[LSJ] Logical inconsistencies -- call to revise
azraiel
"For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they
are
treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and
the
resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing
effects
granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a
card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the
resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally
striking "as a vampire") and the ability of an ally to use Charming
Lobby
to call a vote (allowed if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a
vampire").
(REVERSAL)"
II. Your statements are:
A) The Herald is (continously) an ally, but can play Charming Lobby
(call a referendum) "as [if] a vampire".
and:
B) The action card he played would treat him as a vampire. He is still
an ally, however. Playing the action card doesn't make him a vampire.
Fine so far, but when taken with:
C) Vampires who receive (and do not prevent) aggravated damage go to
torpor.
Likewise, allies who are treated "as a vampire".
This runs headlong into:
III. The rules (6.4.6):
Allies and retainers treat aggravated damage the same as normal
damage.
As (III) is stated absolutely, I,II, and III are contradictory and
cannot be enforced simultaneously.
I will not argue that allies cannot go to torpor -- there is no rule
stating such. However, without a change to the rules it is impossible
for an ally to go to torpor as a result of aggravated damage.
One may hold to the RTR and concede that an ally acting as a vampire
may be sent to torpor via Rotschreck, whereafter the ally will reside
in a limbo not accounted for in the rules.
However, any ally acting as a vampire (who remains an ally) treats all
aggravated damage (i.e. Burst of Sunlight) as normal damage. [6.4.6]
Ergo, an ally (acting in any capacity) may never be sent to torpor by
aggravated damage, unless II(a) and (b) are rescinded.
az
LSJ
Which would be the case if the ally were not being treated as a vampire.
But he is. So, like a vampire, he goes to torpor from agg damage.
See also: only untapped minions can block vs. Wake.
> I will not argue that allies cannot go to torpor -- there is no rule
> stating such. However, without a change to the rules it is impossible
> for an ally to go to torpor as a result of aggravated damage.
Card text effects a change to the rules [1.4]
> One may hold to the RTR and concede that an ally acting as a vampire
> may be sent to torpor via Rotschreck, whereafter the ally will reside
> in a limbo not accounted for in the rules.
If there were an effect that allowed Rotschreck to be played on an
ally as if that ally were a vampire, sure (or if Rotschreck's
text were errata'ed to allow it to be played on an ally, of course).
But there isn't.
> However, any ally acting as a vampire (who remains an ally) treats all
> aggravated damage (i.e. Burst of Sunlight) as normal damage. [6.4.6]
Except for the agg done by the stuff he's playing "as a vampire".
> Ergo, an ally (acting in any capacity) may never be sent to torpor by
> aggravated damage, unless II(a) and (b) are rescinded.
Or card text says he plays the agg effect as a vampire.
--
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/
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CD195D9...@white-wolf.com...
> azraiel wrote:
> > However, any ally acting as a vampire (who remains an ally) treats all
> > aggravated damage (i.e. Burst of Sunlight) as normal damage. [6.4.6]
>
> Except for the agg done by the stuff he's playing "as a vampire".
Wait, I think he's on to something here. Burst of Sunlight
"1R aggravated to all vampires in combat" does affect an ally
playing it "as a vampire" with the side-effect damage, sure.
But when you *apply* the damage from Burst of Sunlight, the
playing ally shouldn't go to torpor for the aggravated damage:
he's only treated "as a vampire" by the card itself, not by
the rules of damage resolution.
Shadow Court Satyr can still get himself into torpor with
Ashes to Ashes or similar, of course.
Josh
incompetent allies anyway
jspektr
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3CD195D9...@white-wolf.com...
> > azraiel wrote:
>
> > > However, any ally acting as a vampire (who remains an ally) treats all
> > > aggravated damage (i.e. Burst of Sunlight) as normal damage. [6.4.6]
> >
> > Except for the agg done by the stuff he's playing "as a vampire".
>
> Wait, I think he's on to something here. Burst of Sunlight
> "1R aggravated to all vampires in combat" does affect an ally
> playing it "as a vampire" with the side-effect damage, sure.
> But when you *apply* the damage from Burst of Sunlight, the
> playing ally shouldn't go to torpor for the aggravated damage:
> he's only treated "as a vampire" by the card itself, not by
> the rules of damage resolution.
Yes, I agree with this train of thought. When a vampire plays Burst of
Sunlight, they don't go to torpor just by playing it. They go to
torpor later, after the card is finished, when the strikes are
resolved. Any number of things can intervene at that point to stop a
vampire from going to torpor (strike combat ends, fortitude to prevent
damage, being Merrill Molitor, etc.), so aggravated damage does NOT
inherently demand a vampire go to torpor. That's the most likely
result, sure, but it's not an absolute.
If Burst of Sunlight said "Inflict 1 aggravated damage as a strike,
this vampire goes to torpor after combat" then I could see it. But
once the strike resolution phase is reached, wouldn't the card be
finished and the ally would be treated as an ally?
JSpektr
azraiel
Let me preface this by saying that I have the utmost respect for your
abilities and intelligence. I've played this game since its inception
and have lurked on this board for years. I've watched as you have
issued unpopular rulings and then weathered the horrendous backlash,
and quite respect you for it. I have never felt strongly enough on an
issue to jump into the fray, but this is an exception. This time I
believe you to be wrong.
From my perception, it often seems that you become embattled and
entrenched while defending/explaining rulings. This is no bad
thing--opinion should not override well-grounded rulings. I have also
seen you reverse yourself when a persuasive argument was put forth,
and that is admirable. However, one notes that certain opinions are
given more weight. Were Mr. Coupe (for instance) to respond with a
reasoned argument you would be more inclined to reevaluate your stance
than when the same argument is set forth by another, in my perception.
I ask that you consider my position carefully. If I fail to make my
argument, then perhaps the fault is my own for not being reasoned
enough. But consider it fairly, please.
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD195D9...@white-wolf.com>...
[snip]
> >
> > As (III) is stated absolutely, I, II, and III are contradictory and
> > cannot be enforced simultaneously.
>
> Which would be the case if the ally were not being treated as a vampire.
