Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

[LSJ] Declaration of additional strikes

41 views
Skip to first unread message

The Name Forgotten

unread,
Nov 11, 2006, 2:37:22 PM11/11/06
to
Heya,

I know that there is already a post with a response from LSJ on this
very topic, but I wanted to know if the ruling still stands.

Acting minion declines additional strikes.
Opposing minion declares an additional strike (with Pursuit or
whatever)
Acting minion responds to this with additionals of her own (with
Pursuit or whatever)

As far as I know, and from what LSJ said in 2004, this is not possible
- the acting minion cannot respond to the opposing minions declaration
of additionals and declare her own strikes, as they have already
decided on having no additional strikes.

Is this correct?

However, one of my players turns to the rule-book on sequencing and
says :

"[6.2.1] 5. Sequencing. [...] Note that if any Methuselah uses a card
or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to play the
next effect."

I respond by saying: "Well, LSJ had this to say on the topic in this
post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cd1e23bd5fbee43d

(I'll cut and paste it on the bottom of this)
AND the rule-book also says:

[6.4.3] Additional Strikes: [...] The acting minion decides whether or
not to gain additional strikes before the opposing minion, as usual."

Is this the correct reason why the acting minion cannot respond?

"But that ruling is old, and this is a brand spanking new 3rd Ed.
rulebook. Maybe this is a new ruling on that happens to over-ride that
now," comes the response... to which I groan, knowing full-well that
the ruling hasn't changed since then, but not having an old rulebook to
prove it.

Is this correct?

So, after putting this all together so nicely, it would be awfully nice
of LSJ to simply give his usual "correct" response and send me on my
merry way. Pretty please, with chocolate sprinkles on top.

Thanks in advance.
Val

>Doug wrote:
>> We had a question come up the other night about the declaration of
>> addtional strikes. If the acting minion declines to generate
>> additional strikes, can they change their mind after the blocking
>> minion declares that they are generating additional strikes?

>> This was the situation: Acting minion declined to generate additional
>> strikes. Blocking minion stated that they were going to generate
>> additional strikes. Acting minion wanted to respond to blocking
>> minion's declaration with additional strikes of their own. Is this
>> allowable?


>No. [RTR 31-MAY-1995]

>--
>LSJ (vtes...@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/

LSJ

unread,
Nov 11, 2006, 6:01:18 PM11/11/06
to
The Name Forgotten wrote:
> Heya,
>
> I know that there is already a post with a response from LSJ on this
> very topic, but I wanted to know if the ruling still stands.
>
> Acting minion declines additional strikes.
> Opposing minion declares an additional strike (with Pursuit or
> whatever)
> Acting minion responds to this with additionals of her own (with
> Pursuit or whatever)
>
> As far as I know, and from what LSJ said in 2004, this is not possible
> - the acting minion cannot respond to the opposing minions declaration
> of additionals and declare her own strikes, as they have already
> decided on having no additional strikes.
>
> Is this correct?

Correct.

> However, one of my players turns to the rule-book on sequencing and
> says :
>
> "[6.2.1] 5. Sequencing. [...] Note that if any Methuselah uses a card
> or effect, the acting Methuselah again gets the opportunity to play the
> next effect."
>
> I respond by saying: "Well, LSJ had this to say on the topic in this
> post:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cd1e23bd5fbee43d
>
> (I'll cut and paste it on the bottom of this)

That post referenced the original WotC RTR on the subject.

> AND the rule-book also says:
>
> [6.4.3] Additional Strikes: [...] The acting minion decides whether or
> not to gain additional strikes before the opposing minion, as usual."
>
> Is this the correct reason why the acting minion cannot respond?

Not sufficiently.
The acting minion also decides whether or not to maneuver before the opposing
minion, too, for example.

> "But that ruling is old, and this is a brand spanking new 3rd Ed.
> rulebook. Maybe this is a new ruling on that happens to over-ride that
> now," comes the response... to which I groan, knowing full-well that
> the ruling hasn't changed since then, but not having an old rulebook to
> prove it.
>
> Is this correct?
>
> So, after putting this all together so nicely, it would be awfully nice
> of LSJ to simply give his usual "correct" response and send me on my
> merry way. Pretty please, with chocolate sprinkles on top.
>
> Thanks in advance.

