Vampire a played flesh of marble at and get 2 normal (environmental) damage and 1 aggravated damage (from hand strike) during first round of combat. Can he take one normal and prevent the rest?
Only usable before range is determined.
This combat, if this vampire suffers a damage (that he or she does not prevent) in a given round, any additional damage inflicted on this vampire in the same round is automatically prevented. Aggravated damage cannot be prevented this way.
As above, but aggravated damage is prevented this way as well.
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.
That's not technically correct.
If both regular damage and aggravated damage are successfully inflicted on a vampire at the same time, the regular damage is handled first. This only applies to unprevented damage;
Inflict ... prevent ... suffer
Is the order. Flesh of marble is like it's own thing
> Mewcat wrote:
> That's not technically correct.
>
> If both regular damage and aggravated damage are successfully inflicted on a vampire at the same time, the regular damage is handled first. This only applies to unprevented damage;
>
> Inflict ... prevent ... suffer
>
> Is the order. Flesh of marble is like it's own thing
>
But the order only applies to unprevented damage. During damage prevention step player can choose what damage they prevent, yes?
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
Point is flesh of marble doesnt work properly with the damage step. It reads that u run through damage resolution in bulk not 1 point at a time. Maybe you dont and the rules are just confusing.
> Mewcat wrote:
> Point is flesh of marble doesnt work properly with the damage step. It reads that u run through damage resolution in bulk not 1 point at a time. Maybe you dont and the rules are just confusing.
>
Yes, and? Damage is prevented in damage prevention step. Flesh of marble prevents damage. You choose what damage you prevent and what 1 damage you decide to take, yes/no? Not sure what is confusing about this.
> Mewcat wrote:
> Point is flesh of marble doesnt work properly with the damage step.
>
In what way does it not work properly? All it says is that you need to take one damage in order for the rest to be prevented.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
U lunch for 3. I dont prevent. I suffer 3 now.
I have flesh of marble. U punch 3. I dont prevent. I suffer 3. We travel back in time to prevention and prevent 2.
No travel back in time, because if that was the case, it would re-open a window to play effects. "Prevent phase" is just a generic name for the phase between computing the amount of damage and actually taking it. Non-prevent effects can be played in that phase, and there is nothing saying that a prevent effect has to happen in that phase, especially if it comes with its own trigger like Flesh of Marble.
From rulebook
Damage resolution has two steps: prevent damage and heal damage.
First, the minion taking damage can play damage prevention cards (such as the combat card Skin of Rock) if he is able to do so. These damage prevention cards are played one at a time until all the damage is prevented or until the minion chooses not to play any more.
Any remaining damage (damage that was not prevented) is successfully inflicted.
I know the game not working like the rules say is nothing new, but that's what it says.
> Mewcat wrote:
> U lunch for 3. I dont prevent. I suffer 3 now.
>
> I have flesh of marble. U punch 3. I dont prevent. I suffer 3. We travel back in time to prevention and prevent 2.
>
If you read V:TES Complete Rules Reference VII A:
"Resolve each point of damage in turn.
NOTE: Normal damage is resolved before aggravated damage."
So acc. to this every single point of DMG is a separate trigger. You are treating 3 DMG as 1.
But acc. to this rules you separate them to 3 trigger of 1 DMG. In this case every single point will go through prevention and heal step of Damage resolution segment.
Didn't the rules director say that wasn't officially supported?
P.S. from ahnka
I'd like to point out that the Detailed Play Summary has never been exhaustive (and will never be), and that it is not a reference document (I do not, and don't want to, endorse it). It is provided as a courtesy. If it creates more trouble than it solves, I will delete it.
> Mewcat wrote:
> U lunch for 3. I dont prevent. I suffer 3 now.
>
> I have flesh of marble. U punch 3. I dont prevent. I suffer 3. We travel back in time to prevention and prevent 2.
>
No. You don't travel back in time. Damage WOULD be inflicted; you choose which point of damage you take, flesh prevents the rest. What is difficult? There is little difference to other damage prevention cards.
Just like with other damage prevention cards you choose which damage you prevent, since damage is inflicted at same time during strike resolution (sans first strike). Bats + crows, play diversion, prevent 1 damage from strike, 1 from crows, 1 damage from crows goes through. You are making this sound more complicated than it is.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Ankha wrote:
> What is the question?
>
If both normal and aggravated damage is dealt to a vampire who has played Flesh of marble at superior, can they choose which 1 point of damage they take for the flesh to do its preventing?
Can you also explain how damage prevention step works with flesh of marble, since Mewcat seems to have some confusion about it?
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
I understand what Mewcat is saying.
The word "suffer" appears in the rulebook twice, both times in an example of play. The word "suffer" is not used in the section about damage prevention. Flesh of Marble is the only card in Amaranth that uses the word "suffer".
And the rules explain in 6.4.6. Damage Resolution:
FIRST, the minion taking damage can play damage prevention cards, which resolve immediately.
2nd, any remaining damage - damage not prevented - is successfully inflicted.
3rd, the vampire must then heal the damage by burning blood, if able. Otherwise the vampire becomes wounded and goes to torpor.
