people having time to playtest so useless changes.
> I have also a request: I've always thought that Memories of Mortality shouldn't be playable on a Call the Great Beast. It's a demon. It can't have any memories of when it was human. Can someone playtest that to see if it's balanced?
>
Just did at a 6 player table with myself and realized its still not as broken as imbued with it. And its banned. I also started a fistfight with myself for contesting gilbert duane and mariel lady thunder. B-)
I do not see any true problems with having FS resolve before S:CE. It may bring into play cards that never see use and slightly dilute decks that rely solely on S:CE for combat defense. Or not. Combat is combat and having a slight bit more ways around S:CE will not make it easier to win with. Elimelich, and Houghton for that matter, will not be tearing up the scene due to their costs and lack of titles. Ruth, on the other hand, may become a little monster. With affordability, access to KS and Muddles she can become a scary piece to an effective deck. I believe a larger concern will lie with animalism. It's main weakness has been S:CE. With people trying to deal with this newfound threat animalism will find less speed bumps. That, coupled with the extremely more useful Canine Hordes, will find themselves even more threatening without having to change their deck design in any way to deal with this FS insurgence. Otherwise, it could be interesting to see odd and formerly crappy cards like Forearm Block (unless the damage prevention is too late) or Adaptability make their way into decks.
So just to be clear what's being discussed here is S:CE resolving at the same time as strikes with first strike? So, the only real change is that a strike with fs would effect a miniom using S:CE. Combat still ends before environmental damage etc.
I like this. S:CE is still plenty effective but not really the absolute trump it is today. Combat defense modules will benefit from being a bit varied.
Animalism combat doesn't benefit too much. Yeah you can horde away that equipment in the face of majesty, but bats and crows still goes away. Too many bowls and hearts and bows anyway.
> Lambach wrote:
> So just to be clear what's being discussed here is S:CE resolving at the same time as strikes with first strike?
>
We're talking about First Strike coming before S:CE, not at the same time. That would mean, for instance, that your vampire who struck with superior Majesty would not get to untap if he got hit with unprevented First Strike aggravated damage, since the S:CE strike would not get to resolve.
Robert's point is that Animalism gets a bit better just because the most effective defense against Bats and Crows would get a bit worse. People might replace some S:CE in their deck with dodges or prevention out of fear of First Strike agg damage or Muddles. Neither dodges nor prevention is nearly as effective as S:CE against bats and crows combat.
> AaronC wrote:
> Robert's point is that Animalism gets a bit better just because the most effective defense against Bats and Crows would get a bit worse. People might replace some S:CE in their deck with dodges or prevention out of fear of First Strike agg damage or Muddles. Neither dodges nor prevention is nearly as effective as S:CE against bats and crows combat.
>
Which is only half of what will happen : any deck with access to first strike will suddenly be a lot stronger against animalism combat. The edge of animalism combat is that it still do a lot of damage ; with first strike you have a significant chance to ignore their Carrion.
Also, there is excellent prevention available against environmental damage ; it's just not the same one as against potence for 10 damage.1111
Which leads us to another problem with vtes combat - no proper support of multiple minions/retainers versus multiple minions/retainers (carrion crows should be retainer in "perfect world". You should be able to choose which attack you want to dodge.
And yeah, there is good -non-s:ce - counter to crows and bats. It's called hidden strength.
Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.
> Ohlmann wrote:
> Which is only half of what will happen : any deck with access to first strike will suddenly be a lot stronger against animalism combat. The edge of animalism combat is that it still do a lot of damage ; with first strike you have a significant chance to ignore their Carrion.
>
I'm not sure what your debate is. If something were to impede animalism, even a bit, would most likely not be a bad thing. However, you seem to be stating that animalism will SUFFER more. I don't believe that First Strike trumping S:CE will effect animalism enough to make them change anything in their deck design except, maybe, to throw in an additional Canine Hordes or two. One can always "ignore their Carrion" with S:CE in the first place so who really is troubled by someone having to play additional cards to gain the same effect?