You've got it all correct. But instead of sending you packing, here's a new
bone to chew on:

REVERSAL: the gaining of additional strikes is subject to 1.6.1.5 (just like
the gaining of maneuvers, &c.)

So if the acting minion declines, but the blocking minion then gains
additionals, the acting minion can respond by gaining additionals of his own.

Myrdin

unread,
Nov 13, 2006, 8:07:13 AM11/13/06
to

LSJ skrev:

Does this ruling also cover damage prevention?

Say acting minion is hit by 1(one) and declines to prevent, opposing
minion is hit by 1(one) and prevents that damage. Can the acting minion
then prevent his damage too? For example to avoid getting hit by a
pulled fangs/disarm etc.

/Myrdin

LSJ

unread,
Nov 13, 2006, 8:26:38 AM11/13/06
to
Myrdin wrote:
> LSJ skrev:

>> REVERSAL: the gaining of additional strikes is subject to 1.6.1.5 (just like
>> the gaining of maneuvers, &c.)
>>
>> So if the acting minion declines, but the blocking minion then gains
>> additionals, the acting minion can respond by gaining additionals of his own.
>
> Does this ruling also cover damage prevention?
>
> Say acting minion is hit by 1(one) and declines to prevent, opposing
> minion is hit by 1(one) and prevents that damage. Can the acting minion
> then prevent his damage too? For example to avoid getting hit by a
> pulled fangs/disarm etc.

Yes. (Also a reversal).

CthuluKitty

unread,
Nov 13, 2006, 11:18:53 PM11/13/06
to
> > Say acting minion is hit by 1(one) and declines to prevent, opposing
> > minion is hit by 1(one) and prevents that damage. Can the acting minion
> > then prevent his damage too? For example to avoid getting hit by a
> > pulled fangs/disarm etc.
>
> Yes. (Also a reversal).

How does this work? My understanding has been that the acting minion
has to handle all damage first during the strike resolution step, which
includes any prevention, modification of the damage (eg Skin of Night),
and then burning blood/life and becoming wounded. The way it's always
worked before is that the prevention step and resolution step were
handled together by the acting minion, and then handled together by the
reacting minion. So it looks like:

Minion 1 is taking X damage and prevents Y, resolving X-Y.
Minion 2 is taking A damage and prevents B, resolving A-B.

The new ruling changes it to:

Minion 1 is taking X damage and prevents Y sub 1.
Minion 2 is taking A damage and prevents B sub 1.
Minion 1 prevents Y sub 2
Minion 2 prevents B sub 2
etc.
Minion 1 resolves X - (Y sub 1 + Y sub 2...)
Minion 2 resolves A - (B sub 1 + B sub 2...)

This effectively splits one step into two steps. It strikes me as a
fairly substantial alteration of the rules.

Also, will this work the same way the prerange effects do? So the
acting minion plays as many prevention/resolution effects as he wants,
then if the reacting minion plays an effect priority goes back to the
acting minion?

LSJ

unread,
Nov 14, 2006, 8:00:36 AM11/14/06
to
CthuluKitty wrote:
>>> Say acting minion is hit by 1(one) and declines to prevent, opposing
>>> minion is hit by 1(one) and prevents that damage. Can the acting minion
>>> then prevent his damage too? For example to avoid getting hit by a
>>> pulled fangs/disarm etc.
>> Yes. (Also a reversal).
>
> How does this work? My understanding has been that the acting minion
> has to handle all damage first during the strike resolution step, which
> includes any prevention, modification of the damage (eg Skin of Night),
> and then burning blood/life and becoming wounded.

No. "Has been" that the acting minion prevents first, then the blocking minion.
Then both handle remaining unprevented damage (simultaneously).

> The way it's always
> worked before is that the prevention step and resolution step were
> handled together by the acting minion, and then handled together by the
> reacting minion. So it looks like:
>
> Minion 1 is taking X damage and prevents Y, resolving X-Y.
> Minion 2 is taking A damage and prevents B, resolving A-B.
>
> The new ruling changes it to:
>
> Minion 1 is taking X damage and prevents Y sub 1.
> Minion 2 is taking A damage and prevents B sub 1.
> Minion 1 prevents Y sub 2
> Minion 2 prevents B sub 2
> etc.
> Minion 1 resolves X - (Y sub 1 + Y sub 2...)
> Minion 2 resolves A - (B sub 1 + B sub 2...)
>
> This effectively splits one step into two steps. It strikes me as a
> fairly substantial alteration of the rules.