> But he is. So, like a vampire, he goes to torpor from agg damage.
>
> See also: only untapped minions can block vs. Wake.
Yet he continues to be an ally. The rules state that allies (and it
makes no mention of what capacity they act in) treat aggravated damage
as normal damage. I respond with: So, like an ally, he ignores
aggravated damage.
> > I will not argue that allies cannot go to torpor -- there is no rule
> > stating such. However, without a change to the rules it is impossible
> > for an ally to go to torpor as a result of aggravated damage.
>
> Card text effects a change to the rules [1.4]
Indeed it does. However, no card text effects such a change in this
case. The intent of the designer is obvious: to allow an ally to
utilize certain abilities commensurate with the theme of the game
(RPG), yet in a way that fits within current game mechanics (CCG). It
was not to have an ally become a vampire for a limited duration.
> > One may hold to the RTR and concede that an ally acting as a vampire
> > may be sent to torpor via Rotschreck, whereafter the ally will reside
> > in a limbo not accounted for in the rules.
>
> If there were an effect that allowed Rotschreck to be played on an
> ally as if that ally were a vampire, sure (or if Rotschreck's
> text were errata'ed to allow it to be played on an ally, of course).
>
> But there isn't.
And how so? Here you postulate that one game mechanic independent of
card text (damage resolution) treats the ally as one class, yet
another game mechanic treats the same ally as a different class. An
example:
Talaq attempts an action (which one is irrelevant) and is blocked by
Raven.
Talaq strikes with Burst of Sunlight. Raven hand strikes with Wolf
Claws.
We now have this absurd sequence:
Talaq is an ally. Talaq plays Burst and is considered a vampire.
Raven's controller wishes to play Rotschrek. Rotschrek checks for
valid targets and finds none, as Talaq is an ally.
Damage resolves. Talaq takes 1 agg as he is a vampire (Burst). Talaq
also takes 1 agg from Claws, but that agg is considered normal as
Talaq is an ally.
Plainly, this is asinine. The result of the ruling is that Talaq is
simultaneously treated as an ally and as a vampire, but differently by
different game mechanics each independent of the original card text.
But how is one to differentiate? Why would one obviously conclude that
Rotschrek will find Talaq an ally while a later stage (set by rule and
not card text) would find Talaq a vampire for part and an ally for
another part (all while within a "simultaneous" phase)?
> > However, any ally acting as a vampire (who remains an ally) treats all
> > aggravated damage (i.e. Burst of Sunlight) as normal damage. [6.4.6]
>
> Except for the agg done by the stuff he's playing "as a vampire".
As cited above, there seems no rational or logical basis for this. It
creates a dichotomy in effects that is based neither in the rules nor
in the card text. It runs counter to the theme of the game, as well as
anyone's sense. While illogic and counter-intuitiveness are not
damning in and of themselves, rulings that are both in addition to
game altering (mechanically) should be eschewed unless there is an
overriding need. I do not see the need.
> > Ergo, an ally (acting in any capacity) may never be sent to torpor by
> > aggravated damage, unless II(a) and (b) are rescinded.
>
> Or card text says he plays the agg effect as a vampire.
It does not, however, say that he becomes a vampire, and by doing so
loses any benefit of being an ally.
LSJ. White Wolf. Rules Team. Sirs and Madams, your position is
untenable. This is not unprecedented. Reference the debacle with
Rotschrek early in the game and you will see what happens when rulings
go explicitly against theme and text, or when rulings are extrapolated
poorly from otherwise clear text.
It does not matter a whit to the company or the game community (as
I've never played in a sanctioned tournament), but I emphatically
refuse to play with this ruling. All of those years I was correct
about Rotschrek, and I am equally convinced that I am correct about
this.
I implore you: reverse this obviously erroneous ruling, or have the
courage of your convictions and explicitly revise the rules to
accommodate it. Your arguments are insufficient.
az
berni...@attbi.comholdlespam
I liked your post azraiel, and am going to copy it over to the RustWork
forums for more exposure.
BernieTime
LSJ
> > > cannot be enforced simultaneously.
> >
> > Which would be the case if the ally were not being treated as a vampire.
> > But he is. So, like a vampire, he goes to torpor from agg damage.
> >
> > See also: only untapped minions can block vs. Wake.
>
> Yet he continues to be an ally. The rules state that allies (and it
> makes no mention of what capacity they act in) treat aggravated damage
> as normal damage. I respond with: So, like an ally, he ignores
> aggravated damage.
? Allies do not ignore aggravated damage, in general.
The point here is that the ally is inflicting aggravated damage
on himself as a vampire.
Allies treat agg as normal damage. Tapped minions cannot block.
Card text allows some allies to use some effects "as a vampire"
just as card text allows some tapped minions to block.
> > > I will not argue that allies cannot go to torpor -- there is no rule
> > > stating such. However, without a change to the rules it is impossible
> > > for an ally to go to torpor as a result of aggravated damage.
> >
> > Card text effects a change to the rules [1.4]
>
> Indeed it does. However, no card text effects such a change in this
> case. The intent of the designer is obvious: to allow an ally to
> utilize certain abilities commensurate with the theme of the game
> (RPG), yet in a way that fits within current game mechanics (CCG). It
> was not to have an ally become a vampire for a limited duration.
As has been covered before, the ally doesn't become a vampire
for a limited duration. He merely plays the card as a vampire.
So the card is played as if he were a vampire. So the effect
of the card is applied as is he were a vampire. At least,
by the current official ruling.
> > > One may hold to the RTR and concede that an ally acting as a vampire
> > > may be sent to torpor via Rotschreck, whereafter the ally will reside
> > > in a limbo not accounted for in the rules.
> >
> > If there were an effect that allowed Rotschreck to be played on an
> > ally as if that ally were a vampire, sure (or if Rotschreck's
> > text were errata'ed to allow it to be played on an ally, of course).
> >
> > But there isn't.
>
> And how so? Here you postulate that one game mechanic independent of
> card text (damage resolution) treats the ally as one class, yet
> another game mechanic treats the same ally as a different class. An
Please provide an example of card text which allows Rotschreck to
be played on an ally as if that ally were a vampire.