> Robert wrote:
> However, you seem to be stating that animalism will SUFFER more. I don't believe that First Strike trumping S:CE will effect animalism enough to make them change anything in their deck design except, maybe, to throw in an additional Canine Hordes or two. One can always "ignore their Carrion" with S:CE in the first place so who really is troubled by someone having to play additional cards to gain the same effect?
>
Animalism deck will be mostly unaffected, true.
But they will be more combat decks, since they will more easily trump anti-combat. And Animalism is often weak against them, and even weaker if they risk to be torpored before even doing one damage.
Animalism does not fear aggro poke now because their opponent lose 4 blood total while they lose 2 and an action. If instead it's 1 blood vs 2 and one action, they are considerably weaker. Ditto to a lesser extent for other combat type : Animalism will lose its hitback ability in at least some case. And that's the hitback that allow Animalism to not be eaten alive by other combats.
> Lech wrote:
> And yeah, there is good -non-s:ce - counter to crows and bats. It's called hidden strength.
>
That's your answer? To make up for S:CE (a widely spread out strike amongst disciplines) against a 2 card combo is one card from one discipline that will still cost 2 blood? Why not also mention Alpha Glint, Bloodform, Ex Nihilo, Soak, Flesh of Marble, Anesthetic Touch with manuever, Apparition and so on and so forth.
> Ohlmann wrote:
>
> Animalism deck will be mostly unaffected, true.
>
> But they will be more combat decks, since they will more easily trump anti-combat. And Animalism is often weak against them, and even weaker if they risk to be torpored before even doing one damage.
>
"Often weak against them" do not believe that I can agree with that. They need a maneuver and a way to deal with 3 damage as well as having enough of their own to hurt the animalism using vamp.
"More combat decks" maybe, but ultimately not a bad thing when considering the more tactical vs strategical thought that will be put into deck designs.
> Robert wrote:
> "Often weak against them" do not believe that I can agree with that. They need a maneuver and a way to deal with 3 damage as well as having enough of their own to hurt the animalism using vamp.
>
Animalism is easy to outmaneuver, if needed. They have no way to have more than one maneuver easily by itself.
Three damage ain't that scary either, especially with (your pick) Flesh of marble, Armor of Vitality, Hidden Strength, Theft of Vitae, etc... About anything other combat type can do far worse to your vampire ; if you get into combat not thinking people can hit back, you have problem against animalism, but against anything else combaty too.
The strength of animalism is that it's easy to put in place and it have a good card flow. It also strive on the fact that anti combat card are the fifth wheel in a lot of decks. Shutting down Animalism combat completely isn't hard at all ; what is hard is shutting it down while having a good card flow, solution to S:CE, way to kill your opponent, etc ... First strike make it so you have a good solution against S:CE, a good solution against most combat type, and a decent solution against Carrion Crow. Providing you can do something decisive with your strike, of course
Well Ohlmann, I have a suggestion for people defending animalism combat : build a real deck with real vamps ? Tossing together all the ANI weenies under 5 cap under the sole pretext that carrion+ aid looks good with deep song sounds like another epitome of lazy deckbuilding.
Why not use Fortitude, Protean, Vicissitude, all kind of disciplines coming with means of preventing agg damage on decent vampires ? Animalism itself has also song of serenity... But Zomg, that means I have to build deck in accordance to a metagame ?!
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
The more I read Vekn.net, the more I am puzzled.
What has v:tes become ?
" If nobody ever rush me, my political deck is perfect"
" If nobody hit back, my combat deck is genius "
" If my prey has no intercept, my multi ally deck will rule the world"
Tournaments are so boring those days... (yeah, I know, local meta, blahblah)
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
> Reyda wrote:
> Well Ohlmann, I have a suggestion for people defending animalism combat : build a real deck with real vamps ? Tossing together all the ANI weenies under 5 cap under the sole pretext that carrion+ aid looks good with deep song sounds like another epitome of lazy deckbuilding.