It leaves it as two steps, and removes an exception to the sequencing rules.

> Also, will this work the same way the prerange effects do? So the
> acting minion plays as many prevention/resolution effects as he wants,
> then if the reacting minion plays an effect priority goes back to the
> acting minion?

Yes. It now follows standard rules.

talonz

unread,
Nov 15, 2006, 12:07:09 AM11/15/06
to

On Nov 13, 5:26 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Myrdin wrote:
> > LSJ skrev:
> >> REVERSAL: the gaining of additional strikes is subject to 1.6.1.5 (just like
> >> the gaining of maneuvers, &c.)
>

> > > Does this ruling also cover damage prevention?
>

> Yes. (Also a reversal).

I just want to point out that these reversals are unnecesary and
uncalled for. The rules were quite adequate and explicit
already...once you pass on additionals/prevent, you cant later decide
against that in the same phase. This is the specefic rule for those
cases, and as such did not conflict with the general rule 1615 on
responding with effects because you still can, just not with
additionals/prevent effects. The general rule is meant to allow
counters (like maneuver back to close, press to end against a press to
continue, DI, etc.).

General rules should be be used as a guideline to over rule specefic
rules. There was nothing wrong with the way the combat rules worked,
so why muddy the waters and confuse the issue with these reversals
(actually a rewriting of the rules)?

In short, there was nothing to fix, and the fix can lead to more
confusion/delays of game than it is worth.

G

Salem

unread,
Nov 15, 2006, 6:21:32 AM11/15/06
to

confusion while assimilated, sure....for those playgroups that actually
thought additionals and damage prevention didn't follow 1.6.1.5. I'd
guess there were some that assumed they did.

delays? don't think so. if vamp A passes on additionals, and then vamp B
passes, the 'gain additionals' segment is over. There is no effect for
the acting vamp to respond to to get a new opportunity to decide. play
moves on.

but if B does get additionals, and then A responds by getting
some...well...they both have additionals. play moves on.

how does this delay things any more than A declaring nothing before
range, B playing Carrion Crows, and then A deciding to play Bloodform?


--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

talonz

unread,
Nov 16, 2006, 3:30:31 AM11/16/06
to

On Nov 15, 3:21 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> confusion while assimilated, sure....for those playgroups that actually
> thought additionals and damage prevention didn't follow 1.6.1.5.

For every group that read the rules and played by them you mean.

And for every such group, we now have to explain to them why the rules
dont work as written in the rulebook. VTES really does not need this,
there is enough erratta to deal with already.


> delays? don't think so.

The reversal (rewriting of the rules) adds another step in 2 combat
phases for commonly used combat cards that duplicates an earlier step.
Do we really need *more* steps to pause play at?? No, not unless there
is a very good reason to make these new steps. So why delay the game
further?

G

LSJ

unread,
Nov 16, 2006, 7:51:24 AM11/16/06
to
talonz wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 3:21 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> confusion while assimilated, sure....for those playgroups that actually
>> thought additionals and damage prevention didn't follow 1.6.1.5.
>
> For every group that read the rules and played by them you mean.
>
> And for every such group, we now have to explain to them why the rules
> dont work as written in the rulebook. VTES really does not need this,
> there is enough erratta to deal with already.

Please quote the section of the rules that overrides sequencing rules for
additional strike gaining and damage prevention.

gpett...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 16, 2006, 8:23:55 AM11/16/06
to
On Nov 16, 3:30 am, "talonz" <talon...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> The reversal (rewriting of the rules) adds another step in 2 combat
> phases for commonly used combat cards that duplicates an earlier step.
> Do we really need *more* steps to pause play at?? No, not unless there
> is a very good reason to make these new steps. So why delay the game
> further?
>
> G

No. It alters the pacing in two phases of combat. One situation
requiring this to arise pretty much requires both players to be playing
celerity combat. The other gets glossed over so quickly, I doubt my
playgroup's ever paid much attention to it.

talonz

unread,
Nov 16, 2006, 12:16:21 PM11/16/06
to

On Nov 16, 4:51 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>Please quote the section of the rules that overrides sequencing


rules for
> additional strike gaining and damage prevention.

6.4.3. Strike
Additional Strikes: Some cards and effects allow a minion to make
additional strikes during the current round of combat. Additional
strikes are announced (gained) and performed (used) only after the
first pair of strikes are completed. The acting minion decides whether


or not to gain additional strikes before the opposing minion, as usual.

Although oddly, the damage prevention step rule doesnt explicity state
the same, the following still applies;
6.4.1. Combat Sequence
As usual, the acting minion always gets first opportunity to use a card
or effect before the opposing minion at every stage of combat.

Clearly you must decide what your additional strike count is before
your opponent. If it is 0, then it is 0. Once that decision is made,
there is no going back to it. The same principle should apply to
preventing damage, and did via previous clarification.

If I follow your reversal logic, you are saying that if another player
generates an effect, 6251 (sequencing) allows you to overide and
reverse additional/prevent decisions. But it does not. It simply
allows you to respond with counters/affects in general, whereas the
specefic rules on combat and additionals at the very least if not
prevent exactly, limits you to the decision already made.

Were the logic for this reversal applied to its utmost, it would also
allow acting players to change their decision to strike with a strike
effect card after seeing their opponents strike.

G

gpett...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 16, 2006, 12:28:44 PM11/16/06
to

On Nov 16, 12:16 pm, "talonz" <talon...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 4:51 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>Please quote the section of the rules that overrides sequencing
> rules for
>

> > additional strike gaining and damage prevention.6.4.3. Strike


> Additional Strikes: Some cards and effects allow a minion to make
> additional strikes during the current round of combat. Additional
> strikes are announced (gained) and performed (used) only after the
> first pair of strikes are completed. The acting minion decides whether
> or not to gain additional strikes before the opposing minion, as usual.
>

> Clearly you must decide what your additional strike count is before
> your opponent. If it is 0, then it is 0. Once that decision is made,
> there is no going back to it. The same principle should apply to
> preventing damage, and did via previous clarification.

That's not how I read it at all. "The acting minion decides [first], AS
USUAL" (emphasis mine). "As usual" clearly means 1.6.1.5.

--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Merlin

unread,
Nov 16, 2006, 12:39:20 PM11/16/06
to

We fear change.

LSJ

unread,
Nov 16, 2006, 12:43:34 PM11/16/06
to

Correct.

See also [6.4.1] "As usual, the acting minion always gets first opportunity to

use a card or effect before the opposing minion at every stage of combat."

There is nothing there to indicate that "once that decision is made, there is no

going back to it".

So what we have here is "no errata". At least, not any more (with the reversal
of the old "ruling" which amounted to errata).

LSJ

unread,
Nov 16, 2006, 12:58:04 PM11/16/06
to
talonz wrote:
> Clearly you must decide what your additional strike count is before
> your opponent.

No.

You must decide whether to play an effect to gain an additional strike.

Similarly, you must decide whether to maneuver before your opponent.

> If it is 0, then it is 0. Once that decision is made,
> there is no going back to it.

Moot, since there is no decision made as to setting in stone the number of
additional strikes one has.

See also Jacko.

> The same principle should apply to
> preventing damage, and did via previous clarification.

Yes, the same (correct) principal does apply.

> If I follow your reversal logic, you are saying that if another player
> generates an effect, 6251 (sequencing) allows you to overide and
> reverse additional/prevent decisions.

Then you misunderstand.

I am saying that 1.6.1.5 and 6.4.1 apply.

When the actor says "pass" and then blocker plays an effect, the actor gets a
change to play the next effect.

> But it does not. It simply
> allows you to respond with counters/affects in general,

Correct.

> whereas the
> specefic rules on combat and additionals at the very least if not
> prevent exactly, limits you to the decision already made.

No, they limit you to 0 or 1 additional-strike gainer, but they do not restrict
you to ever-pass.

> Were the logic for this reversal applied to its utmost, it would also
> allow acting players to change their decision to strike with a strike
> effect card after seeing their opponents strike.

