Secrets of Agg Damage REVEALED!
Gomi no Sensei
Regular damage is 'healed' by the vampire. This involves the expenditure
of blood to heal damage on a one-for-one basis.
Aggravated damage may not be 'healed.'
A 'wounded' vampire is one that is on its way to torpor, whether by
unhealed damage (regular damage the vampire lacks the blood to heal, or
aggravated damage, which cannot be healed) or another effect (Coma,
Rowan Ring, Entombment).
When a 'wounded' vampire takes aggravated damage, each point of aggravated
damage requires the expenditure of blood to prevent destruction.
Example the First:
KoKo fights Gilbert Duane. Koko tears off a signpost, flushes 4 Increased
Strength, and Pushes the Limit for an 8 damage strike. Gilbert, sorry
sack that he is, strikes hands for 1.
Gilbert takes 8 damage and has 7 blood. He burns 7 blood to heal 7 damage.
He takes 1 regular damage he cannot heal. He becomes 'wounded' and goes
to torpor. At this point, an 'old style' Pulled Fangs, or a superior
Drawing out the Beast in a Dawn Operation (and they'll print a new expansion
before you see Koko pull *that* off), will suffice to burn Gilbert.
Example the Second:
Chandler Hungerford fights Lalitha.
Chandler has a Ritual Challenge, and strikes hands with Claws for 2 agg.
Lalitha, sad sack that she is, strikes hands for 1.
The first point of agg cannot be healed by Lalitha; she becomes 'wounded'
and no blood is expended. The second point is agg damage to a 'wounded'
vampire -- it demands the expenditure of a blood point to avoid destruction.
Assuming both vampires are full at the beginning of combat, Lalitha goes
to torpor at 1 blood, and Chandler is ready at 1 blood.
Example the Third:
Bear Paw, with an Ivory Bow, fights Normal.
Bear Paw plays Carrion Crows and goes to long range with some protean
maneuver. Normal, pathetic goober that he is, waves.
Normal takes 3 damage from carrion crows and 1 agg from ivory bow.
He spends 2 blood to heal 2 damage and is empty; the third point of damage
from he crows renders him 'wounded.' the agg from the ivory bow is
agg done to a 'wounded' vampire, and as such demands the expenditure of a
blood to prevent destruction. Being empty, Normal burns.
Final Example:
Korah and Gilbert Duane Fight.
Korah strikes with Coma, and hypothetically plays Drawing out the Beast
in Dawn Operation. Gilbert Duane churlishly strikes hands.
Coma's effect makes Gilbert go to torpor, rendering him 'wounded' in effect.
At the end of the round, DotB's effect kicks in, agg due to Dawn Op.
As it's agg damage to a 'wounded' vampire, Gilbert must spend a blood to
prevent destruction.
gomi
could someone please explain why this is so difficult?
LSJ
Nice work, Gomi, as usual.
Just a few *extremely* minor points, though:
> A 'wounded' vampire is one that is on its way to torpor, whether by
> unhealed damage (regular damage the vampire lacks the blood to heal, or
> aggravated damage, which cannot be healed) or another effect (Coma,
> Rowan Ring, Entombment).
A vampire already in Torpor is also considered wounded.
Also a vampire with unhealed damage is wounded, even if he is not
currently on his way to torpor (because of an Undead Persistence).
> Example the Third:
>
> Bear Paw, with an Ivory Bow, fights Normal.
> Bear Paw plays Carrion Crows and goes to long range with some protean
> maneuver. Normal, pathetic goober that he is, waves.
> Normal takes 3 damage from carrion crows and 1 agg from ivory bow.
> He spends 2 blood to heal 2 damage and is empty; the third point of damage
> from he crows renders him 'wounded.' the agg from the ivory bow is
> agg done to a 'wounded' vampire, and as such demands the expenditure of a
> blood to prevent destruction. Being empty, Normal burns.
Carrion Crows (superior) does 2 damage, not 3.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at
>
> Regular damage is 'healed' by the vampire. This involves the expenditure
> of blood to heal damage on a one-for-one basis.
> Aggravated damage may not be 'healed.'
> unhealed damage (regular damage the vampire lacks the blood to heal, or
> aggravated damage, which cannot be healed) or another effect (Coma,
> Rowan Ring, Entombment).
> damage requires the expenditure of blood to prevent destruction.