What Mewcat is saying is that the card Flesh of Marble does not follow the rulebook's structure for preventing damage. Flesh of Marble "activates / triggers" during the 2nd step, which is after the 1st - the actual prevent damage step. That's why he's saying "we go back in time" to the prevent damage step.
I think Mewcat is right. Flesh of Marble is entirely it's own thing.
I think we intuitively know how Flesh of Marble is meant to work, but it doesn't work within the structure the rules provide.
But it's also worth pointing out: the rules as written don't allow a window to use prevent damage effects that aren't cards you're playing from hand. For example, Guardian Angel prevents 1 damage each combat, but the rulebook doesn't mention that. It only says "play damage prevention cards".
Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > What is the question?
> >
> If both normal and aggravated damage is dealt to a vampire who has played Flesh of marble at superior, can they choose which 1 point of damage they take for the flesh to do its preventing?
>
> Can you also explain how damage prevention step works with flesh of marble, since Mewcat seems to have some confusion about it?
>
And can you explain if vampire play inferior Flesh of marble and take normal and aggr damage how is that resolved
If the text changes, then should it be like this?
Only usable before range is chosen.
[pro] For the duration of the combat, when this vampire suffers a point of damage (that he or she does not prevent) in a given round, any additional damage inflicted on this vampire in the same round is automatically reduced to 0. Aggravated damage cannot be reduced in this way. [PRO] As above, but aggravated damage is reduced in this way as well.
> Palamedes wrote:
> If the text changes, then should it be like this?
>
> Only usable before range is chosen.
> [pro] For the duration of the combat, when this vampire suffers a point of damage (that he or she does not prevent) in a given round, any additional damage inflicted on this vampire in the same round is automatically reduced to 0. Aggravated damage cannot be reduced in this way. [PRO] As above, but aggravated damage is reduced in this way as well.
>
Hell no. This change would make this ridiculous card even more powerfull. At least right now you can still deal unpreventable damage. Your change would make it so you only receive 1 dmg per round and there is no way around it.
> LivesByProxy wrote:
> I understand what Mewcat is saying.
>
> The word "suffer" appears in the rulebook twice, both times in an example of play. The word "suffer" is not used in the section about damage prevention. Flesh of Marble is the only card in Amaranth that uses the word "suffer".
>
> And the rules explain in 6.4.6. Damage Resolution:
>
> FIRST, the minion taking damage can play damage prevention cards, which resolve immediately.
> 2nd, any remaining damage - damage not prevented - is successfully inflicted.
> 3rd, the vampire must then heal the damage by burning blood, if able. Otherwise the vampire becomes wounded and goes to torpor.
>
> What Mewcat is saying is that the card Flesh of Marble does not follow the rulebook's structure for preventing damage. Flesh of Marble "activates / triggers" during the 2nd step, which is after the 1st - the actual prevent damage step. That's why he's saying "we go back in time" to the prevent damage step.
>
> I think Mewcat is right. Flesh of Marble is entirely it's own thing.
>
> I think we intuitively know how Flesh of Marble is meant to work, but it doesn't work within the structure the rules provide.
>
> But it's also worth pointing out: the rules as written don't allow a window to use prevent damage effects that aren't cards you're playing from hand. For example, Guardian Angel prevents 1 damage each combat, but the rulebook doesn't mention that. It only says "play damage prevention cards".
>
Yes. I thought I had made my case clearly enough but I guess some found it unclear.
> LivesByProxy wrote:
> But it's also worth pointing out: the rules as written don't allow a window to use prevent damage effects that aren't cards you're playing from hand. For example, Guardian Angel prevents 1 damage each combat, but the rulebook doesn't mention that. It only says "play damage prevention cards".
>
That is why, in the very early stages of rulebook, is this little gem.
"1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards
Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence."
It incidentally also applies to Flesh of Marble "time travelling." Rulebook says damage prevention works in certain way, but before that it has mentioned the sanctioned accurate text in the cards is more important and overrides what rulebook says. I do agree it would be best for us all *if* we went the trouble, spent the time and found agreement to uniform all the cards to follow certain formats and rule structures. But until that happens, 1.4 is there and it serves us. Ignoring it is playing Devil's Advocate and choosing which parts of the rules best suit the given situation and making position around that.
Flesh of Marble card text clearly says first damage that is suffered and not prevented activates it and explains what happens after that. It contradicts the rulebook damage example but it's still perfectly valid way for card to work. I personally cannot remember how much changes the damage prevention step in the rulebook has seen over the years but it's perfectly reasonable to assume both the card text and rulebook damage prevention step has seen multiple iterations since then.
> Palamedes wrote:
> If the text changes, then should it be like this?
>
> Only usable before range is chosen.
> [pro] For the duration of the combat, when this vampire suffers a point of damage (that he or she does not prevent) in a given round, any additional damage inflicted on this vampire in the same round is automatically reduced to 0. Aggravated damage cannot be reduced in this way. [PRO] As above, but aggravated damage is reduced in this way as well.
>
That wording about reducing damage to zero is at first glance good suggestion, until one considers following cards and their interaction with that version of Flesh of Marble compared to original. It also highlights the quagmire waiting a well meant attempt to make card more easily understood by using rulebook terms. It would buff the effect of Flesh of Marble against certain disciplines, kick Nosferatu bit deeper down on the power scale and ensure no future "damage cannot be prevented" cards would work as counter against Flesh of Marble. That's why there's cards with "immune to damage" and why some other cards only speak about preventing damage.