> Why not use Fortitude, Protean, Vicissitude, all kind of disciplines coming with means of preventing agg damage on decent vampires ? Animalism itself has also song of serenity... But Zomg, that means I have to build deck in accordance to a metagame ?!
>
Since I am not sure to have understood, I would like precisions.
If your post is supposed to remind me that animalism combat can play card from other discipline, my response would be that the deck lose (some of) its excellent card flow for combat and begin to add parts that do nothing by themselves, and may in some case need bigger vampire as well, since you need animalism and something else at the same time. In essence, it gain the advantage and drawback of heavy combat package : yes, you're more able to snap people in combat, but then you're more likely to choke on combat and/or not have enough non combat card.
If your post is supposed to remind me that they can benefit from first strike themselve, my response is that Carrion Crow will not strike with first strike, so it create another kind of deck. Also, first strike is not all that easy to get with animalism : celerity / animalism is not overly common, not is animalism / quietus.
If your post is here to say that animalism combat is "lazy", I would yet again disagree. If your deck only have very limited place for combats card, Animalism have no real concurrence, since on two card you have minimal hitback protection and decent damage, with two part that work well independantly. It's a bit like saying that Banishment in political deck is lazy : it's not that they are a lot of other options in the current card pool for the job. (which is "small combat package", not "combat")
If something else, then I just didn't follow your logic, sorry.
> Reyda wrote:
> Why not use Fortitude, Protean, Vicissitude, all kind of disciplines coming with means of preventing agg damage on decent vampires ? Animalism itself has also song of serenity... But Zomg, that means I have to build deck in accordance to a metagame ?!
>
Because it's better to take 1 aggravated and rescue once in 5 games than it is to have dead cards in 4 out of 5 games. A lot of the time, the best way to cover your weaknesses is to be more effective at what you're good at.
The theory is that having a better card flow means you get to rush more often, which means you're eating less bleeds, which means you can afford more minions, which means you can absord 1 aggra and a rescue action more often etc. For vote decks, card flow means (among other things) that you hit the early Zillah's and Villeins, which gives more actions and votes to push Voter Caps, which snowballs into the next cycle of Zillah's/Villein.
In the opposite end of the spectrum, a deck that has dead cards (as in cards that are difficult to play/discard when you want to) will eventually choke and stumble. In a competitive setting, missing one beat can mean falling permanently behind because you lose the vote lock, can't afford to block a superior Govern, can't stop someone from building up and so on. At that point you can either hope that your opponents fail as badly or let the game spiral out of control.
So, basically what Suoli is saying is that First Strike trumping S:CE will not be much of an issue. Which is what I have already stated, though it may add small bits of different ideas in deck design. All good for the game as far as I can tell.
I love all those v:tes lessons. Write more stuff fellows, I am always happy to learn new things about this game. I can't wait to write a summary of everything in my pokédex
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
" Reyda launches 1... 2... 3... smart ass attack !
...
It's not very effective "
Remember Rob, Swedish-type pokemon are resistant to sarcasm-type attacks ! Try using Logic instead !
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
While I don't have a problem with First Strike resolving the way it currently does I've always found it bit odd that surprise/sneak attacks of First Strike would be trumped by S:CE or Dodge. Makes First Strike rather weak and cornercase.
Finnish Politics!
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > DeathInABottle wrote:
> > Why shouldn't this rule be changed?
> >
> Because it stands the test of time and all the cards were designed with that rule in head? Because there's no good reason to change them?
>
> The rules concerning first strike vs dodge are balanced as they are. Rules aren't be changed for the sake of a minority that found them not enough rpg-like.
>
I didn't bother replying to this before, but since I seem to have personally offended you, I guess I might as well.
