Hell-for-Leather vs Undead Persistence (LSJ)
Stone
strikes for 1 aggravated, B strikes for 1 normal. B doesn't prevent the 1
agg and becomes wounded.
A wants to play Hell-for-Leather, B wants to play Undead Persistence.
1-1/ since A is acting, A can play HfL (and have B's controller burn 2 pool)
before B gets the chance to play UP, right (similar to UP Vs Amaranth case)
?
1-2/ follow-up to previous question : after burning 2 pool, could B now play
UP ? (should be yes, since you can play Amaranth after replacing HfL)
2-1/ if A chooses not to play HfL (passing the opportunity to B to play/use
effects) and then B plays UP, A can no longer play HfL, since UP now keeps B
ready. Correct ?
2-2/ follow-up : at the end of combat, A cannot play HfL since B is sent to
torpor after combat ends (similar to the Amaranth vs UP case). Correct ?
thanks
Stone
Name: Undead Persistence
[Jyhad:U2, VTES:U, Sabbat:U, SW:PV, Anarchs:PAG]
Cardtype: Combat
Discipline: Fortitude
[for] Only usable when this vampire should go into torpor. This vampire gets
an optional press and will not go to torpor until combat ends (although he
or she is still considered wounded and can be burned as normal). If three
rounds of combat pass with no cards played, combat ends. This vampire is
sent into torpor after combat.
[FOR] Prevent 2 damage.
Artist: Clint Langley; Scott Kirschner
Name: Hell-for-Leather
[TR:C]
Cardtype: Combat
Discipline: Animalism/Celerity/Obtenebration
Requires an anarch. Only one Hell-for-Leather may be played at a given
Discipline each combat.
[ani] Strike: dodge, with an additional strike.
[cel] Additional strike (that doesn't count against the limit).
[obt] Play if this anarch is ready and the opposing minion is not. The
opposing minion's controller burns 2 pool.
Artist: Peter Bergting
LSJ
> Vampire A (acting minion, has 1 blood) is in combat with vampire B. A
> strikes for 1 aggravated, B strikes for 1 normal. B doesn't prevent the 1
> agg and becomes wounded.
>
> A wants to play Hell-for-Leather, B wants to play Undead Persistence.
>
> 1-1/ since A is acting, A can play HfL (and have B's controller burn 2 pool)
> before B gets the chance to play UP, right (similar to UP Vs Amaranth case)
> ?
Correct.
> 1-2/ follow-up to previous question : after burning 2 pool, could B now play
> UP ? (should be yes, since you can play Amaranth after replacing HfL)
Correct.
> 2-1/ if A chooses not to play HfL (passing the opportunity to B to play/use
> effects) and then B plays UP, A can no longer play HfL, since UP now keeps B
> ready. Correct ?
Correct.
> 2-2/ follow-up : at the end of combat, A cannot play HfL since B is sent to
> torpor after combat ends (similar to the Amaranth vs UP case). Correct ?
Correct.
Malone
> Stone wrote:
> > Vampire A (acting minion, has 1 blood) is in combat with vampire B. A
> > strikes for 1 aggravated, B strikes for 1 normal. B doesn't prevent the 1
> > agg and becomes wounded.
>
> > A wants to play Hell-for-Leather, B wants to play Undead Persistence.
>
> > 1-1/ since A is acting, A can play HfL (and have B's controller burn 2 pool)
> > before B gets the chance to play UP, right (similar to UP Vs Amaranth case)
> > ?
>
> Correct.
Shouldn't card text apply? HfL: "Play if this anarch is ready and the
opposing minion is not." (Contrast Am: "Only usable when the opposing
vampire should go to torpor.") B remains ready until the trip to
torpor, right?
witness1
> On Feb 1, 8:55 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > Stone wrote:
> > > Vampire A (acting minion, has 1 blood) is in combat with vampire B. A
> > > strikes for 1 aggravated, B strikes for 1 normal. B doesn't prevent the 1
> > > agg and becomes wounded.
>
> > > A wants to play Hell-for-Leather, B wants to play Undead Persistence.
>
> > > 1-1/ since A is acting, A can play HfL (and have B's controller burn 2 pool)
> > > before B gets the chance to play UP, right (similar to UP Vs Amaranth case)
> > > ?
>
> > Correct.
>
> Shouldn't card text apply? HfL: "Play if this anarch is ready and the
> opposing minion is not." (Contrast Am: "Only usable when the opposing
> vampire should go to torpor.") B remains ready until the trip to
> torpor, right?