> example:
>
> Talaq attempts an action (which one is irrelevant) and is blocked by
> Raven.
> Talaq strikes with Burst of Sunlight. Raven hand strikes with Wolf
> Claws.
>
> We now have this absurd sequence:
> Talaq is an ally. Talaq plays Burst and is considered a vampire.
Mistating the case.
Talaq is not a vampire. Talaq is not considered a vampire, in general.
Talaq plays Burst of Sunlight as a vampire.
Big difference.
> Raven's controller wishes to play Rotschrek. Rotschrek checks for
> valid targets and finds none, as Talaq is an ally.
Right.
> Damage resolves. Talaq takes 1 agg as he is a vampire (Burst). Talaq
> also takes 1 agg from Claws, but that agg is considered normal as
> Talaq is an ally.
Correct.
> Plainly, this is asinine.
Not true.
Card text allows the idea that he will be treated as a vampire by
the card he plays as a vampire. Nothing in that would extend to
having other effects, like the opposing minion's hand strike, treat
him as a vampire.
> The result of the ruling is that Talaq is
> simultaneously treated as an ally and as a vampire, but differently by
Right.
> different game mechanics each independent of the original card text.
"Based on" card text, you mean.
> But how is one to differentiate? Why would one obviously conclude that
Card text.
> Rotschrek will find Talaq an ally while a later stage (set by rule and
> not card text) would find Talaq a vampire for part and an ally for
> another part (all while within a "simultaneous" phase)?
No. Nothing indicates that Rotschreck will "find" an ally to be anything
but an ally. Talaq isn't playing Rotschreck as a vampire. Some Methuselah
is playing Rotschreck.
> > > However, any ally acting as a vampire (who remains an ally) treats all
> > > aggravated damage (i.e. Burst of Sunlight) as normal damage. [6.4.6]
> >
> > Except for the agg done by the stuff he's playing "as a vampire".
>
> As cited above, there seems no rational or logical basis for this. It
As stated before:
He plays the card as a vampire. The card does agg damage to him (as it
would a vampire). The agg damage sends him to torpor (as it would a
vampire).
[...]
> I implore you: reverse this obviously erroneous ruling, or have the
> courage of your convictions and explicitly revise the rules to
> accommodate it. Your arguments are insufficient.
As stated elsewhere (in response to a viable alternative), this
topic is back on the list for review.
kevin scribner
i have to agree that there are some problems with these most recent
rulings... some of them [the "continuing combat" stuff and the ally
stuff] see mjust downright senseless... no offense intended, lsj, but
that is how it seems to me...
wouldn't it just have made more sense to errata rafastio ghoul and
talaq, than to issue this bizzare and convoluted edict...?
here's a warped scenario that arises from this ruling:
blood brother ambush generated ally ["paper tiger"] should now be able
to play burning wrath in a combat... he's playing it as a vampire,
right...? and vampires can go to 0 blood without popping... but no,
he never stops being an ally, so he pops... no he doesn't... yes he
does... no he doesn't... yes he does...
there's a simple solution to this... given the discussions i've seen,
it seems like the decision as to whether or not the ally playing a
card as a vampire is a vampire or an ally at any given nanosecond of a
combat becomes an arbitrary one as decided by the lsj/rtr
consortium... and the essence of your arguements seems to boil down
in most cases to "cuz i/we said so..." so it's going to boil down to
whether or not you guys want this to be able to happen... as opposed
to a strictly defined guideline you can point to in the rulebook...
and THAT'S why this set of ruling seems uncool to me...
because you shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but you can...
YOU can... not cool...
and the psyche/fast reaction[/hidden lurker...?] thing overriding
rotschreck, catatonic fear, oubliette, et cetera... that's just
retarded...
rotschreck was a countermeasure... it was primarily used to stop all
that pre/for comabt ends & prevent damage stuff from running too
rampant... it's a one shot... you really had to castrate it like
that...? and instead make assamite, !gagrel/miller, and immortal
grapple decks immune to tzimisce and presence effects...? HELLO...
the most compelling arguement that i can make that this is completely
and utterly wrong is that ulysses lateiner thinks it's f@#$%^g
awesome... and if you know ulysses, anything he thinks is great
really needs to be examined closely... no offense intended, ulysess,
that's just how i see it... balance isn't precisely your strong
point...
there's another point about some weirdness coming from your general
direction that i can't make until the beginning of august or so, but
this stuff is starting to stack up... what's going on down there...?
peace --
-- khs
GreySeer
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aas7pd$dd8qm$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
>
Correct me if I'm wrong LSJ ( I think I fully understand the ruling now )
but:
"For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are
treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the
resolution of a strike card."
Strike cards ( Burst of Sunlight ) resolve during strike resolution, damage
is applied during strike resolution. So a BoS that was played "as a vampire"
by a Rafatario Ghoul treats the ally as a vampire during it's resolution,
hence the Rafastario Ghoul goes to torpor ( unless it prevents the agg
damage of course ).
Which causes me to raise a question, a Rafastario Ghoul is in a fight with a
Ghouled Street Thug, RG plays BoS, GST ( heh ), plays Undead Strength. RG
burns ( obviously ), but does the GST go to torpor because it's treated as a
vampire during the resolution of the US and strikes resolve simoultaneously?
scrote
I thought that it was only treated as a vampire by the _specific_ card
(text). So BoS only resolves on the ally that played as if he was a
vampire and on no other allies in this fashion (the ghouls would treat
it the ol' fashioned way, agg=normal..damn country folk). Otherwise,
wouldn't that mean that as soon as an ally played a card that required
a vamp. he would be vunerable to agg. from *any* source (which is not
the case from my understanding)?
You quote:
>"For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they
are
> treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
> appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the
> resolution of a strike card."
Doesn't this answer your question?
See you tomorrow GreySeer, although that will probably be today by the
time this message hits,
-Scrote
scrote
> hi there --
>
> i have to agree that there are some problems with these most recent
> rulings... some of them [the "continuing combat" stuff and the ally
> stuff] see mjust downright senseless... no offense intended, lsj, but
> that is how it seems to me...
