Damage Prevention against Retainer Damage

Hello, Unable to locate any references on how damage prevention deals with multiple retainer damage. If Minion A has 3 Wolf Companions and 2 Murder of Crows. and goes into combat with Minion B who possesses Fortitude. How is each retainer's damage potential treated? As a separate strike? As a lumped together strike? As a lumped together environmental effect? or is the damage just added to the owning minion's strike, thus making 1 strike? So... How is multiple retainer damage handled for the following Fortitude cards? Rolling with the Punches at superior, which deals with all strikes. Negated? Skin of Steel at normal, which deals with only 1 strike; and at superior, which deals with all strikes. Negates only 1 hit from 1 retainer? Superior Mettle, which deals with only 1 strike. Negates only 1 hit from 1 retainer? Michael Eichler -- Worry comes from the belief you are powerless. (So get in there and kick some butt!) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > If Minion A has 3 Wolf Companions and 2 Murder of Crows. > and goes into combat with Minion B who possesses Fortitude. > > How is each retainer's damage potential treated? As a separate > strike? No, because it's not a strike. > As a lumped together strike? No, because they're not strikes. > As a lumped together > environmental effect? Yes. So you can prevent 3 damage from three Shades with 2 copies of skin of rock. > or is the damage just added to the owning > minion's strike, thus making 1 strike? > No, because adding to strieks with retainers doesn't work. They'd specfically have to add to his damage. > So... How is multiple retainer damage handled for the following > Fortitude cards? > > Rolling with the Punches at superior, which deals with all strikes. > Negated? Rolling of the Punches regards only strikes. Retainers aren't strikes. Retainer damage gets through. > > Skin of Steel at normal, which deals with only 1 strike; and at > superior, which deals with all strikes. > Negates only 1 hit from 1 retainer? Negates hit from 0 retainers since retainers aren't strikes. > > Superior Mettle, which deals with only 1 strike. > Negates only 1 hit from 1 retainer? Negates 0 hits from 0 retainers. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "But I don't have the right to be with you tonight, so please leave me alone with no saviour in sight. I will sleep safe and sound with nobody around me."

Ramsteiner wrote: > Unable to locate any references on how damage prevention deals with > multiple retainer damage. It works the same regardless of the source of damage, with the exception that things that prevent "damage from a strike" cannot prevent damage from non-strikes (like retainers). > If Minion A has 3 Wolf Companions and 2 Murder of Crows. > and goes into combat with Minion B who possesses Fortitude. > > How is each retainer's damage potential treated? As a separate > strike? As a lumped together strike? As a lumped together > environmental effect? or is the damage just added to the owning > minion's strike, thus making 1 strike? All damage (assuming the employer's strike is not done with First Strike) occurs simultaneously (note the retainer's text: "during strike resolution"). > So... How is multiple retainer damage handled for the following > Fortitude cards? > > Rolling with the Punches at superior, which deals with all strikes. > Skin of Steel at normal, which deals with only 1 strike; and at > superior, which deals with all strikes. > Superior Mettle, which deals with only 1 strike. The cards listed above cannot prevent non-strike damage, by card text. They could be used to prevent the damage from the opposing minion's strike, but not from other effects, even if they occur during the strike resolution step. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep

Thank you both LSJ and James for the clarification. Michael Eichler In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.000424...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > > If Minion A has 3 Wolf Companions and 2 Murder of Crows. > > and goes into combat with Minion B who possesses Fortitude. > > > > How is each retainer's damage potential treated? As a separate > > strike? > > No, because it's not a strike. > > > As a lumped together strike? > > No, because they're not strikes. > > > As a lumped together > > environmental effect? > > Yes. So you can prevent 3 damage from three Shades with 2 copies of skin > of rock. > > > or is the damage just added to the owning > > minion's strike, thus making 1 strike? > > > > No, because adding to strieks with retainers doesn't work. They'd > specfically have to add to his damage. > > > So... How is multiple retainer damage handled for the following > > Fortitude cards? > > > > Rolling with the Punches at superior, which deals with all strikes. > > Negated? > > Rolling of the Punches regards only strikes. Retainers aren't > strikes. Retainer damage gets through. > > > > > Skin of Steel at normal, which deals with only 1 strike; and at > > superior, which deals with all strikes. > > Negates only 1 hit from 1 retainer? > > Negates hit from 0 retainers since retainers aren't strikes. > > > > > Superior Mettle, which deals with only 1 strike. > > Negates only 1 hit from 1 retainer? > > Negates 0 hits from 0 retainers. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > "But I don't have the right to be with you tonight, so please leave me > alone with no saviour in sight. I will sleep safe and sound with nobody > around me." > > -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <39046ACF...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Ramsteiner wrote: > > Unable to locate any references on how damage prevention deals with > > multiple retainer damage. > > It works the same regardless of the source of damage, with > the exception that things that prevent "damage from a strike" > cannot prevent damage from non-strikes (like retainers). The next question that came up is on the Retainer: Ghoul Retainer. If the Ghoul Retainer is using a weapon, how is that damage handled? Most weapons (except Chainsaw, Sawed Off Shotgun, and Stake) identify the damage inflicted by them as a "strike". If the damage the Ghoul Retainer does is considered "environmental", (as they do not do strikes) how is this handled for damage prevention since the weapons (excluding the three mentioned above) state they do damage per strike? What is the ruling on multiple Ghoul Retainers on one vampire using a Crimson Sentinel, can the Ghouls each use the weapon individually? On the question of the soul counters, if the Ghouls can use the weapon each during a combat round, the increase would still only be 1. Correct? (As per card text?) What is the ruling on multiple Ghoul Retainers on one vampire using a weapon that can only be used once per combat? (i.e. Sawed-off Shotgun) I would think that once used by the first Ghoul, it could not be used again by any of the other Ghoul Retainers. Plus, what is the offical errata concerning Wooden Stake and Stake? Are they the same weapon? If so, why is there two sets of errata on them (one for each, but neither one matching each other.) Thanks Michael Eichler [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> wrote: > If the Ghoul Retainer is using a weapon, how is that damage handled? > Most weapons (except Chainsaw, Sawed Off Shotgun, and Stake) identify > the damage inflicted by them as a "strike". If the damage the Ghoul > Retainer does is considered "environmental", (as they do not do > strikes) how is this handled for damage prevention since the weapons > (excluding the three mentioned above) state they do damage per strike? All damage that comes from retainers, incl. Ghoul Retainer, is environmental damage. Even though a Ghoul Retainer may use a weapon to inflict damage, the language on the weapon does not override that rule. > What is the ruling on multiple Ghoul Retainers on one vampire using a > Crimson Sentinel, can the Ghouls each use the weapon individually? Yes. [TOM 19950921] > On the question of the soul counters, if the Ghouls can use the > weapon each during a combat round, the increase would still only > be 1. Correct? (As per card text?) "If this weapon successfully inflicts damage on an opponent in combat, add a soul counter to it at the end of that round." Correct. It's dependant on the weapon inflicting damage, not on it being used as a strike. > What is the ruling on multiple Ghoul Retainers on one vampire using > a weapon that can only be used once per combat? (i.e. Sawed-off > Shotgun) I would think that once used by the first Ghoul, it could > not be used again by any of the other Ghoul Retainers. Good question. Couldn't find any errata or rulings on the subject. Since the text says "only usable once per combat" and makes no mention of the word "strike," my gut reaction is that once it's been used by a Ghoul Retainer or vampire to inflict damage, it cannot be used again. > Plus, what is the offical errata concerning Wooden Stake and Stake? > Are they the same weapon? Yes. [LSJ 19990831] > If so, why is there two sets of errata on them (one for each, but > neither one matching each other.) Oversight? *shrug* Noal McDonald Priscus of Farmington Hills, MI -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > things that prevent "damage from a strike" > > cannot prevent damage from non-strikes (like retainers). > > The next question that came up is on the Retainer: Ghoul Retainer. > > If the Ghoul Retainer is using a weapon, how is that damage handled? Like any other retainer's damage. Ranged if the weapon deals ranged damage. Not ranged if not. > Most weapons (except Chainsaw, Sawed Off Shotgun, and Stake) identify > the damage inflicted by them as a "strike". If the damage the Ghoul > Retainer does is considered "environmental", (as they do not do > strikes) how is this handled for damage prevention since the weapons > (excluding the three mentioned above) state they do damage per strike? The intuitive way: the Ghoul does an amount of damage the weapon would inflict when it strikes. > What is the ruling on multiple Ghoul Retainers on one vampire using a > Crimson Sentinel, can the Ghouls each use the weapon individually? Ghoul Retainer - Retainer (2) * More than one Ghoul Retainer employed by a Minion could "use" the same weapon (that the Minion is not using) at the same time. [TOM 21-SEP-1995] > On the question of the soul counters, if the Ghouls can use the > weapon each during a combat round, the increase would still only be 1. > Correct? (As per card text?) Yes. > What is the ruling on multiple Ghoul Retainers on one vampire using a > weapon that can only be used once per combat? (i.e. Sawed-off Shotgun) > I would think that once used by the first Ghoul, it could not be > used again by any of the other Ghoul Retainers. Correct. > Plus, what is the offical errata concerning Wooden Stake and Stake? Wooden Stake - Equipment * New card text: "Melee Weapon. This weapon inflicts strength damage as a strike. If more than 1 damage is inflicted on the opposing vampire by this weapon in a given combat, then that vampire is sent to torpor. In that case, this card is transferred to him and he does not untap as normal during the untap phase as long as he remains in torpor." [RTR 05-JAN-1999] > Are they the same weapon? If so, why is there two sets of errata on > them (one for each, but neither one matching each other.) Yes. [TOM 24-NOV-95] The erratum for Wooden Stake matches the ruling for Stake. The ruling for Stake, using "Paralyze", is out of date (since "Paralyze" is no longer used). Ignore that ruling (except inasfar as it has been incorporated into the Wooden Stake text). I'll remove the out-of-date "Stake" ruling. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3907223A...@white-wolf.com>, Hello LSJ, Thank you for the clarification below, however, if Paralyze is no longer an accepted term within the V:TES world, what is the cost of removing a vampire out of torpor who was staked? Zero as per the errata for paralyzed vampires (which is now out of date) or 2 per standard torpor rescue rules? Rules (II.C.8.b.Note 2) 8. Rescue a Vampire in Torpor. Kindred ONLY. (NO card required) [6.5.3] a. This action is at +1 Stealth if it is not directed. b. The cost (two blood) may be paid by taking two blood from either vampire, or one from each. NOTE: The acting Methuselah chooses how the cost is paid. NOTE: Rescuing a Paralyzed Vampire costs no blood. Michael Eichler LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > The erratum for Wooden Stake matches the ruling for Stake. > The ruling for Stake, using "Paralyze", is out of date (since > "Paralyze" is no longer used). Ignore that ruling (except > inasfar as it has been incorporated into the Wooden Stake text). > > I'll remove the out-of-date "Stake" ruling. > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep > -- Worry comes from the belief you are powerless. (So get in there and kick some butt!) [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner wrote: > > In article <3907223A...@white-wolf.com>, > Hello LSJ, > > Thank you for the clarification below, however, if Paralyze is no > longer an accepted term within the V:TES world, what is the cost of It is accepted, in a way (the rulebook defines the term), but no tournament-legal cards use the term, so the point is largely moot. > removing a vampire out of torpor who was staked? Zero as per the > errata for paralyzed vampires (which is now out of date) or 2 per > standard torpor rescue rules? Since Wooden Stake doesn't paralyze the victim, the paralyze rules don't come into play. Rescuing the victim vampire from torpor costs two blood, by default. > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Are [Stake and Wooden Stake] the same weapon? > > > > Yes. [TOM 24-NOV-95] [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > Thank you for the clarification below, however, if Paralyze is no > longer an accepted term within the V:TES world, what is the cost of > removing a vampire out of torpor who was staked? Zero as per the > errata for paralyzed vampires (which is now out of date) or 2 per > standard torpor rescue rules? 2, as per standard torpor rules. Effectively, all cards with Paralyze on have been removed from the game - Rowan Ring is banned in tournaments, Stake is re-written to be Wooden Stake (with errata). Because of that, everything involving torpor is done with standard torpor rules. [ quoted text not captured ]