> Name: Flesh of Marble
> [Jyhad:R2, VTES:R, Anarchs:C/PG, KMW:PG3, KoT:U]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Discipline: Protean
> Only usable before range is chosen.
> [pro] For the duration of the combat, when this vampire suffers a point of damage (that he or she does not prevent) in a given round, any additional damage inflicted on this vampire in the same round is automatically prevented. Aggravated damage cannot be prevented in this way.
> [PRO] As above, but aggravated damage is prevented in this way as well.
> Artist: Pete Venters; Jenny Frison
>
> Name: Strike at the True Flesh
> [LotN:C]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Discipline: Quietus
> [qui] Only usable before resolution of a melee weapon's strike. For the remainder of the round, non-aggravated damage from this weapon's strikes cannot be prevented except by equipment or by other strikes.
> [QUI] As above, and this weapon's strikes inflict +1 damage.
> Artist: Brian LeBlanc
>
> Name: Vascular Explosion
> [FN:C2]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Cost: 2 blood
> Discipline: Quietus
> [qui] Strike: 2 damage, 3 damage to an ally. Damage cannot be prevented.
> [QUI] Strike: 3 damage, 4 damage to an ally. Damage cannot be prevented.
> Artist: Steve Prescott
>
> Name: Blood Sweat
> [AH:C2, FN:PA5]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Cost: 1 blood
> Discipline: Quietus
> [qui] Strike: 2R damage; only usable at long range. Damage cannot be prevented.
> [QUI] Strike: 3R damage; only usable at long range. Damage cannot be prevented.
> Artist: Rob Alexander
>
> Name: Exuding Blood
> [FN:C2]
> Cardtype: Combat
> Discipline: Quietus
> [qui] Strike: 1R damage, only usable at long range. Damage cannot be prevented.
> [QUI] Strike: 2R damage, only usable at long range. Damage cannot be prevented.
> Artist: Steve Ellis
>
> Name: The Spawning Pool
> [Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R/PN]
> Cardtype: Master
> Clan: Nosferatu
> Master: unique location.
> During your unlock phase, you may move 1 blood from a ready Nosferatu you control to this card. If a minion you control blocks a bleed against you, you may lock this card during the second round of the resulting combat to inflict 1 damage to the acting minion for each blood on the Spawning Pool. This damage cannot be prevented.
> Artist: Mark Nelson; Anson Maddocks
>
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
> beslin wrote:
> And can you explain if vampire play inferior Flesh of marble and take normal and aggr damage how is that resolved
>
Same principle: normal damage is handled first. You take 1 damage, Flesh of Marble triggers, it prevents the rests of the normal damage, then the aggravated comes comes, but Flesh of Marble cannot prevent it so you still take it.
That is why, in the very early stages of rulebook, is this little gem.
"1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards
Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence."
............
It's been said countless times, the golden rule isn't an excuse for sloppy templating and wording. We still need some way to be able to figure out how the cards work other then royal decree.
> Mewcat wrote:
> From rulebook
>
> Damage resolution has two steps: prevent damage and heal damage.
>
> First, the minion taking damage can play damage prevention cards (such as the combat card Skin of Rock) if he is able to do so. These damage prevention cards are played one at a time until all the damage is prevented or until the minion chooses not to play any more.
>
> Any remaining damage (damage that was not prevented) is successfully inflicted.
>
> I know the game not working like the rules say is nothing new, but that's what it says.
>
It seems you missed the most important word of the paragraph. It is not "prevent", it is "play". Flesh of Marble prevention is not something that is played, it is a mandatory triggered effect that resolves when the trigger is met, as all triggered effects, and since describing the trigger is part of the card text, timing is also part of the card text. This is not a case of card trumping rule. This is a case of one rule not being applicable because the card does not meet its preconditions.
> Mewcat wrote:
> It's been said countless times, the golden rule isn't an excuse for sloppy templating and wording. We still need some way to be able to figure out how the cards work other then royal decree.
>
But it's been clearly explained how the card works and in fact the thing that's throwing people off is how the rulebook contradicts the card. Rulebook should help people understand the game but if people are reading only parts of it ignoring other parts it can lead to confusion.
I do agree card and rulebook should go hand in hand, but in this case I would prefer we change the text in the 6.4.6 in the rulebook as pointed already in this thread, Flesh of Marble is not the only card playing wonky with it. My quess it at some point that part of the rules was modified from the ages past one in attempt to make it easier for new players to grasp how prevent-inflict works and speed up the procees by having people play the cards "all at once" instead going 1 damage at a time until all damage is being dealt with.
Because if you consider, first having the incoming damage form a stack, then having the defending player deal with it following the normal, then aggravated order one damage at a time is simple to understand with Flesh of Marble. But then someone might declare "I play this card Skin of Rock that prevents 2, but the damage is deal at steps of 1, I cannot prevent more then 1 per damage and nothing in Skin of Rock says it's prevent carries over to next damage because we clearly have cards like Skin of Steel that say all damage from all strikes, aka multiple sources." They would be as right as people claiming now that printed card and it's text doesn't play well with the rules.