No. The vampire stops being ready when he's wounded.
-witness1
Hodgestar
> In http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_t...
>
> LSJ wrote:
>
> No. The vampire stops being ready when he's wounded.
LSJ wrote:
>> 2-1/ if A chooses not to play HfL (passing the opportunity to B to play/use
>> effects) and then B plays UP, A can no longer play HfL, since UP now keeps B
>> ready. Correct ?
>
> Correct.
Surely the text on UP that says "although he or she is still
considered wounded and can be burned as normal" then means that the
vampire that played UP is no longer ready and that HfL *can* be played
after UP?
LSJ
>>
>> LSJ wrote:
>>
>> No. The vampire stops being ready when he's wounded.
>
> LSJ wrote:
>>> 2-1/ if A chooses not to play HfL (passing the opportunity to B to play/use
>>> effects) and then B plays UP, A can no longer play HfL, since UP now keeps B
>>> ready. Correct ?
>> Correct.
>
> Surely the text on UP that says "although he or she is still
> considered wounded and can be burned as normal" then means that the
> vampire that played UP is no longer ready and that HfL *can* be played
> after UP?
No. The vampire under UP is ready (combat doesn't end).
Chris Berger
> On Feb 1, 10:21 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 8:55 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > > Stone wrote:
> > > > Vampire A (acting minion, has 1 blood) is in combat with vampire B. A
> > > > strikes for 1 aggravated, B strikes for 1 normal. B doesn't prevent the 1
> > > > agg and becomes wounded.
>
> > > > A wants to play Hell-for-Leather, B wants to play Undead Persistence.
>
> > > > 1-1/ since A is acting, A can play HfL (and have B's controller burn 2 pool)
> > > > before B gets the chance to play UP, right (similar to UP Vs Amaranth case)
> > > > ?
>
> > > Correct.
>
> > Shouldn't card text apply? HfL: "Play if this anarch is ready and the
> > opposing minion is not." (Contrast Am: "Only usable when the opposing
> > vampire should go to torpor.") B remains ready until the trip to
> > torpor, right?
>
>
> LSJ wrote:
>
> No. The vampire stops being ready when he's wounded.
>
A vampire normally becomes "not ready" when they are wounded. Undead
Persistence prevents that from happening. The vampire is still
wounded, but the specific effect fo UP and Undying Tenacity is that
the vampire stays ready even though they've been wounded. This was
not always the ruling. But the old ruling didn't make sense.
Malone
> Hodgestar wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 5:48 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> LSJ wrote:
>
> >> No. The vampire stops being ready when he's wounded.
>
> > LSJ wrote:
> >>> 2-1/ if A chooses not to play HfL (passing the opportunity to B to play/use
> >>> effects) and then B plays UP, A can no longer play HfL, since UP now keeps B
> >>> ready. Correct ?
> >> Correct.
>
> > Surely the text on UP that says "although he or she is still
> > considered wounded and can be burned as normal" then means that the
> > vampire that played UP is no longer ready and that HfL *can* be played
> > after UP?
>
> No. The vampire under UP is ready (combat doesn't end).
If the vampire is ready, how can HfL be playable?.
LSJ
That's the point, yeah.
Voices: "A can no longer play HfL, correct?"
LSJ: "Correct."
Voices: "Surely the vampire under UP is no longer ready, so HfL can be played."
LSJ: "No."
Malone
> >>> Surely the text on UP that says "although he or she is still
> >>> considered wounded and can be burned as normal" then means that the
> >>> vampire that played UP is no longer ready and that HfL *can* be played
> >>> after UP?
> >> No. The vampire under UP is ready (combat doesn't end).
>
> > If the vampire is ready, how can HfL be playable?.
>
> That's the point, yeah.
>
> Voices: "A can no longer play HfL, correct?"
> LSJ: "Correct."
>
> Voices: "Surely the vampire under UP is no longer ready, so HfL can be played."
> LSJ: "No."
Please clarify this:
"> Vampire A (acting minion, has 1 blood) is in combat with vampire B.
A
> strikes for 1 aggravated, B strikes for 1 normal. B doesn't prevent the 1
> agg and becomes wounded.
> A wants to play Hell-for-Leather, B wants to play Undead Persistence.
> 1-1/ since A is acting, A can play HfL (and have B's controller burn 2 pool)
> before B gets the chance to play UP, right (similar to UP Vs Amaranth case)
> ?