Not at all. There's nothing to indicate that a minion can change his mind about
this-or-that pre-range effect that has already been played whenever the opponent
plays a pre-range.

You're confusing play an allowed effect with retroactive change.

James Coupe

unread,
Nov 16, 2006, 2:22:23 PM11/16/06
to
In message <g9Z6h.6681$Sw1....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, LSJ

<vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>Please quote the section of the rules that overrides sequencing rules for
>additional strike gaining and damage prevention.

6.4.6 reads slightly differently to the normal 1.6.1.5 sequencing rules.

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.

This could be read as something more like a declaration not to block
(i.e. "I have finished playing damage prevention for this set of
damage"), rather than just the usual passing of priority.

If the intention is to follow normal sequencing rules, it's probably
worth clarifying this section.

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

LSJ

unread,
Nov 16, 2006, 2:59:00 PM11/16/06
to
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <g9Z6h.6681$Sw1....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, LSJ
> <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>> Please quote the section of the rules that overrides sequencing rules for
>> additional strike gaining and damage prevention.
>
> 6.4.6 reads slightly differently to the normal 1.6.1.5 sequencing rules.
>
> 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.
>
> This could be read as something more like a declaration not to block
> (i.e. "I have finished playing damage prevention for this set of
> damage"), rather than just the usual passing of priority.

Could be, but that would involve assuming something that isn't there and isn't
supported by the text.

The text above, while the verbiage is clearly part of the "prevent then handle
unprevented" explanation, as per the text that surrounds it, conforms to the
standard sequencing rules, as well.

> If the intention is to follow normal sequencing rules, it's probably
> worth clarifying this section.

Um, the section is abundantly clear already, when read in context:

Two steps: A and B,

First, description of A. (quoted above, without surrounding context).

Remaining, description of B.

talonz

unread,
Nov 19, 2006, 1:34:55 AM11/19/06
to

LSJ wrote:
>
> I am saying that 1.6.1.5 and 6.4.1 apply.
>
> When the actor says "pass" and then blocker plays an effect, the actor gets a
> change to play the next effect.
>
>
> > Were the logic for this reversal applied to its utmost, it would also
> > allow acting players to change their decision to strike with a strike
> > effect card after seeing their opponents strike.
>
> Not at all. There's nothing to indicate that a minion can change his mind about
> this-or-that pre-range effect that has already been played whenever the opponent
> plays a pre-range.
>
> You're confusing play an allowed effect with retroactive change.

Passing on an effect and then changing that decision to play that
effect is a retroactive change.

But to use your interpretation right now, can I not announce a hand
strike (default strength), see my reacting opponents strike effect
(some strike card) and then play an undead strength to boost my hand
stike damage? The strike remains the same, I just play an effect in
response to his.

G

LSJ

unread,
Nov 19, 2006, 8:15:38 AM11/19/06
to
talonz wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>> I am saying that 1.6.1.5 and 6.4.1 apply.
>>
>> When the actor says "pass" and then blocker plays an effect, the actor gets a
>> change to play the next effect.
>>
>>
>>> Were the logic for this reversal applied to its utmost, it would also
>>> allow acting players to change their decision to strike with a strike
>>> effect card after seeing their opponents strike.
>> Not at all. There's nothing to indicate that a minion can change his mind about
>> this-or-that pre-range effect that has already been played whenever the opponent
>> plays a pre-range.
>>
>> You're confusing play an allowed effect with retroactive change.
>
> Passing on an effect and then changing that decision to play that
> effect is a retroactive change.

No.

See also any other game that has a bidding system that allows you to bid after a
pass if someone else bids.

Or see maneuvering to close after you passed on maneuvering before.

Or see pressing to end after you passed before.

"Pass" is not an event, it is the absence of an event.

> But to use your interpretation right now, can I not announce a hand
> strike (default strength), see my reacting opponents strike effect
> (some strike card) and then play an undead strength to boost my hand
> stike damage? The strike remains the same, I just play an effect in
> response to his.

A pretty subpar attempt at reduction to absurdity, and obviously flawed as a
parallel.

You cannot choose "pass" as your strike, no.

Unlike maneuvers, where 0 maneuvers is allowed, a minion is not allowed to pass
when choosing a strike.

A minion must strike, so must choose a strike.

0 new messages