We could change the rules to have "prevent" instead give vampire "prevent counters" that can be used to remove "damage counters". In that world, Flesh of Marble would give infinite amount of "prevent counters" to a minion against certain types of damage after the first damage counter affects the minion. It would be easy for new player to understand that yes, you can use "lump" of certain kind of prevent counters to remove certain types of "damage counters" even when the sources vary and damage is handled on 1 "damage counter" at a time. Now imagine actual physical game where players start to add "damage counters, prevent counters" etc. on the already counter filled playspace. Not to mention the time it would add to a combat that only tends to involve two players in the table. It works well when visualizing and explaining the mechanic but as constant way to handle things, not so much when even simple 1-1 handstrike exchange would have players toss 1 damage counter each to the table at opposing minions.
Card text should be as easy and accessible as possible and handle all cases arising with it's use. Rulebook should be as easy and accessible as possible and handle the framework along with all cases arising from the interaction in the game.
The Card texts cannot be changed with easy solution to follow rulebooks current form without changing balance of power and in this case, some suggestions take already "weak" and "utility" cards to even more obscure position instead their intended purpose of a "response counter." Case in point, the original Jyhad era Flesh of Marble did reduce the damage to 1 but was changed by the time eternal struggle rolled in.
"Jyhad Flesh of Marble
Only usable at the beginning of a round. If the vampire takes more then 1 damage in a round, then the total is reduced to 1. Aggravated damage cannot be prevented. This lasts the duration of combat.
As above, but aggravated damage can be prevented."
Funny anecdote back then we thought for a while (with my old friend) that Flesh of Marble was damage boost card on normal and ensured the hand damage turned aggravated with Claws could not be prevented by opposing vampire either. The "aggravated damage cannot be prevented." sentence was quite easy to understand. Naturally that was not the intent of the game design and with access to following red rectangle eternal struggle and it's different card text it was clarified. We still played some games following the mantra of "cards played as they're printed" that also applied to MTG, meaning Flesh of Marble effect along with others varied from card to card. Fun casual games in their own way, I recommend people sometimes try playing VTES with cards being played as they are, especially if they have to multiple variants of the same card, it gets wild.
We should change the section in the rulebook to ensure it follows the cards and their intent, or figure out way to change text for Flesh of Marble, Guardian angel, flak jacket and multitude of other cards to follow the rulebooks 6.4.6 Damage resolution part. I would vote that rulebook section to receive the needed clarification if 1.4 is too obscure to handle it.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
In general, it is true that the timing of printed effects can get messy (the templating of Imbued powers was an improvement in that regard,) but that could easily be fixed by replacing cards with "cards and effects", and it is not the point here. It is much more fundamental than that. Play = make a choice. Something that is mandatory is not a play. If it must happen, then the source that tells you why it must happen must also tell you when it happens. You are not going to find the two split between a card and the core rules.
Besides, the play / not play distinction is important because there are phases when players are allowed to play, and the are phases when they are not. However, mandatory effects can and do happen in all phases, because if a phase has no play and no mandatory effects, then nothing is happening, and it does not need to exist at all. It is not logically sound to force a triggered effect to happen in a play phase, because mandatory effects have more freedom by design.
That is the case for Flesh of Marble. Normally people do not play effects when taking the damage, but there is already a lot of stuff scheduled to happen in there, and there is nothing wrong with a card previously played adding more stuff to that schedule.
Perhaps we can agree that we know what the card is supposed to do but the rules are far from clear on this matter.
Honestly I feel bad for ahnka. There are more rules questions than anything else. Be nice to take some of the burden of the rules team.
> Tadori wrote:
> If you read V:TES Complete Rules Reference VII A:
> "Resolve each point of damage in turn.
> NOTE: Normal damage is resolved before aggravated damage."
>
That's in the "Heal Damage/Prevent Destruction" section. Once you get to Heal Damage/Prevent Destruction, you're dealing with damage that hasn't been prevented (including by Flesh of Marble). There, it makes a difference how you handle the damage because going through normal first increases the ability of aggravated damage to burn you - because the normal damage can wound you first, then potentially a single point of agg damage while you're wounded can burn you.
If you look above at C(c):
Prevent damage and then resolve any unprevented damage (VII).
The "heal damage/prevent destruction" step only applies to unprevented damage. And Flesh of Marble prevents the damage.
Flesh of Marble effectively creates a gap between being done playing prevent effects and moving on to heal / prevent destruction. Okay, I'm choosing not to play any more Skin of Rock (or whatever) and we're just about done with preventing damage.... so Flesh of Marble does its thing. Then we move into heal damage/prevent destruction, and at that point you split the damage out one by one, normal then agg.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> Flesh of Marble effectively creates a gap between being done playing prevent effects and moving on to heal / prevent destruction. Okay, I'm choosing not to play any more Skin of Rock (or whatever) and we're just about done with preventing damage.... so Flesh of Marble does its thing. Then we move into heal damage/prevent destruction, and at that point you split the damage out one by one, normal then agg.
>
And this is in concordance with my first post on this topic. Flesh of marble does not fit within the rules and is kind of its own thing.