If you look at the majority of my posts in any of the "let's change/ban/errata X" threads, you'll see that I'm almost always against changes to the game. Like you, I think that VTES is generally well balanced, and I think that the best way to improve that balance further is to introduce new cards. On that note, I've read all of your suggestions for new cards, and appreciate the time and effort you put into them. So thanks for that. When it comes to First Strike, though, I've always been perplexed, and I've seen the issue come up a number of times before. My question was motivated by curiosity. And it turns out that a number of other people are also curious about a change. I don't understand why your tone is so confrontational.
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > DeathInABottle wrote:
> >
> > > Pascal wrote:
> > > Well, anyone can feel free to try First Strke resolving pre-SCE.
> > > Amongst other things I would highly recommend (in a competitive environment):
> > > - Elimelech + Coma
> > > - Muddled Vampire Hunter
> > > - Quick Jab (Basilia, Samantha, Hector & Dogs of War, ..)
> > >
> > > But if you do try it, please send me your feedback
> > >
> > I'm glad to see that a few people are offering to playtest the possible change. Elimelech + Coma would be devastating, of course, but he is an 11 cap, and Coma does cost 3 blood - and dodge would still beat it. And dodge or prevent would both beat MVH and Quick Jab agg. Elimelech sounds like he would become broken, but I think playtesting - especially where playtesters deliberately start including more dodge cards to adjust to the new meta - would have to determine that.
> >
> I'm glad to see there are people having time to playtest so useless changes.
> I have also a request: I've always thought that Memories of Mortality shouldn't be playable on a Call the Great Beast. It's a demon. It can't have any memories of when it was human. Can someone playtest that to see if it's balanced?
>
My original post didn't request that anyone playtest anything: it was just meant to open conversation. Which it did. But someone came along and offered to playtest it, and I expressed appreciation for that. I'm not sure why that irritated you so badly.
in France, we had a standup comedian who, impersonating a politician, said once « expliquez moi ce dont vous avez besoin, je vous expliquerai comment vous en passer » Which roughly translates as "just explain me what you need, and i'll explain you how you can still do without it".
It's the kind of mentality I too often see in posts just asking for discussion about the game...
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
This thread would not exist if 'first strike' would have been worded as 'a wee tiny bit earlier strike'.
Can someone go back in time and fix that, please?
www.facebook.com/groups/vtes.belgium/
I don't remember seeing this link in this topic, so I copy it now that I've stumbled upon it.
www.thelasombra.com/vtes_focs.htm
> 5.) First Strike should beat Dodge and/or Strike: Combat Ends.
>
> Suggestion:
> First Strike should work like "First Strike" from Magic: The Gathering.
> You should not be able to Dodge and/or End Combat before the a strike
> done with First Strike is resolved.
> Response:
> Richard Garfield, the designer of both games, clearly disagrees with
> this position. See the Jyhad rulebook, section 15.3 and the discussion
> of special combat effects. Dodge always negates the effect of the
> opponent's strike. Strike: Combat Ends always ends combat before any
> damage is dealt or any strike's effects take place.
>
> The Current Rules Team / Design Team, has re-emphasized this and made
> it even more explicit in the Sabbat War/Final Nights rulebooks.
> See section 6.4.5 Strike Effects in either rulebook for the following quotes:
> "A dodge protects even from the effects of a strike done with first strike."
> "[Combat Ends] is always the first strike to resolve, even before a strike
> done with first strike, and ends combat before other strikes can be resolved
> or any damage dealt."
> and finally:
> "A strike done with first strike will still not resolve before a combat ends
> effect (which always resolves first), and a dodge still cancels the effects
> of a strike done with first strike."
>
> And now, for a real world scenario / explanation from Reyda:
> two people fight.
> One punches faster than the other.
> Both attempt to strike simultaneously.
> The fastest puncher hit the other first. The second blow lands on him
> normally though.
>
> Now...
> two people fight.
> One punches faster than the other.
> the fast puncher attempts to strike, while the other runs away.
> no matter how fast is the punch, it will hit thin air.
>
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director