>
> wouldn't it just have made more sense to errata rafastio ghoul and
> talaq, than to issue this bizzare and convoluted edict...?
Yeah, good idea. Get rid of the ruling that is now possible to
interpret from cardtext and replace it with a couple of pieces of
errata. You obviously though that one through.
>
> here's a warped scenario that arises from this ruling:
>
> blood brother ambush generated ally ["paper tiger"] should now be able
> to play burning wrath in a combat... he's playing it as a vampire,
> right...? and vampires can go to 0 blood without popping... but no,
> he never stops being an ally, so he pops... no he doesn't... yes he
> does... no he doesn't... yes he does...
>
From what i understand, he does. It is the actual card he plays and
only that card that treats him as a vampire and as such all other ally
*stuff* still applies, including zero life=dead.
> there's a simple solution to this... given the discussions i've seen,
> it seems like the decision as to whether or not the ally playing a
> card as a vampire is a vampire or an ally at any given nanosecond of a
> combat becomes an arbitrary one as decided by the lsj/rtr
> consortium... and the essence of your arguements seems to boil down
> in most cases to "cuz i/we said so..." so it's going to boil down to
> whether or not you guys want this to be able to happen... as opposed
> to a strictly defined guideline you can point to in the rulebook...
> and THAT'S why this set of ruling seems uncool to me...
Just read the card, read some posts and i am sure you will be able to
understand...eventually. I admit, first impression had me less than
impressed. But, I tried to keep calm and see how it all panned out and
after a bit of reading here and there and quite time in
self-reflection...I like it.
As for theme and assciated RPG arguments (going a bit OT here)..well
who gives a shit, i would rather less problems in the game than a
concept that i find a little unbelievable (like vampires punching each
other out and just doing stuff in general is sooo realistic).
Not that I have encountered problems, but I hardly think that LSJ was
just sitting on the crapper one morning and thought "Hey! Lets f&**
over the Rafastio ghoul deck!"
>
> because you shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but you can...
> YOU can... not cool...
>
> and the psyche/fast reaction[/hidden lurker...?] thing overriding
> rotschreck, catatonic fear, oubliette, et cetera... that's just
> retarded...
Hmm, yeah well, some of my non combat decks will probably start to run
a bit heavier on the S:CE.
>
> rotschreck was a countermeasure... it was primarily used to stop all
> that pre/for comabt ends & prevent damage stuff from running too
> rampant... it's a one shot... you really had to castrate it like
> that...? and instead make assamite, !gagrel/miller, and immortal
> grapple decks immune to tzimisce and presence effects...? HELLO...
> the most compelling arguement that i can make that this is completely
> and utterly wrong is that ulysses lateiner thinks it's f@#$%^g
> awesome... and if you know ulysses, anything he thinks is great
> really needs to be examined closely... no offense intended, ulysess,
> that's just how i see it... balance isn't precisely your strong
> point...
I think that whole thing about it was that there are a whole heap of
other annoying scenarios that arise with the way some cards have
previously been resolving (tele. tracking, catatonic fear, illusions
of the kindred, psyche, rotschreck etc...) and this was the simplest
way to fix it. One ruling got rid of the need for a whole heap of
other rulings and clarifications and annoying _shit_, worth it IMHO,
even if it did cause a bit of a stir. Mail LSJ I guess, and ask.
>
> there's another point about some weirdness coming from your general
> direction that i can't make until the beginning of august or so, but
> this stuff is starting to stack up... what's going on down there...?
>
> peace --
get it inta ya,
-Scrote
>
> -- khs
tetragrammaton
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3CD2D6AD...@white-wolf.com...
> azraiel wrote:
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > > > As (III) is stated absolutely, I, II, and III are contradictory and
> > > > cannot be enforced simultaneously.
> > >
> Please provide an example of card text which allows Rotschreck to
> be played on an ally as if that ally were a vampire.
>
> > example:
> >
> > Talaq attempts an action (which one is irrelevant) and is blocked by
> > Raven.
> > Talaq strikes with Burst of Sunlight. Raven hand strikes with Wolf
> > Claws.
> >
> > We now have this absurd sequence:
> > Talaq is an ally. Talaq plays Burst and is considered a vampire.
>
> Mistating the case.
>
> Talaq is not a vampire. Talaq is not considered a vampire, in general.
> Talaq plays Burst of Sunlight as a vampire.
> Big difference.
>
Ah, got that.
nitpicking, sub-sub-specialized effects that must be considered in
front of other sub-sub-specialized game definitions/cards texts
(in many cases, errated text yet to be printed).
How you cannot realize hat all of this chinese boxes logic behind the rules
is getting players (above all, non-english) away from the game ?
> > Raven's controller wishes to play Rotschrek. Rotschrek checks for
> > valid targets and finds none, as Talaq is an ally.
>
> Right.
>
> > Damage resolves. Talaq takes 1 agg as he is a vampire (Burst). Talaq
> > also takes 1 agg from Claws, but that agg is considered normal as
> > Talaq is an ally.
>
> Correct.
>
> > Plainly, this is asinine.
>
> Not true.
> Card text allows the idea that he will be treated as a vampire by
> the card he plays as a vampire. Nothing in that would extend to
> having other effects, like the opposing minion's hand strike, treat
> him as a vampire.
Sub-specializing effects:
X becomes Z just in front of Y, and not in front of
all the rest (A, B, C;)
nice and staright, i'd say.
>
> > The result of the ruling is that Talaq is
> > simultaneously treated as an ally and as a vampire, but differently by
>
> Right.
I see just a cold logic here.Maybe it's right just considering X as Z in
front
of person Y, but all the rest (A,B,C,D) of the people will say that you
*should*
be Z anyway, and that this ruling sucks 8as it's happening).
>
> > Rotschrek will find Talaq an ally while a later stage (set by rule and
> > not card text) would find Talaq a vampire for part and an ally for
> > another part (all while within a "simultaneous" phase)?
>
> No. Nothing indicates that Rotschreck will "find" an ally to be anything
> but an ally. Talaq isn't playing Rotschreck as a vampire. Some Methuselah
> is playing Rotschreck.
So to say, if Talaq strikes with a Burst of sunlight, and the opposing
Rafastio ghoul strikes
with a BoS too, they are going to suffer just "their own" agg damage's
strike, is right?
Very cold logic.
Emiliano
<snip>
> --
LSJ
Right.
> vampire and on no other allies in this fashion (the ghouls would treat
> it the ol' fashioned way, agg=normal..damn country folk). Otherwise,
> wouldn't that mean that as soon as an ally played a card that required
> a vamp. he would be vunerable to agg. from *any* source (which is not
> the case from my understanding)?
Right. The GST treats the US effect as a vampire (which is meaningless,
since the US has no further effect on the GST). He doesn't treat the BoS
as a vampire.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ
>
> hi there --
>
> i have to agree that there are some problems with these most recent
> rulings... some of them [the "continuing combat" stuff and the ally
> stuff] see mjust downright senseless... no offense intended, lsj, but
> that is how it seems to me...
>
> wouldn't it just have made more sense to errata rafastio ghoul and
> talaq, than to issue this bizzare and convoluted edict...?
>
> here's a warped scenario that arises from this ruling:
>
> blood brother ambush generated ally ["paper tiger"] should now be able
> to play burning wrath in a combat... he's playing it as a vampire,
> right...? and vampires can go to 0 blood without popping... but no,
> he never stops being an ally, so he pops... no he doesn't... yes he
> does... no he doesn't... yes he does...
Yes, he does. He's at 0. He burns. This is not an effect of the
resolution of BW.
> there's a simple solution to this... given the discussions i've seen,
> it seems like the decision as to whether or not the ally playing a
> card as a vampire is a vampire or an ally at any given nanosecond of a
> combat becomes an arbitrary one as decided by the lsj/rtr
> consortium... and the essence of your arguements seems to boil down
Not arbitrary - rather, as per card text. For the card he's playing
as a vampire, he's treated as a vampire (for the resolution of that
card play). Period.
> in most cases to "cuz i/we said so..." so it's going to boil down to
> whether or not you guys want this to be able to happen... as opposed
> to a strictly defined guideline you can point to in the rulebook...
> and THAT'S why this set of ruling seems uncool to me...
It's card text and rules text.
If it seems like it's just "I say so", then I'm sorry I haven't
made it clear. Card text: "as a vampire".
> because you shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but you can...
> YOU can... not cool...
>
> and the psyche/fast reaction[/hidden lurker...?] thing overriding
> rotschreck, catatonic fear, oubliette, et cetera... that's just
> retarded...
>
> rotschreck was a countermeasure... it was primarily used to stop all
> that pre/for comabt ends & prevent damage stuff from running too
> rampant... it's a one shot... you really had to castrate it like
> that...? and instead make assamite, !gagrel/miller, and immortal
> grapple decks immune to tzimisce and presence effects...? HELLO...
> the most compelling arguement that i can make that this is completely
> and utterly wrong is that ulysses lateiner thinks it's f@#$%^g
> awesome... and if you know ulysses, anything he thinks is great
> really needs to be examined closely... no offense intended, ulysess,
> that's just how i see it... balance isn't precisely your strong
> point...
If you've got a point to make or a question to ask, feel free.
> there's another point about some weirdness coming from your general
> direction that i can't make until the beginning of august or so, but
> this stuff is starting to stack up... what's going on down there...?
No idea what you're asking here. Sorry.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
LSJ
> So to say, if Talaq strikes with a Burst of sunlight, and the opposing
> Rafastio ghoul strikes
> with a BoS too, they are going to suffer just "their own" agg damage's
> strike, is right?
Right.
> Very cold logic.
Glad you like it.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
jspektr
So if Rafastio Ghoul with 1 life plays Burst of Sunlight, they go to
torpor instead of dying? Because a vampire doesn't burn a point of
blood for the first point of agg. damage, they go to torpor instead.
There would seem to be some strange results possible due to this. I
suppose it would allow you to send a Talaq or Rafastio Ghoul to torpor
when they should die, where you could use some kind of "burn an ally"
effect to gain benefit.
Another possible scenario: any ally that can play discipline cards can
now play one of those cards, and if it costs blood, use their last
point of life to pay for it. For the resolution of the card, the ally
is considered a vampire, and vampires don't die when they go to zero
blood. An example would be Drain Essence, which costs 2 blood, but
steals 2 blood. Talaq could play it, drop himself to zero life, and
gain 2 life back. Assuming the combat was at long range and the
opposing minion had no effective strike, this would allow Talaq (or
Rafastio Ghoul, or whatever) to now play a card that should kill them,
but won't because they are a vampire for the purposes of the card.
That follows exactly from the new ruling, exactly the same as sending
an ally to torpor from Burst of Sunlight. Take a point of agg. damage
from a card you play? Go to torpor because that's what a vampire would
do. Burn all your life? Remain alive, because that's also what a
vampire would do. I can see absolutely no difference between those two
situations, as far as how the new ruling applies to them.
And what, exactly, happens to an ally in torpor? Can they still take
actions? After all, a VAMPIRE in torpor cannot take actions, but would
allies be limited the same way?
JSpektr - maybe this can of wyrms should have stayed closed?
LSJ
> So if Rafastio Ghoul with 1 life plays Burst of Sunlight, they go to
> torpor instead of dying? Because a vampire doesn't burn a point of
> blood for the first point of agg. damage, they go to torpor instead.
Right.
> There would seem to be some strange results possible due to this. I
> suppose it would allow you to send a Talaq or Rafastio Ghoul to torpor
> when they should die, where you could use some kind of "burn an ally"
> effect to gain benefit.
Sure.
> Another possible scenario: any ally that can play discipline cards can
> now play one of those cards, and if it costs blood, use their last
> point of life to pay for it. For the resolution of the card, the ally
> is considered a vampire, and vampires don't die when they go to zero
> blood. An example would be Drain Essence, which costs 2 blood, but
> steals 2 blood. Talaq could play it, drop himself to zero life, and
> gain 2 life back. Assuming the combat was at long range and the
> opposing minion had no effective strike, this would allow Talaq (or
> Rafastio Ghoul, or whatever) to now play a card that should kill them,
> but won't because they are a vampire for the purposes of the card.
The ally would burn as soon as he lost his last life (before strike
resolution, if it was a strike card). They're only vampires for the
effects of the resolution of the play of the card, not for other
purposes.
> That follows exactly from the new ruling, exactly the same as sending
> an ally to torpor from Burst of Sunlight. Take a point of agg. damage
> from a card you play? Go to torpor because that's what a vampire would
> do. Burn all your life? Remain alive, because that's also what a
> vampire would do. I can see absolutely no difference between those two
> situations, as far as how the new ruling applies to them.
Difference:
1) agg damage from resolution of card being played as a vampire.
vs.
2) being an ally without life for non-resolution affairs.
> And what, exactly, happens to an ally in torpor? Can they still take
> actions? After all, a VAMPIRE in torpor cannot take actions, but would
> allies be limited the same way?
Yes. Only READY minions can take actions. [6.1]
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Jon Stahler
> As stated before:
>
> He plays the card as a vampire. The card does agg damage to him (as it
> would a vampire). The agg damage sends him to torpor (as it would a
> vampire).
Ok...so since this is the newly accepted model for allies playing discipline
cards, then I imagine a Rafastio Ghoul that plays theft of vitae will only
be able to reap the blood benefits until they have 3 life, at which point
the rest runs off to the blood bank, correct? As you are limited in playing
the theft as a vampire of capacity 3, this would logically follow, but I
want to verify as I haven't seen it discussed in this thread at all (sorry
if I missed someone saying this exact thing). Similar logic applies with
Akhenaten and Kherebutu playing Summon Soul as an action to gain 2 blood,
correct? If so, no more bloating allies...not that you can minion tap them
anyway, but it was a fun concept.
LSJ
They can gain/bloat. The excess doesn't drain off until after (by which time
it's life and there's no capacity with which to compare).
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CD583D2.FD94F678%40white-wolf.com
Sten During
Jon Stahler wrote:
> correct? If so, no more bloating allies...not that you can minion tap them
> anyway, but it was a fun concept.
>
>
>
Don't ask me why anyone should want, but Rave -> Resurrection would make
for an interesting ally-bloat-deck :)
Sten During
jspektr
> jspektr wrote:
> > Another possible scenario: any ally that can play discipline cards can
> > now play one of those cards, and if it costs blood, use their last
> > point of life to pay for it. For the resolution of the card, the ally
> > is considered a vampire, and vampires don't die when they go to zero
> > blood. An example would be Drain Essence, which costs 2 blood, but
> > steals 2 blood. Talaq could play it, drop himself to zero life, and
> > gain 2 life back. Assuming the combat was at long range and the
> > opposing minion had no effective strike, this would allow Talaq (or
> > Rafastio Ghoul, or whatever) to now play a card that should kill them,
> > but won't because they are a vampire for the purposes of the card.
>
> The ally would burn as soon as he lost his last life (before strike
> resolution, if it was a strike card). They're only vampires for the
> effects of the resolution of the play of the card, not for other
> purposes.
This is a major point of confusion. When is something "within the
card" and when is it not? Charming Lobby puts the play of a second
card "within the card" for the Charming Lobby. What marks the point
when Talaq playing Drain Essence is no longer "within the card?" This
ruling forces many situations where the players must debate some very
obscure timing issues.
What if there was a hypothetical card, Really Cryptic Mission, that
cost 1 blood and stole 2 blood from a target vampire? If Talaq played
it when he had 1 life and it was unblocked, would he die or go up to 2
life? If no other effect or card is interrupting the action of the
imaginary Really Cryptic Mission, what marks the point at which he
falls out of his "temporary vampire" state?
Another question: can Akhenaton ever benefit from Summon Soul if he's
at full life? If he plays Summon Soul as a 3-capacity vampire, he
cannot gain more than 3 blood, because vampires discard blood in
excess of their capacity. But allies can have more than their base
life.
JSpektr
LSJ
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD5859B...@white-wolf.com>...
> > jspektr wrote:
>
> > > Another possible scenario: any ally that can play discipline cards can
> > > now play one of those cards, and if it costs blood, use their last
> > > point of life to pay for it. For the resolution of the card, the ally
> > > is considered a vampire, and vampires don't die when they go to zero
> > > blood. An example would be Drain Essence, which costs 2 blood, but
> > > steals 2 blood. Talaq could play it, drop himself to zero life, and
> > > gain 2 life back. Assuming the combat was at long range and the
> > > opposing minion had no effective strike, this would allow Talaq (or
> > > Rafastio Ghoul, or whatever) to now play a card that should kill them,
> > > but won't because they are a vampire for the purposes of the card.
> >
> > The ally would burn as soon as he lost his last life (before strike
> > resolution, if it was a strike card). They're only vampires for the
> > effects of the resolution of the play of the card, not for other
> > purposes.
>
> This is a major point of confusion. When is something "within the
> card" and when is it not? Charming Lobby puts the play of a second
Effects of the card play are stated on the card.
> card "within the card" for the Charming Lobby. What marks the point
> when Talaq playing Drain Essence is no longer "within the card?" This
Nothing. There is no need for such a point.
The line is drawn between effects generated by the resolution of
the play of the card and <everything else - the game at large>.
> ruling forces many situations where the players must debate some very
> obscure timing issues.
Not true.
> What if there was a hypothetical card, Really Cryptic Mission, that
> cost 1 blood and stole 2 blood from a target vampire? If Talaq played
> it when he had 1 life and it was unblocked, would he die or go up to 2
> life? If no other effect or card is interrupting the action of the
> imaginary Really Cryptic Mission, what marks the point at which he
> falls out of his "temporary vampire" state?
As the cost (of an action) is paid at the same time the effects are
applied, he ends with 2 life.
> Another question: can Akhenaton ever benefit from Summon Soul if he's
> at full life? If he plays Summon Soul as a 3-capacity vampire, he
Flawed question. There is no such thing as "full life".
> cannot gain more than 3 blood, because vampires discard blood in
> excess of their capacity. But allies can have more than their base
> life.
As per previous posts, he gains just fine. The part in excess of
his capacity wouldn't drain off until after, by which time he
has no capacity to constrain him.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
jspektr
> jspektr wrote:
> >
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CD5859B...@white-wolf.com>...
> > > jspektr wrote:
>
> > > > Another possible scenario: any ally that can play discipline cards can
> > > > now play one of those cards, and if it costs blood, use their last
> > > > point of life to pay for it. For the resolution of the card, the ally
> > > > is considered a vampire, and vampires don't die when they go to zero
> > > > blood. An example would be Drain Essence, which costs 2 blood, but
> > > > steals 2 blood. Talaq could play it, drop himself to zero life, and
> > > > gain 2 life back. Assuming the combat was at long range and the
> > > > opposing minion had no effective strike, this would allow Talaq (or
> > > > Rafastio Ghoul, or whatever) to now play a card that should kill them,
> > > > but won't because they are a vampire for the purposes of the card.
> > >
> > > The ally would burn as soon as he lost his last life (before strike
> > > resolution, if it was a strike card). They're only vampires for the
> > > effects of the resolution of the play of the card, not for other
> > > purposes.
> >
> > This is a major point of confusion. When is something "within the
> > card" and when is it not? Charming Lobby puts the play of a second
>
> Effects of the card play are stated on the card.
That's not the question, and I think you know that. It is not clear at
all to someone not steeped in the minutae of VTES how the timing of
this works. Do you want to convey the idea that this game is only for
the 15 people reading this message board that understand every tiny
detail of card timing, or that it is a game that is easily
understandable by anyone?
My playgroup has brought in several new people that have never played
before. They picked up the basics easily enough, which is one of the
strengths of the game. How am I supposed to explain this ruling to
them when it doesn't even make sense to the seasoned pros on this
newsgroup? That's not the way to attract new players and grow the
game.
>
> > card "within the card" for the Charming Lobby. What marks the point
> > when Talaq playing Drain Essence is no longer "within the card?" This
>
> Nothing. There is no need for such a point.
I disagree. If there was no need, this confusion would not exist, and
we would not be having this discussion. Again, please explain what
actually determines the beginning and end point of the "as a vampire"
status.
>
> The line is drawn between effects generated by the resolution of
> the play of the card and <everything else - the game at large>.
>
> > ruling forces many situations where the players must debate some very
> > obscure timing issues.
>
> Not true.
Again, I disagree. The fact that this thread, and the other like it,
even exist is proof that these debates will arise during the game. If
the people that have a deep understanding of VTES on this newsgroup
are confused and agruing, I cannot see how the same won't be true of
more casual players.
>
> > What if there was a hypothetical card, Really Cryptic Mission, that
> > cost 1 blood and stole 2 blood from a target vampire? If Talaq played
> > it when he had 1 life and it was unblocked, would he die or go up to 2
> > life? If no other effect or card is interrupting the action of the
> > imaginary Really Cryptic Mission, what marks the point at which he
> > falls out of his "temporary vampire" state?
>
> As the cost (of an action) is paid at the same time the effects are
> applied, he ends with 2 life.
How can this be true when an ally that plays a card that reduces them
to zero in combat burns? Clearly the ally must first pay to go to zero
life, then get the life back, which means there is a point at which
they survive with zero life.
I understand that the cost for the card in combat is paid immediately,
but your ruling on Burst of Sunlight indicates that for the purposes
of the card, the ally is a vampire until the end of damage resolution,
which would mean that barring additional damage, an ally would not
burn from spending to zero life until after damage resolution.
Otherwise, the duration of the "as a vampire" state is different for
different cards, which is ridiculous.
>
> > Another question: can Akhenaton ever benefit from Summon Soul if he's
> > at full life? If he plays Summon Soul as a 3-capacity vampire, he
>
> Flawed question. There is no such thing as "full life".
I believe you understand what I was asking, and are equivocating on
purpose.
If Akenaton has 3 life ("full life" which I think was clear from the
context), and plays Summon Soul as a vampire of capacity 3, he cannot
gain additional life because blood in excess of capacity is discarded.
This follows logically from your ruling.
>
> > cannot gain more than 3 blood, because vampires discard blood in
> > excess of their capacity. But allies can have more than their base
> > life.
>
> As per previous posts, he gains just fine. The part in excess of
> his capacity wouldn't drain off until after, by which time he
> has no capacity to constrain him.
I find this completely inconsistant. You have said the following:
When an ally plays a card to gain blood, they are "outside the card"
and not a vampire when they receive the blood.
When an ally plays a card that costs blood to gain blood, and go to
zero life due to the card cost, they are "inside the card" and still a
vampire when they receive the blood.
When an ally plays a card that costs blood in combat, and go to zero
life as a result, they are "outside the card" and not a vampire before
strike resolution, and burn.
When an ally plays a card that does aggravated damage to them in
combat, they are "inside the card" and still a vampire until after
strike resolution and go to torpor.
Do you understand why this is confusing people? Please explain how
what you have said is not contradictory. Heck, just tell me what the
rules that determine when an ally is and is not a vampire are, and how
they result in what you have said above!
JSpektr- I should be coding right now...
LSJ
> > > What if there was a hypothetical card, Really Cryptic Mission, that
> > > cost 1 blood and stole 2 blood from a target vampire? If Talaq played
> > > it when he had 1 life and it was unblocked, would he die or go up to 2
> > > life? If no other effect or card is interrupting the action of the
> > > imaginary Really Cryptic Mission, what marks the point at which he
> > > falls out of his "temporary vampire" state?
> >
> > As the cost (of an action) is paid at the same time the effects are
> > applied, he ends with 2 life.
>
> How can this be true when an ally that plays a card that reduces them
> to zero in combat burns? Clearly the ally must first pay to go to zero
> life, then get the life back, which means there is a point at which
> they survive with zero life.
If the ally is reduced to zero life in combat or out of combat, he burns.
Cards in general a pay-for-play-and-resolve. Exceptions to this are
actions (play and then later pay-for-resolve) and strike cards (pay-for-play
and then later resolve).