> Mewcat wrote:
>
> > jamesatzephyr wrote:
> > Flesh of Marble effectively creates a gap between being done playing prevent effects and moving on to heal / prevent destruction. Okay, I'm choosing not to play any more Skin of Rock (or whatever) and we're just about done with preventing damage.... so Flesh of Marble does its thing. Then we move into heal damage/prevent destruction, and at that point you split the damage out one by one, normal then agg.
> >
> And this is in concordance with my first post on this topic. Flesh of marble does not fit within the rules and is kind of its own thing.
>
At risk of flogging a dead horse at least Kilrauko already pointed out that it does:
"1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards
Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence."
Finnish Politics!
> Bloodartist wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > What is the question?
> >
> If both normal and aggravated damage is dealt to a vampire who has played Flesh of marble at superior, can they choose which 1 point of damage they take for the flesh to do its preventing?
>
Yes. You can choose which 1 point of damage is not prevented.
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/FW-bmZpIM68/gLoYcvpUB7UJ
> Bloodartist wrote:
> Can you also explain how damage prevention step works with flesh of marble, since Mewcat seems to have some confusion about it?
>
a) compute the damage dealt
b) prevent the damage
c) handle/heal the damage
In step b), as soon as 1 damage is suffered (= not prevented, but before losing blood or going to torpor), Flesh of Marble kicks in and creates a prevention effect that lasts until the end of the round.
In step c), the vampire burns the blood for the 1 damage that is suffered.
Flesh of Marble is not a classic prevention card since it works once 1 damage has not been prevented. So yes, it works following what it says (as many other cards), per the Golden Rule.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Lönkka wrote:
>
> At risk of flogging a dead horse at least Kilrauko already pointed out that it does:
>
> "1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards
> Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence."
>
This isn't a case of contradicting the rules, this is a case of making up new rules. If you can't see a problem with such flippant invoking of the golden rule there is just no common ground. there have been 20 rules question posts in the last month. That should be troubling.
I agree with Mewcat.
Anson saying, "You get two Master phase actions." contradicts the rule(s): "A player gets one Master phase action."
FoM would seem to be operating outside the provided rules structure. In this manner, it reminds me of all the "Before range is determined," cards and Immortal Grapple and Taste of Vitae: they don't so much contradict the rules, but create timing windows on-the-fly where none previously existed (as per the combat structure outlined in the rulebook.)
But I guess we have our answer - by Imperial Decree as Mewcat predicted, no less.
Edit:
> Ankha wrote:
>
> a) compute the damage dealt
> b) prevent the damage
> c) handle/heal the damage
>
> In step b), as soon as 1 damage is suffered (= not prevented, but before losing blood or going to torpor), Flesh of Marble kicks in and creates a prevention effect that lasts until the end of the round.
> In step c), the vampire burns the blood for the 1 damage that is suffered.
>
Does no one else see the discrepancy here? In step b) damage can be suffered but that's different from both "computing damage" and step c) where the damage is handled / healed. AND and there would seem to be a sub-step / window where "before losing blood or going to torpor" effects apply but this sub-step / window is distinct from step c) which is where we actually lose blood and go to torpor AKA handle / heal the damage.
The word suffer really shouldn't be used, since it isn't being used correctly. Maybe the word "assign" would be more apt.
Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.
In my opinion its just a wording issue on FoM itself - how about something like this:
[pro] This combat, prevent all but 1 non-aggravated damage each round. The remaining 1 damage cannot be prevented or reduced by other effects.
[PRO] Same thing with aggravated allowed.
> LivesByProxy wrote:
>
> FoM would seem to be operating outside the provided rules structure. In this manner, it reminds me of all the "Before range is determined," cards and Immortal Grapple and Taste of Vitae: they don't so much contradict the rules, but create timing windows on-the-fly where none previously existed (as per the combat structure outlined in the rulebook.)
>
The golden rule is even more problematic than this, as even a cursory examination will reveal. We have cards that set range. I play shadow step and set long. You play shadow step and set close. The rules say this is not legal. The card you played said it sets range and the golden rule invalidates the rules in preference to the card. There is no reason that setting range couldn't be a sort of super maneuver other than the rules tell us so.
This isn't brain surgery.
> LivesByProxy wrote:
> Edit:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > a) compute the damage dealt
> > b) prevent the damage
> > c) handle/heal the damage
> >
> > In step b), as soon as 1 damage is suffered (= not prevented, but before losing blood or going to torpor), Flesh of Marble kicks in and creates a prevention effect that lasts until the end of the round.
> > In step c), the vampire burns the blood for the 1 damage that is suffered.
> >
> Does no one else see the discrepancy here? In step b) damage can be suffered but that's different from both "computing damage" and step c) where the damage is handled / healed.
>
Indeed. In order to suffer damage, you must first know how much damage you're taking (step a). Suffered damage is damage that isn't prevented, so the total amount of suffered damage is known at the end of step b.
> LivesByProxy wrote:
> AND and there would seem to be a sub-step / window where "before losing blood or going to torpor" effects apply but this sub-step / window is distinct from step c) which is where we actually lose blood and go to torpor AKA handle / heal the damage.
>
There is no sub-step. "before losing blood or going to torpor" means "before step c." In step c, you lose blood and/or go to torpor.
> LivesByProxy wrote:
> The word suffer really shouldn't be used, since it isn't being used correctly. Maybe the word "assign" would be more apt.