>
> Example the First:
>
> KoKo fights Gilbert Duane. Koko tears off a signpost, flushes 4 Increased
> Strength, and Pushes the Limit for an 8 damage strike. Gilbert, sorry
> sack that he is, strikes hands for 1.
>
> Gilbert takes 8 damage and has 7 blood. He burns 7 blood to heal 7 damage.
> He takes 1 regular damage he cannot heal. He becomes 'wounded' and goes
> to torpor. At this point, an 'old style' Pulled Fangs, or a superior
> Drawing out the Beast in a Dawn Operation (and they'll print a new expansion
> before you see Koko pull *that* off), will suffice to burn Gilbert.
>
> Example the Second:
>
> Chandler Hungerford fights Lalitha.
> Chandler has a Ritual Challenge, and strikes hands with Claws for 2 agg.
> Lalitha, sad sack that she is, strikes hands for 1.
> The first point of agg cannot be healed by Lalitha; she becomes 'wounded'
> and no blood is expended. The second point is agg damage to a 'wounded'
> vampire -- it demands the expenditure of a blood point to avoid destruction.
> Assuming both vampires are full at the beginning of combat, Lalitha goes
> to torpor at 1 blood, and Chandler is ready at 1 blood.
>
>
> Bear Paw, with an Ivory Bow, fights Normal.
> Bear Paw plays Carrion Crows and goes to long range with some protean
> maneuver. Normal, pathetic goober that he is, waves.
> Normal takes 3 damage from carrion crows and 1 agg from ivory bow.
> He spends 2 blood to heal 2 damage and is empty; the third point of damage
> from he crows renders him 'wounded.' the agg from the ivory bow is
> agg done to a 'wounded' vampire, and as such demands the expenditure of a
> blood to prevent destruction. Being empty, Normal burns.
>
>
> Korah and Gilbert Duane Fight.
> Korah strikes with Coma, and hypothetically plays Drawing out the Beast
> in Dawn Operation. Gilbert Duane churlishly strikes hands.
> Coma's effect makes Gilbert go to torpor, rendering him 'wounded' in effect.
> At the end of the round, DotB's effect kicks in, agg due to Dawn Op.
> prevent destruction.
>
> gomi
> could someone please explain why this is so difficult?
Because LSJ failed in explaining it in a way that we *simple* minds
could understand. He confused us with wounded, and the implication that
the rules were similar to the Jyhad way "without packeting", which isn't.
Also, some examples were really bad, like the coma one.
Your explanation is better. But still not as good as Frederic Genest's! :)
-Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna
PS: The fact that the inventor of the rule understands it (i.e. LSJ),
and players that think alike (i.e. you and others, who grasped the rule
on the first go) does by no means imply that the rule is simple enough
or that others are stupid! :/
James Coupe
<go...@best.com> writes
>could someone please explain why this is so difficult?
I think it's because of the order thing.
Could you try this one?
Zack North with a Ritual Challenge goes up against Dr. John Casey with
both vampires on full blood (6 and 3 respectively).
Zack attacks for hands, modifying it to aggravated with Claws of the
Dead. Dr. John just looks in disgust, batting him back for one.
Now, Zack has dealt 3 damage to Dr. John, leaving him on 1 blood because
the first point of damage has no blood burnt to avoid destruction, only
the second two points of damage.
So, Zack qualifies for *new* Pulled Fangs. He throws down two of them.
Is Dr. John burned?
If yes, it means that you have to think at the end of a round how all
damage was dealt and not just deal with it and forget it.
If no, the ends based explanation of X+2 damage with at least one
aggravated doesn't quite work.
So what happens if I deal a vampire aggravated damage and then do normal
damage to them? How would it interact with, say, Undead Persistence if
you have a vampire going to torpor from aggro damage a few rounds ago
which is added to by normal damage from, as said, Pulled Fangs.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
Frederic Genest
> both vampires on full blood (6 and 3 respectively).
>
> Zack attacks for hands, modifying it to aggravated with Claws of the
> Dead. Dr. John just looks in disgust, batting him back for one.
>
> Now, Zack has dealt 3 damage to Dr. John, leaving him on 1 blood because
> the first point of damage has no blood burnt to avoid destruction, only
> the second two points of damage.
>
> So, Zack qualifies for *new* Pulled Fangs. He throws down two of them.
>
> Is Dr. John burned?
I'd say no. I think you deal first with normal then with aggravated,
only with simultaneous damage dealing effects (e.g. those that are solved
all during strike resolution).