Correct. "
The Amaranth analogy seems worthless. The window for Am is identical
to that of UP ("would go to torpor"), so with Am it does matter that A
has the impulse. But A having the impulse doesn't make B unready, so
HfL is not playable. Except that you said HfL *is* playable, while
you also confirm that B is still ready. At least, that's what *I*
read; hence my confusion.
LSJ
UP is only playable by a non-ready vampire ("would go to torpor").
UP played by a non-ready vampire leaves that vampire ready, so after playing UP,
the vampire cannot play a second UP (since he no longer meets the requirement of
being not-ready, since he is kept in a ready state by the first UP).
Similarly, after the vampire plays UP, he is no longer a legal target for HfL,
since he is no longer not-ready.
Blooded Sand
Does being acting or reacting Meth make a difference, ie impulse
sequencing?
LSJ
> Does being acting or reacting Meth make a difference, ie impulse
> sequencing?
Of course. See the original post in this thread.
Meej
> In http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_t...
>
> LSJ wrote:
>
> No. The vampire stops being ready when he's wounded.
I'm glad my obstinate hammering to get that nuance through my head has
come in helpful to more folks. :-)
- D.J.
Malone
This is still problematic. You have said:
"would go to torpor" implies "is not ready"
"wounded" does not imply "is not ready"
but certainly "wounded" implies "would go to torpor".
Meej
Not quite what he said... see below.
> but certainly "wounded" implies "would go to torpor".
Normally they're basically functionally equivalent, yes. This is a
case of card text (Undead Persistence) overriding default rules.
So in the *specific case* where Undead Persistence (or Undying
Tenacity) states that while the vampire is still wounded, the vampire
does not go to torpor until the combat ends. Since, in order to be in
combat, a minion needs to be ready, the minion remains ready (ie, not
en route to torpor) until such time as the combat ends, and thus xe is
not a legal target for Hell For Leather. (Before UP/UT is played,
while minion A has the impulse in the original example, HfL is
perfectly playable. It's only after UP/UT that that ceases to be the
case.)
Hope that helps.
- D.J.
LSJ
> This is still problematic. You have said:
>
> "would go to torpor" implies "is not ready"
> "wounded" does not imply "is not ready"
>
> but certainly "wounded" implies "would go to torpor".
"Wounded" implies "is not ready" unless some effect, like UP, overrides that
with explicit card text, by the golden rule of cards [1.4].
Malone
Why make it so complicated? Just to avoid reversing the ruling the
HfL is playable in the context under discussion?
Simple, requires only the rulebook and card text to understand: a
vampire in torpor is not ready; a wounded vampire goes to torpor
Complicated, requires searching the internet for a ruling: a vampire
who is wounded is not ready, unless card text prevents them from going
to torpor, in which case they are still wounded but have become ready
again even though the cards involved don't say anything about
returning from unready to ready but rather only say stuff about torpor
and wounded
LSJ
> On Feb 2, 1:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Malone wrote:
>>> This is still problematic. You have said:
>>> "would go to torpor" implies "is not ready"
>>> "wounded" does not imply "is not ready"
>>> but certainly "wounded" implies "would go to torpor".
>> "Wounded" implies "is not ready" unless some effect, like UP, overrides that
>> with explicit card text, by the golden rule of cards [1.4].
>
> Why make it so complicated?
It isn't being made so complicated. It's actually quite straightforward.
> Just to avoid reversing the ruling the
> HfL is playable in the context under discussion?
HfL is playable when the card says it is, yeah. To say otherwise would be to
complicate things.
> Simple, requires only the rulebook and card text to understand: a
> vampire in torpor is not ready; a wounded vampire goes to torpor
Once the vampire is in torpor, combat has ended. Therefore no combat cards, like
Hell-for-Leather, can be played.
> Complicated, requires searching the internet for a ruling: a vampire
> who is wounded is not ready, unless card text prevents them from going
> to torpor, in which case they are still wounded but have become ready
> again even though the cards involved don't say anything about
> returning from unready to ready but rather only say stuff about torpor
> and wounded
You claim that wounded "certainly" implies would go to torpor.
I assume that you find that not to be complicated, since you present it as a
certainty.
And you're right: it is true.
It is true in exactly the same way that wounded implies not ready.
And both those truths (which are actually just one truth stated in two different
ways: "wound go to torpor" is "not ready") are overridden by explicit card text
on Undead Persistence.