>
Why is that? Assigned is used elsewhere and has a different meaning that wouldn't apply here, since "assigned" damage could be interpreted differently in "I assign 2 damage to your retainer".
Suffer is perfectly fine here.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > LivesByProxy wrote:
> > The word suffer really shouldn't be used, since it isn't being used correctly. Maybe the word "assign" would be more apt.
> >
> Why is that? Assigned is used elsewhere and has a different meaning that wouldn't apply here, since "assigned" damage could be interpreted differently in "I assign 2 damage to your retainer".
> Suffer is perfectly fine here.
>
I agree that "suffer" is fine, especially because you provided a definition of what it means earlier in this thread (basically damage is suffered if it is dealt but not prevented or handled yet, right?). Also, it seems to be consistent with how "suffer" is currently used in the rulebook (per the passage below). That's awesome. Keep up the good work.
"Kurt uses his hands for the second strike. Ira uses his hands also. Both suffer 1 damage. Ira then uses his hands one more time, and Kurt can't use a strike because he had only one additional strike. Kurt suffers one more damage."
> LivesByProxy wrote:
>
> FoM would seem to be operating outside the provided rules structure. In this manner, it reminds me of all the "Before range is determined," cards and Immortal Grapple and Taste of Vitae: they don't so much contradict the rules, but create timing windows on-the-fly where none previously existed (as per the combat structure outlined in the rulebook.)
>
This is nothing new. There is a whole lot of cards that create timing steps of their own, and cause a lot of rules conflict requiring word-of-god rulings on how the cards work.
I have, for the past 2-3 years, been trying to point out that the best course forward would be to errata the problematic cards (there are not that many) so they function within existing timing step framework. Yet the rules committee hasn't really even acknowledged the problem, no matter how many recurring rules questions we get on this forum about these cards. People are just like: "why?" Well I think the why should be obvious by now..
Instead, we always have to resort to Ankha waving his hands, referring to archaic google documents written way before the problematic cards were printed; and essentially declaring how the cards work and damn the rules.
Granted, there are some cards where such an errata might not even be possible (first tradition springs to mind)
Ill just drop the mic now.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > LivesByProxy wrote:
> > The word suffer really shouldn't be used, since it isn't being used correctly. Maybe the word "assign" would be more apt.
> >
> Why is that? Assigned is used elsewhere and has a different meaning that wouldn't apply here, since "assigned" damage could be interpreted differently in "I assign 2 damage to your retainer".
> Suffer is perfectly fine here.
>
Because the word "suffer" typically means, "to undergo pain or stress." (Edit: Even better: "to sustain injury.") With that meaning, it would seem "to suffer damage" would be in step c) where "damage is handled / healed".
But this just brings up another weird rule: that vampires must burn blood to heal damage, instead of damage causing them to lose / burn blood. (How often has "healing damage" mattered in VTES in the past? Sword of Nuln? Repair The Undead Flesh? Brother's Blood? I guess props to BC for building on this otherwise forgotten mechanic in the Lost Kindred expansion: Regenerative Blood is kind of neat.)
But again, we're left with this supposed rules framework of a) compute damage, b) prevent damage window, c) heal / handle the damage, even though within step b) is a mysterious space where the damage is actually dealt / taken / received / suffered (all these words are used interchangeably in the rulebook) before being handled / healed in step c).
And again, "suffer" is used on 1 card: Flesh of Marble. (According to Amaranth.) "Assign" is used on 0 cards according to Amaranth.
Are you guys using "suffer" in the 1800's sense of the word? As in, "to allow; to tolerate." Because then the word would actually make sense in the way that you want it to: damage not prevented during step b) is "allowed" (to go through) i.e. "suffered".
Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.
I think you're thinking too much. Ankha defined "suffer" to mean something very specific (damage suffered = not prevented, but before losing blood or going to torpor). It means this in VTES and not any other preconceived definition you may have. I assume "dealt" also has a definition (it was used by Ankha in a previous post). And "handle" and "heal." I'd argue it's more pressing to have definitions for the terms actively being used by the rules folks rather than if we're choosing the correct word to fit in with timing windows (or whatever it is you're arguing).
I'm just saying, if I asked you to break down the steps involved in the process of damage resolution, and you leave out the step where damage is actually suffered or taken or whatever, or say it exists in this weird foggy realm of this other completely different step just before another completely different step, (that effectively, when a minion receives damage is not a step in the process of damage resolution!) it just seems like... maybe that contributes to the difficulty curve of this game, the constant barrage of rules questions, and the difficulty attracting and maintaining players.
Like, one of the reasons Magic is complex because it has 100 keywords and such, but at least its rules are written like a legal document and it is internally consistent.
VTES, on the otherhand, is unnecessarily complex because of poor card templates, formatting issues, and a book of general guide-lines masquerading as a book-of-rules. (No offense, Ankha.)
Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.
I let this one sit for a while to ensure I didn't post it hastily and I still feel it's relevant enough and the examples should help people to understand the perceived issues and why there are people defending for and against. While this is not related to the mechanical aspect of Flesh of Marble and aggravated damage interaction, I feel it's not derailing to explore the importance of order of operations and the way they're handled elsewhere and in VTES especially when confusion has been raised that stems from VTES order of operations placing Flesh of Marble above Rulebook's 6.4.6.