Pulled Fangs is used when a round ends [RTR 961113] (i.e. after strike
resolution). So, in this case, aggro damage must be dealt before you can
start to consider if PF is applicable.
Thus, in the above example, after the combat the Tremere is in torpor
with no blood on it (since the *new* PF deals normal damage, the damage
is ignored).
Weather Control handles damage *before* strikes are declared. Catatonic
Fear deals damage *after* the strike resolution (right before combat
actually ends).
> If no, the ends based explanation of X+2 damage with at least one
> aggravated doesn't quite work.
It does, but only when considering damage from different sources applied
simultaneously. Hand damage with CoD is resolved before damage from PF
Frederic.
James Hamblin
>
> I think it's because of the order thing.
>
> Could you try this one?
>
> both vampires on full blood (6 and 3 respectively).
>
> Zack attacks for hands, modifying it to aggravated with Claws of the
> Dead. Dr. John just looks in disgust, batting him back for one.
>
> Now, Zack has dealt 3 damage to Dr. John, leaving him on 1 blood
> because the first point of damage has no blood burnt to avoid
> destruction, only the second two points of damage.
>
> So, Zack qualifies for *new* Pulled Fangs. He throws down two of them.
>
> Is Dr. John burned?
{LSJ, back me up}
No. Since the aggravated damage was dealt seperately from the normal
damage, they are handled seperately:
The three agg points causes John to be "wounded" and burn two blood.
Then the first normal point causes him to burn another blood. No more
blood to burn for the last point of normal damage, but since it's normal
damage, it has no effect (he's already wounded). So John goes to torpor
with no blood.
> If yes, it means that you have to think at the end of a round how all
> damage was dealt and not just deal with it and forget it.
>
> If no, the ends based explanation of X+2 damage with at least one
> aggravated doesn't quite work.
Well it works if all that damage is dealt simultaneously. If instead of
two Pulled Fangs you had used two Wolf Companions, John would have
burned.
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
V:EKN FAQ Maintainer
http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html
"All the headless corpses / where do they all come from?"
ber...@cco.caltech.edu
>
> I think it's because of the order thing.
>
> Could you try this one?
>
> Zack North with a Ritual Challenge goes up against Dr. John Casey with
> both vampires on full blood (6 and 3 respectively).
>
> Zack attacks for hands, modifying it to aggravated with Claws of the
> Dead. Dr. John just looks in disgust, batting him back for one.
>
Zack made a mistake. You should always play Claws of the Dead *after* the
opponent declares his strike. If Dr. John had dodged, Zack would be red in
the face (hell, even if you're going to play it anyway, might as well make it
a surpise). Anyway... 8)
> Now, Zack has dealt 3 damage to Dr. John, leaving him on 1 blood because
> the first point of damage has no blood burnt to avoid destruction, only
> the second two points of damage.
>
Dr. John is now on his way to torpor. (Although I still don't see how he's
*on* 1 blood. I think the 1 blood is on him.)
> So, Zack qualifies for *new* Pulled Fangs. He throws down two of them.
>
> Is Dr. John burned?
>
Of course not. Dr. John is on his way to topor with 1 blood. All that old
damage has been dealt with. It's not here anymore. It's been resolved.
"Resolution" is our way of saying "we don't need to deal with you anymore."
> If yes, it means that you have to think at the end of a round how all
> damage was dealt and not just deal with it and forget it.
>
> If no, the ends based explanation of X+2 damage with at least one
> aggravated doesn't quite work.
>
The ends based explanation (which I don't like, as it makes things look too
difficult) deals with an amount of damage dealt at one time.
> So what happens if I deal a vampire aggravated damage and then do normal
> damage to them? How would it interact with, say, Undead Persistence if
> you have a vampire going to torpor from aggro damage a few rounds ago
> which is added to by normal damage from, as said, Pulled Fangs.
>
>
The normal damage is still just normal damage. Either burn the blood or
forget about it. Adding normal damage after the fact will not burn a
vampire.
-Chris
LSJ
> In article <6qv1iq$d1b$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, Gomi no Sensei
> <go...@best.com> writes
> >could someone please explain why this is so difficult?
>
The order takes care of itself.
The only possible problem arises when normal and aggravated damage are
inflicted simultaneously. That case has been ruled as "the normal damage
is handled first."
> Could you try this one?