Not complicated at all. Just card text.
John Flournoy
Your example still relies only on the rulebook and card text to
understand, though.
LSJ's answers follow the rulebook and card text without needing to
refer back to another ruling; he's quoted some rulings that parallel
the situation (like Amaranth) to explain better.
I've reread your posts twice, and I'm really unclear on where you
think looking at a ruling is necessary.
Based just on the rulebook and cards, the answers to these situations
are:
When a vampire is going to torpor, both HFL and UP can potentially be
played, because wounded vampires get moved to torpor after handling
damage, and vampires that are in torpor are not ready. Handling damage
is part of combat (the "Damage Resolution" step), so moving to torpor
happens during combat and combat cards can still be played (including
both UP and HFL.)
The acting methuselah gets to play their choice first.
UP's card text makes the vampire stop being not ready (by preventing
them from being in torpor) - nothing in the rules or cards says
"wounded == not ready." And if that vampire is no longer "not ready",
they're not a valid target for HFL.
So if UP gets played first, HFL can't be played after.
If HFL gets played first, UP can still be played in response by the
opposing minion, because they are still both playing cards in response
to "this vampire's damage sends him to torpor" and both players have
not passed the opportunity to do so.
Then, After UP is played and the ongoing combat resolved to
completion, the vampire goes back to torpor. He does so _after
combat_, per UP's explicit card text. Since it is after combat, HFL
and UP cannot be played at this point, because they are both combat
cards.
So if the acting Methuselah controls the vampire, they can play UP to
avoid going to torpor, run through combat to the end and then go to
torpor per UP's card text, and the opponent never has a chance to play
HFL.
If the vampire going to torpor is opposed by the acting Methuselah,
HFL can be played first, and then UP played in response; if UP is
played in response neither HFL nor UP can be played after the
continued-combat is finished.
Note that LSJ's answers have all matched this above set of answers,
which do not refer to any rulings, only the card texts and the
rulebook (specifically sections on Torpor, the Golden Rule, Damage
Resolution, and Sequencing.)
So what are you still confused about?
-John Flournoy
Chris Berger
>
> If the vampire going to torpor is opposed by the acting Methuselah,
> HFL can be played first, and then UP played in response; if UP is
> played in response neither HFL nor UP can be played after the
> continued-combat is finished.
>
> Note that LSJ's answers have all matched this above set of answers,
> which do not refer to any rulings, only the card texts and the
> rulebook (specifically sections on Torpor, the Golden Rule, Damage
> Resolution, and Sequencing.)
>
> So what are you still confused about?
>
The one thing that you don't address is that Hell-for-Leather is
played when the opposing minion is not ready, while Undead Persistence
is played when the playing vampire is about to go to torpor. It's not
readily apparent that these are the same window. The easiest way to
read this is that UP is played *before* the minion is made "not
ready", while HfL is played after the minion is made not ready.
However, that doesn't easily jive with the other rules, and yes a
ruling is necessary. In this case, we're told that HfL and UP are
played in the same window, and all-in-all it makes sense, because
having different states for "in torpor (not ready)", "on the way to
torpor", "getting ready to being on the way to torpor", and "ready" as
completely different non-overlapping states causes entirely different
complexity problems. So the window is the same.
It's not 100% cut and dried, but it makes sense.
Meej
> Once the vampire is in torpor, combat has ended. Therefore no combat cards, like
> Hell-for-Leather, can be played.
LSJ - quick question; hopefully not muddying the waters further. How
do Disarm, Coma, and other cards that send an opposing vampire to
torpor interact with the "wounded" state? Do vampires pass through
"wounded" on every trip to torpor?
My inference is that, no matter how they get there, they go through a
very brief period during which Hell for Leather, Decapitate, Undead
Persistence, etc can be played, since those don't key off "wounded,"
but instead off of "going to torpor." But if, hypothetically, there
were a card that did key off of "wounded" - say, "Combat: Burn a
wounded vampire" or "Julius ADV: If Julius is wounded, gain a pool" -
am I correct that those would *not* trigger off of Coma or a Disarm -
that the vampire is "going to torpor" with a window to play card
effects, but is not wounded?
- D.J.
LSJ
> On Feb 2, 2:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>> Once the vampire is in torpor, combat has ended. Therefore no combat cards, like
>> Hell-for-Leather, can be played.
>
> LSJ - quick question; hopefully not muddying the waters further. How
> do Disarm, Coma, and other cards that send an opposing vampire to
> torpor interact with the "wounded" state? Do vampires pass through
> "wounded" on every trip to torpor?
Yes.
"wounded" is a term that was coined to describe vampires on their way to torpor
or in torpor.
andrea....@infinito.it
because
> having different states for "in torpor (not ready)", "on the way to
> torpor", "getting ready to being on the way to torpor", and "ready" as
> completely different non-overlapping states causes entirely different
> complexity problems.
you forgot "wounded in the readyness to be going to torpor"
Andrea
Juggernaut1981
If HfL is playable by the acting minion (ahead of the blocker playing
UP), does the loss of pool occur immediately?
Looking at the situation the vampire is "wounded" and therefore "not
ready" and resolving the cards means the Blocking Meth loses pool,
then has their UP vampire continue the combat. Or is there going to
be a situation where HfL does not deal the pool damage unless during
that same window the "wounded" vampire does not re-enter the ready
region?
I understand why people may have developed the concept of "wounded"
vampires, but isn't it easier to describe six core states for
vampires: Ready, Uncontrolled, "Going to Torpor", In Torpor, Removed
from Play and In the Ash-heap.
Any situation (including Coma, Rabbat's strike, etc) which would
result in the vampire entering Torpor puts them into a temporary state
of "Going to Torpor" which is the window where UP/Amaranth would act.
Why would it not make more sense for HfL to act during the same window
as Taste of Vitae, which can be used after a vampire goes to Torpor
after resolving strikes, and become in effect a "Combat Card Tension
in the Ranks"?
LSJ
> Although it doesn't quite one point:
> If HfL is playable by the acting minion (ahead of the blocker playing
> UP), does the loss of pool occur immediately?
HfL resolves when played, yes.
> I understand why people may have developed the concept of "wounded"
> vampires, but isn't it easier to describe six core states for
> vampires: Ready, Uncontrolled, "Going to Torpor", In Torpor, Removed
> from Play and In the Ash-heap.
Sure. (Well, there's also "in crypt", "contested", and "otherwise out-of-play"
(Descent into Darkness)).
> Any situation (including Coma, Rabbat's strike, etc) which would
> result in the vampire entering Torpor puts them into a temporary state
> of "Going to Torpor" which is the window where UP/Amaranth would act.
> Why would it not make more sense for HfL to act during the same window
> as Taste of Vitae, which can be used after a vampire goes to Torpor
> after resolving strikes, and become in effect a "Combat Card Tension
> in the Ranks"?
Card text. "not ready" includes all of the various not ready states, including
"going to torpor".
"Play if this anarch is ready and the opposing minion is being burned, going to
torpor, going to the incapacitated region, being sent to the uncontrolled region
(for future expansion) or crypt, becoming contested, or otherwise leaving the
ready region. The opposing minion's controller burns 2 pool."
Malone
"Play if this anarch is ready and the opposing minion is leaving (or
would leave) the ready region" (for example) would suffice, if you're
trying to contrast the amount of necessary card text.
Having a minion who is (and will remain for a nontrivial amount of
further play) in the ready region but is "not ready" (which is
unambiguously required by HfL) is problematic. It will require
changes or additions to the rulebook definition of keywords 'ready'
and/or 'wounded', unless players are expected to have read this thread
or be psychic. Isn't it vastly preferable to have a minion who's in
the ready region be 'ready', and one who's elsewhere be 'not ready'?
Juggernaut1981
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree with that. It should be very clear cut and there should be a
clear number of "states" for a vampire.
"ready vampire" = In the ready region
"uncontrolled vampire" = in the uncontrolled region
"out of play" = face down and not in the uncontrolled region. can't
be targeted by cards/vamps/minions (Descent into Darkness)
"torpor" = in the torpor region
etc.
Contested is a state for any card, not just a state for vampires. You
can contest other cards than vampries.
My playgroup has a number of fairly new players and it's a pain in the
ass to detail how a bunch of cards subtly "break the rules". Creating
more narrow windows for cards to function is an issue with card
design.
What if it instead it had been written as:
"If the opposing vampire leaves the ready region during or at the end
of this combat, that vampire's controller burns 2 pool" (Which may
also cover some of those crazy times where someone dies/is torpored to
a Target Vitals + Catatonic Fear combo).
That covers burning, torpor, and allows UP to function and that Meth
still loses 2 pool.