> LivesByProxy wrote:
> I agree with Mewcat.
>
> Anson saying, "You get two Master phase actions." contradicts the rule(s): "A player gets one Master phase action."
>
> FoM would seem to be operating outside the provided rules structure. In this manner, it reminds me of all the "Before range is determined," cards and Immortal Grapple and Taste of Vitae: they don't so much contradict the rules, but create timing windows on-the-fly where none previously existed (as per the combat structure outlined in the rulebook.)
>
> But I guess we have our answer - by Imperial Decree as Mewcat predicted, no less.
>
I'm going to try to explain this in hopefully logical fashion where cause and effect follow each other. If one follows cause-effect thinking one can understand how and why order matters when it comes to certain things. It's akin to mathematics where we assign higher importance to exponentation, followed by multiplication and lastly addition, because order of operation matters. In VTES, the order is degreed to follow cards as errated card texts over rulebook. That's the function of 1.4. Rulebook is important but more important then it are the cards. "It's literally in the rules." I've personally always viewed LSJ's comments along with the people following in those footsteps as explanation what the design intent of the card is OR what the boost/nerf change to achieve aimed design intent is. I do not see it as any more handwaving rules as any group choosing what rules if any their group plays with. They bind one just as much as one wishes to, altough sometimes it's rational to be bound by certain rules more then others.
Now as in mathematics, it's perfectly reasonable to question whether or not rules (for example order of operations) should be followed and there are interesting hypothesis to be gained if one decides that exponentation or multiplication should happen after addition. But for world wide discussion certain terms have been agreed upon and while proclaiming 3+2x8 shoud mean 40 is fine in certain mathematic discussions, there should be no confusion why there are people who claim it actually means 19 and just that. And while it's fair to say that conclusion is reached by "Imperial degree", we've all kinda agreed to it due to certain mathematical rules and changing it would require us to change those (order of operations). For VTES, 1.4 determines cards (errated, non-misprinted to ensure there's no misunderstanding of my view point even when 1.4 does not exactly say that and could be understood to mean literally what it says) come before rulebook, order of operation is set there.
I would go as far as to say proclaiming certain changes as things that have always existed without providing concrete and solid proof of support is deliberately confusing. Imagine your own reaction if someone claimed during discussion that for the above calculation 40 is real answer because 19 is making up new rules. Even when it's the exact opposite and the answer that person has made concrete for themself is the product of them ignoring some old and existing rules in favour of others. Ones that have been put in place for a good reason in the first place to enable more mathematics (for VTES to ensure certain cards can be played in the fashion their design intent is, intent that in some cases pre-dates VTES usenet newsgroups, let alone this forum or the current rules iteration).
Now the important question, what we could do to make it easier for people to follow order of operations in VTES to prevent unintentional mistakes and make it easier for people to understand?
And please do not take this post as me going "you should not question things." On the contrary, things should be questioned but in rigorous manner with careful thought. If someone can come up with wording for Flesh of Marble and other cards that does not change the existing interactions or power balance of the cards and makes 1.4 irrelevant I'm all up for removing it from the rulebook. Not because I've set myself to oppose it but because it has been proven at that point to be irrelevant and it can be always brought back if a new design intent requires it. In the same fashion I'm all up for people rewriting the sections in the rulebook to enable easier understanding in the matters as long as it follows the design choices made for the cards and keeps the rulebook easy to understand. Perhaps include Flesh of Marble and aggravated damage example there as bits are cheap?
That's one reason why our schools moved away from using english long division method to the one being currently teached (german I believe). They did not change order of operations but instead fiddled around with the framework to make it appear "easier" for people (children in the case of school math) to understand. Naturally parents and older people who were taught the "real way" had the "but you cannot change maths!" moments for a while until they realized it was not changed, just the visual aspect of it. As had their parents back when we changed from italian to english long division. In the same fashion their kids had "but you cannot calculate it like that, math says otherwise, it's not correct to put the numbers there!" moments.
I personally have no trouble understanding what 1.4 means compared to rest of the rulebook in order of operations sense, neither was I inherintly opposed to "various maths" when I first saw them. But I also understand and emphasize the viewpoint of people wanting to make it "simpler and easier". Day to day usage in VTES rarely needs 1.4's order of operations and I think getting rid of it in VTES would lead to more "down to earth" in design. When was the last time you used exponentation in mathematical way in day to day life where order of operations mattered? It's easy understand claim that only addition and substraction matter as multiplication and division are just them being glorified for no reason in everyday use while exponentation and root extracton are not used at all. Or when was the last time your casual game had to google some newsgroup or forum posts instead "handwaving" a rule at the spot from quick ponder of "what was written in rulebook" and just running the evening with it? Making it "simpler" has it's own merits, but at the same time we have to properly balance the design intents and possibilities lost with that route. That's why I personally go the effort to seek later what the "design answer" to handwaved "let's play it like this" ruling is. If people are not willing to go that trouble, they are free to settle to their own comfort level and live with the rules of their own choosing, that's the beauty of life, live and let live.