>
> Zack North with a Ritual Challenge goes up against Dr. John Casey with
> both vampires on full blood (6 and 3 respectively).
>
> Zack attacks for hands, modifying it to aggravated with Claws of the
> Dead. Dr. John just looks in disgust, batting him back for one.
>
> Now, Zack has dealt 3 damage to Dr. John, leaving him on 1 blood because
> the first point of damage has no blood burnt to avoid destruction, only
> the second two points of damage.
None of it can be healed and Dr. John burns two blood to prevent
destruction from the two points done after he has failed to heal
a point, correct.
> So, Zack qualifies for *new* Pulled Fangs. He throws down two of them.
>
> Is Dr. John burned?
Well, he's got one blood, and he has some unhealed damage.
He takes one (normal) damage from the 1st PF. He burns a blood to heal it.
It cannot destroy him, however, since it is not aggravated.
Now he's got zero blood (and that same unhealed damage).
Then he takes one (normal) damage from the 2nd PF. He cannot burn any
blood to heal it, so it remains unhealed. It cannot destroy him, however,
since it is not aggravated.
Now he's got zero blood (and some unhealed damage).
If there're no other effects, then he goes to torpor (since he has unhealed
damage).
> If no, the ends based explanation of X+2 damage with at least one
> aggravated doesn't quite work.
Correct, it is only applied at a given time, not over the whole
combat. Subsequent damage (applied "non-simultaneously") must be
handled subsequently.
So: the strike did X damage to Dr. John (where X is his blood supply,
which is three), all of which is agg. This is not X+2, so doesn't burn him.
The PFs do X+1 damage to him (where X is his new blood supply of 1), none
of which is aggravated, so again he doesn't burn.
> So what happens if I deal a vampire aggravated damage and then do normal
> damage to them?
Typically it is not possible, since the "then" gets pre-empted by the
ending of combat due do the vampire going to torpor from the unhealed
damage.
When it is possible (your first example), then it is treated accordingly
(similar to the first example).
> How would it interact with, say, Undead Persistence if
> you have a vampire going to torpor from aggro damage a few rounds ago
> which is added to by normal damage from, as said, Pulled Fangs.
He'd have to burn a blood to heal each point of normal damage, as
always. If he cannot, then he'll have unhealed damage (and would go
to torpor, except that Undead Persistence overrides that rules).
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Lupus Australis
> In article <6qv1iq$d1b$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, Gomi no Sensei
> <go...@best.com> writes
> >could someone please explain why this is so difficult?
>
> I think it's because of the order thing.
>
> Could you try this one?
>
> Zack North with a Ritual Challenge goes up against Dr. John Casey with
> both vampires on full blood (6 and 3 respectively).
>
> Zack attacks for hands, modifying it to aggravated with Claws of the
> Dead. Dr. John just looks in disgust, batting him back for one.
>
> Now, Zack has dealt 3 damage to Dr. John, leaving him on 1 blood because
> the first point of damage has no blood burnt to avoid destruction, only
> the second two points of damage.
>
> So, Zack qualifies for *new* Pulled Fangs. He throws down two of them.
>
> Is Dr. John burned?
Clearly not. He qualifies as a "wounded" vampire with 1 blood. Adding
additional non-aggravated damage, at this point, either causes him to burn
a blood, or, if he has no blood to lose, has no effect.
> If yes, it means that you have to think at the end of a round how all
> damage was dealt and not just deal with it and forget it.
Right, but that is not the case. All you have to remember, after each
application of damage, is whether tha vampire is "wounded" (in torpor, or
slated for torpor) or not.
> If no, the ends based explanation of X+2 damage with at least one
> aggravated doesn't quite work.
It works whenever normal damage is applied before aggravated damage. In
most cases this is true. Pulled fangs is an exception, as is damage
dealt in subsequent rounds following undead persistence.
> So what happens if I deal a vampire aggravated damage and then do normal
> damage to them? How would it interact with, say, Undead Persistence if
> you have a vampire going to torpor from aggro damage a few rounds ago
> which is added to by normal damage from, as said, Pulled Fangs.
Normal damage dealt to a wounded vampire, will, if I'm not mistaken, cause
him to burn a blood, unless he does not have blood, in which case there is
no effect.
I'm not exactly sure why the blood is burned though. Can one "heal"
non-aggravated damage when in torpor? In other words, does the Ag Damage
just shock you so you cannot heal ag damage, or does it shock you so you
cannot heal at all?
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |