Rule Questions...
Jyhad_addict
untap) and eagle's sight supperior to block the bleed of my prey to
his prey ?
or do i have to play eagle's sight first and then read the winds,
meaning
that i cannot while tapped ?
2nd: If i use the ability of Lambach advanced to equip at no cost from
my library with Eye of Hazimel, i believe that none can burn the Eye
with direct intervention, because it is not played from my hand. right
?
3rd: If restricted vitae is in play and i have a 3-cap vampire with no
blood.
Then, he must hunt, but he cannot steal a blood from a younger vampire
if none is younger. So he remains untapped unable to perform any
action and he is stuck in this way, right ?
4th: minion A plays supperior flesh of marble, minion B does 2 normal
and 2 aggra damageto minion A. So minion A suffers 1 aggravated
damage, right ?
John P.
"Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message
news:c6a50f81.04061...@posting.google.com...
> 1st question: i have a tapped vampire, can i play read the winds (to
> untap) and eagle's sight supperior to block the bleed of my prey to
> his prey ?
> or do i have to play eagle's sight first and then read the winds,
> meaning
> that i cannot while tapped ?
The second. Must wake or forced awakening to play
the eagle sight, then can play the read the winds.
Read the winds has the same text "untap and attempt to block"
as second tradition.
> 2nd: If i use the ability of Lambach advanced to equip at no cost from
> my library with Eye of Hazimel, i believe that none can burn the Eye
> with direct intervention, because it is not played from my hand. right
Correct. http://tinyurl.com/28ulu (point #2)
> 3rd: If restricted vitae is in play and i have a 3-cap vampire with no
> blood.
> Then, he must hunt, but he cannot steal a blood from a younger vampire
> if none is younger. So he remains untapped unable to perform any
> action and he is stuck in this way, right ?
no. "vampires who must hunt may hunt by..." 'May' implies option.
He can hunt from a younger vampire or in the normal fasion (and must do so).
> 4th: minion A plays supperior flesh of marble, minion B does 2 normal
> and 2 aggra damageto minion A. So minion A suffers 1 aggravated
> damage, right ?
I believe minion A can choose to take 1 point of normal damage,
causing the flesh of marbel to prevent the aggravated as the
card requirements of FoM have been met. (taken a point of damage).
-JTP
Colin McGuigan
> I believe minion A can choose to take 1 point of normal damage,
> causing the flesh of marbel to prevent the aggravated as the
> card requirements of FoM have been met. (taken a point of damage).
Correct. Normal damage is always handled first.
(And actually, it's not a choice; unless minion A has some way of
preventing the 2 normal damage, they'll be applied first, the FoM will
let one through, and then prevent the rest.)
--Colin McGuigan
LSJ
It is a choice. The damage is done all at once. The various points of
damage can be prevented "in any order" the player likes. The remaining
unprevented damage will be applied normal first followed by aggravated.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Colin McGuigan
> It is a choice. The damage is done all at once. The various points of
> damage can be prevented "in any order" the player likes. The remaining
> unprevented damage will be applied normal first followed by aggravated.
???. Flesh of Marble says:
"For the duration of the combat, when this vampire suffers a point of
damage (heals or is wounded or prevents destruction) in a given round,
any additional damage inflicted on this vampire in the same round is
automatically prevented."
The "heals or is wounded" indicates that the damage has to be
successfully inflicted (not prevented), and since normal damage is
applied before agg damage, doesn't that indicate that a normal point of
damage will always "trigger" FoM before an agg point, if both are
present and not prevented? Can the vampire seriously choose to have the
agg damage applied first and the normal damage prevented by FoM?
(I'm aware that when playing "Prevent X damage" cards, the player can
choose which damage to prevent. Curious specifically about Flesh of
Marble here.)
--Colin McGuigan
LSJ
> "For the duration of the combat, when this vampire suffers a point of
> damage (heals or is wounded or prevents destruction) in a given round,
> any additional damage inflicted on this vampire in the same round is
> automatically prevented."
> The "heals or is wounded" indicates that the damage has to be
> successfully inflicted (not prevented), and since normal damage is
> applied before agg damage, doesn't that indicate that a normal point of
> damage will always "trigger" FoM before an agg point, if both are
> present and not prevented? Can the vampire seriously choose to have the
> agg damage applied first and the normal damage prevented by FoM?
By that logic, if 12 agg and 6 normal damage were inflicted on the
vampire during a single strike resolution, he wouldn't be able to
prevent any of it. Damage prevention happens first. You can prevent
any of the current points of damage.
Colin McGuigan
> By that logic, if 12 agg and 6 normal damage were inflicted on the
> vampire during a single strike resolution, he wouldn't be able to
> prevent any of it. Damage prevention happens first. You can prevent
> any of the current points of damage.
But doesn't FoM prevent damage only after the vampire actually takes one?
So how does the FoM "prevention step" work? Does the player declare
which point of damage FoM will not prevent? If so, what prevents the
player from playing another damage prevention card on that point of
damage? (I know that doesn't work -- I'm asking _why_, if all
prevention is handled before damage is assigned.)
If you do not declare which point of damage FoM will not prevent, then
how can it possibly be any point of damage besides the first, which has
to be normal if present?
--Colin McGuigan
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > By that logic, if 12 agg and 6 normal damage were inflicted on the
> > vampire during a single strike resolution, he wouldn't be able to
> > prevent any of it. Damage prevention happens first. You can prevent
> > any of the current points of damage.
>
> But doesn't FoM prevent damage only after the vampire actually takes one?
It prevents damage after one damage is not prevented.
> So how does the FoM "prevention step" work? Does the player declare
> which point of damage FoM will not prevent? If so, what prevents the
Yes.
> player from playing another damage prevention card on that point of
> damage? (I know that doesn't work -- I'm asking _why_, if all
> prevention is handled before damage is assigned.)
The specification that that damage is not prevented.
> If you do not declare which point of damage FoM will not prevent, then
> how can it possibly be any point of damage besides the first, which has
> to be normal if present?
If it were that way (no prevention until sorting the damage into normal
first and then agg for handling and then handling one normal), then none
of the damage would be prevented, since you've already left the damage
prevention phase way behind.
Colin McGuigan
> "Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:WBGdndZng4G...@speakeasy.net...
>
>>LSJ wrote:
>>
>>>By that logic, if 12 agg and 6 normal damage were inflicted on the
>>>vampire during a single strike resolution, he wouldn't be able to
>>>prevent any of it. Damage prevention happens first. You can prevent
>>>any of the current points of damage.
>>
>>But doesn't FoM prevent damage only after the vampire actually takes one?
>
> It prevents damage after one damage is not prevented.
So, an Ex Nihilo'd vampire who plays superior Flesh of Marble who takes
2 normal, 2 agg can pick one of the normal points of damage to be not
prevented, even though it doesn't satisfy the card text of Flesh of
Marble (since the vampire will ignore it)?
--Colin McGuigan
LSJ
> So, an Ex Nihilo'd vampire who plays superior Flesh of Marble who takes
> 2 normal, 2 agg can pick one of the normal points of damage to be not
> prevented, even though it doesn't satisfy the card text of Flesh of
> Marble (since the vampire will ignore it)?
Sure.
Colin McGuigan
> "Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:XOmcnUatS6g...@speakeasy.net...
>
>>So, an Ex Nihilo'd vampire who plays superior Flesh of Marble who takes
>>2 normal, 2 agg can pick one of the normal points of damage to be not
>>prevented, even though it doesn't satisfy the card text of Flesh of
>>Marble (since the vampire will ignore it)?
>
> Sure.
Interesting. Is this because the relevant Flesh of Marble card text is
in parenthesis, or is there some other reason that it doesn't apply?
--Colin McGuigan
Joshua Duffin
"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
Actually, I think what you've pointed out is that the parenthetical text
on Flesh of Marble is more confusing than helpful. Despite the card
saying "when this vampire suffers a point of damage (heals or is wounded
or prevents destruction)", what it seems to mean is "has a point of
damage inflicted on it and does not prevent that damage". As LSJ said,
Flesh can't wait until the point actually is healed or causes wounding
or destruction-preventing to decide whether to prevent the other
incoming points, because then the damage prevention step is already
over. Flesh has to (on the first use of its effect each round, at
least) look ahead to what *will* happen when the effect of the damage is
actually applied.
At least, that's what it sounds like to me.
Josh
not that the effect of flesh has changed in the last six years or
more... has it?
Timlagor
>
> "Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:2u2dnTWgc_6...@speakeasy.net...
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > "Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:XOmcnUatS6g...@speakeasy.net...
> > >
> > >>So, an Ex Nihilo'd vampire who plays superior Flesh of Marble who
> takes
> > >>2 normal, 2 agg can pick one of the normal points of damage to be
> not
> > >>prevented, even though it doesn't satisfy the card text of Flesh of
> > >>Marble (since the vampire will ignore it)?
> > >
> > > Sure.
> >
> > Interesting. Is this because the relevant Flesh of Marble card text
> is
> > in parenthesis, or is there some other reason that it doesn't apply?
>
> Actually, I think what you've pointed out is that the parenthetical text
> on Flesh of Marble is more confusing than helpful. Despite the card
> saying "when this vampire suffers a point of damage (heals or is wounded
> or prevents destruction)", what it seems to mean is "has a point of
Quite so. "Healed" is just plain wrong in this context. Damage
prevention is according to the rules done when teh damage is actually
*inflicted* as opposed to when it is *resolved* (healed or wounded or
prevent detruction) -the damage must already have been successfully
inflicted at that point BUT that successful infliction occurs at the
time when prevention is handled.
Thus you can choose to take a point of successfully inflicted damage
which will then trigger the FoM.
I don't agree with the ruling that the Ex Nihilo takes effect
afterwards. Surely if you are immune to the non-agg damage then you
can't have it *successfully* inflicted and so have it trigger the FoM.
I disagree with LSJ -well there's be a first time for everything ;)
user
"Timlagor" <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote
> Quite so. "Healed" is just plain wrong in this context.
Not really. The "blood price" paid by the injured party is the amount
done to heal the the damage. The "blood" is paid in the healing process, it
doesn't just run onto the floor like a cracked vase.
(reading cash&influence for ventrue who prefer to suck green over red)
The wounded is (if i read the rules right) the first aggravated point of
damage
(which can't be blood price healed)
Stopping destruction is the "blood price" paid to resist excess points of
AD.
But "healing" is just the first instance.
Timlagor
>
> "Timlagor" <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Quite so. "Healed" is just plain wrong in this context.
>
> Not really. The "blood price" paid by the injured party is the amount
> done to heal the the damage. The "blood" is paid in the healing process, it
> doesn't just run onto the floor like a cracked vase.
Healed is wrong *in that particular context* not because the paying of
blood isn't healing but because any healing happens *AFTER* the FoM has
been triggered and may have prevented a load of damage.
The FoM takes effect in the Strike Resolution Phase.
The Healing happens in the Damage Resolution Phase. (the next phase)