I hope this helps to understand why I feel like I do and why I argue for my viewpoint. It's why I said only choosing to follow part of the rulebook can lead to confusion. 40 or 19. Can there be logic in some things being more important then others? Is Rulebook 1.4 poor design or necessary design? Does Rulebook 1.4 only hinder things or enable more? Or can we perhaps add something to 6.4.6 to make it appear easier while keeping the order of operations(or figure out a way to rearrange words in cards that keep their design intent)? Why I cannot make short and precise comments and always resort to long rambles that nobody reads?
PS. Here's linked image to hopefully bring chuckle out. It's why order of operation and rules might matter. Or it might not. You decide. i.imgur.com/OhROBt4.jpg
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
That's a lot of words.
There are 2 main schools of thought here:
1) I can memorize the rulings if they are provided
2) I want to be able to read the cards and rulebook and the answers should be clear.
2.1) ideally this would involve a simple rulebook with as few steps as possible
@Kilrauko: I do not think anyone here is arguing for Rule 1.4 being removed, or saying that it's a bad rule or wrong way to approach things.
I just want consistency. Almost all the CCGs/TCGs/LCGs since Magic have a similar "Golden Rule". It is necessary in these kinds of games. Magic also has an important addendum to their Golden Rule:
>
> 101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
>
But that's an aside. The issue is that the rules are not being contradicted if the card is making up rules as it goes. There is nothing in the rules about this, and 1.4 does not cover this.
Here is an example: Eagle's Sight.
> 1.6.3.6 Minion Cards - Reaction Cards A ready unlocked minion can play a reaction card in response to an action taken by another Methuselah's minion (an action taken by one of a Methuselah's minions cannot be reacted to by any of her own minions). A minion cannot play the same reaction card more than once during a single action. A reaction card does not lock the minion using it.
>
And also relevant to this example:
> 6.2.2.1 Who May Attempt To Block: If the action targets one or more other Methuselahs (or things controlled by other Methuselahs), then the action is called directed, and only the Methuselahs who are targeted (or control the targets) may use their ready unlocked minions to attempt to block the action (going clockwise from the acting Methuselah, as usual). If the action is not directed at another Methuselah (or at something controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is called undirected and can be blocked by the acting Methuselah's prey or predator, with the prey getting the first opportunity to block.
>
Note how Eagle's Sight still follows Rule 1.6.3.6 and directly contradicts Rule 6.2.2.1 in it's card text: This vampire attempts to block the current action, ignoring the normal prey, predator or target restrictions for blocking actions.
Now, compare that with Flesh of Marble, which we pretend operates within Rule 6.4.6 but factually contradicts nothing in this section - it just seems to skirt around how the damage resolution step works. Edit: And yet it still seems to exist in this grey limbo realm of "after this step, but before this step," and uses a term unused by any other card but itself.
Now, maybe this section can be rewritten. Maybe FoM can be rewritten. Gryzbas had a nice suggested wording. Who knows.
I mean, it should be clear that if Ankha is having to explain how FoM works by evoking steps and explaining words that aren't listed or explained, respectively, in the rulebook... that something is wrong here.
Edit: I guess I give up though. No point dying on the hill of clear and concise rules when we can just memorize and internalize how everything is suppose to work.
Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.
> LivesByProxy wrote:
> I mean, it should be clear that if Ankha is having to explain how FoM works by evoking steps and explaining words that aren't listed or explained, respectively, in the rulebook... that something is wrong here.
>
> Edit: I guess I give up though. No point dying on the hill of clear and concise rules when we can just memorize and internalize how everything is suppose to work.
>
Oh, yes, something is deeply wrong with the current rulebook. Maybe you are not aware that the current rules people are updating the rulebook? So, I'm guessing that whatever Ankha is "evoking" is a preview of an eventual updated rulebook. If that is the case, this "wrong" is in the process of being righted.
> LivesByProxy wrote:
> I just want consistency. Almost all the CCGs/TCGs/LCGs since Magic have a similar "Golden Rule". It is necessary in these kinds of games. Magic also has an important addendum to their Golden Rule:
> >
> > 101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
> >
> But that's an aside. The issue is that the rules are not being contradicted if the card is making up rules as it goes. There is nothing in the rules about this, and 1.4 does not cover this.
>
We are in agreement about the consistency. I have nothing against people demanding it to be increased as long as their demands keep the original design intents available. I hope I'm not someone who's killing anyone in rules hill when I'm trying to say that your viewpoint is valid and only requires refining.
Because in the end it's easy for me to say how nice it would be to have rulebook that goes hand in hand with the cards, but that doesn't make it true. Someone has to do that work and lord knows despite me spewing lot of words to a post, I don't have the time to spend in deep pondering for global game on wording changes and other subjects it might raise. I hope people keep providing suggestions as while they might receive notes like the earlier discipline + nos issue I raised the people who can spend the time pondering still receive those suggestions (and the raised issues) hopefully refining them in turn.
That's incidentally also why "mathematical outlaws" are allowed and encouraged in certain discussions to proceed "with 40 instead 19". Freedom sometimes gives us stuff like Riemann zeta function with it's universality that we're still in amasement. Or at least I am but then again I'm not mathemacian or physicist who has days upon days of time to ponder these things.
TL:DR Please keep on pushing for what you believe in, preferably with solid reasoning and don't become unnecessarily jaded.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.