The example that you're overstating is the strike card example.
In typical (cost-paid-simultaneously-with-effect) cases, the situation
is different.
> I understand that the cost for the card in combat is paid immediately,
> but your ruling on Burst of Sunlight indicates that for the purposes
> of the card, the ally is a vampire until the end of damage resolution,
> which would mean that barring additional damage, an ally would not
> burn from spending to zero life until after damage resolution.
If *the card* wanted to burn him, right. But the card's effect isn't the
thing that burns him. Being an empty ally burns him. This is not an
effect generated by the card. This is an effect generated by the world
(the rules).
For example, if allies in general were allowed to live at zero life
and then, on top of that, there was an "Ally-Anathema" card in play
that said "Put this card on an ally. If this ally has zero life, burn
him.", then the effect would be similar. He plays (and pays for) a
card as a vampire. But, then finding the ally at zero life, the
Ally-Anathema effect occurs.
In the actual game, every ally effectively has an Ally-Anathema card
on him at all times.
> Otherwise, the duration of the "as a vampire" state is different for
> different cards, which is ridiculous.
There is no duration. There is not time at which his state is changed.
The "as a vampire" describes how the effects of the play of the card
are handled. That is all.
> If Akenaton has 3 life ("full life" which I think was clear from the
> context), and plays Summon Soul as a vampire of capacity 3, he cannot
> gain additional life because blood in excess of capacity is discarded.
> This follows logically from your ruling.
Answered in previous post, quoted below.
> > > cannot gain more than 3 blood, because vampires discard blood in
> > > excess of their capacity. But allies can have more than their base
> > > life.
> >
> > As per previous posts, he gains just fine. The part in excess of
> > his capacity wouldn't drain off until after, by which time he
> > has no capacity to constrain him.
>
> I find this completely inconsistant. You have said the following:
>
> When an ally plays a card to gain blood, they are "outside the card"
> and not a vampire when they receive the blood.
I have not said that.
> When an ally plays a card that costs blood to gain blood, and go to
> zero life due to the card cost, they are "inside the card" and still a
> vampire when they receive the blood.
I have not said that.
> When an ally plays a card that costs blood in combat, and go to zero
> life as a result, they are "outside the card" and not a vampire before
> strike resolution, and burn.
I have not said that.
> When an ally plays a card that does aggravated damage to them in
> combat, they are "inside the card" and still a vampire until after
> strike resolution and go to torpor.
Except for the poor choice of words, this is very close to what I
have said. Properly stated: When the ally plays a card as a vampire,
then as a vampire is how he plays the card. If the play of the card
inflicts aggravated damage on him as a vampire, then as a vampire
is how the aggravated damage is inflicted on him. That results in
torpor (as a vampire) unless the damage is prevented.
> Do you understand why this is confusing people? Please explain how
> what you have said is not contradictory. Heck, just tell me what the
> rules that determine when an ally is and is not a vampire are, and how
> they result in what you have said above!
Allies are never vampires.
Allies that can play cards as vampires may play cards as vampires.
If, as a vampire, the ally plays a card whose resolution has some
effect on him, then that effect treats him as a vampire, since as
a vampire is how he plays it.
Raille
jspektr wrote:
>
> If Burst of Sunlight said "Inflict 1 aggravated damage as a strike,
> this vampire goes to torpor after combat" then I could see it. But
> once the strike resolution phase is reached, wouldn't the card be
> finished and the ally would be treated as an ally?
>
Of course.
Unless your LSJ
Raille
Raille
LSJ wrote:
>
> Right. The GST treats the US effect as a vampire (which is meaningless,
> since the US has no further effect on the GST). He doesn't treat the BoS
> as a vampire.
Why?
I'm seeing some inconsistancy here.
Raille
LSJ
>
> LSJ wrote:
> >
> > Right. The GST treats the US effect as a vampire (which is meaningless,
> > since the US has no further effect on the GST). He doesn't treat the BoS
> > as a vampire.
>
> Why?
Direct application of printed card text/rules.
> I'm seeing some inconsistancy here.
You're hallucinating.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Raille
LSJ wrote:
>
> You're hallucinating.
>
Not the first time.
Probably not the last.
Raille
Raille
azraiel wrote:
>
> Talaq attempts an action (which one is irrelevant) and is blocked by
> Raven.
> Talaq strikes with Burst of Sunlight. Raven hand strikes with Wolf
> Claws.
>
> We now have this absurd sequence:
> Talaq is an ally. Talaq plays Burst and is considered a vampire.
> Raven's controller wishes to play Rotschrek. Rotschrek checks for
> valid targets and finds none, as Talaq is an ally.
> Damage resolves. Talaq takes 1 agg as he is a vampire (Burst). Talaq
> also takes 1 agg from Claws, but that agg is considered normal as
> Talaq is an ally.
>
AAGGGHHHHH, your making my head hurt!
Raille
jspektr
> jspektr wrote:
> > > As the cost (of an action) is paid at the same time the effects are
> > > applied, he ends with 2 life.
> >
> > How can this be true when an ally that plays a card that reduces them
> > to zero in combat burns? Clearly the ally must first pay to go to zero
> > life, then get the life back, which means there is a point at which
> > they survive with zero life.
>
> If the ally is reduced to zero life in combat or out of combat, he burns.
>
> Cards in general a pay-for-play-and-resolve. Exceptions to this are
> actions (play and then later pay-for-resolve) and strike cards (pay-for-play
> and then later resolve).
>
> The example that you're overstating is the strike card example.
>
> In typical (cost-paid-simultaneously-with-effect) cases, the situation
> is different.
Isn't the example we're talking about a hypothetical "Really Cryptic
Mission" card that costs one blood and steals 2? Isn't this an action,
which would mean you are incorrect in saying the ally would not burn?
You just said actions are paid for then resolve, but also said an ally
paying for "Really Cryptic Mission" to go to zero blood, then
resolving separately would not die.
Explain?
>
> > I understand that the cost for the card in combat is paid immediately,
> > but your ruling on Burst of Sunlight indicates that for the purposes
> > of the card, the ally is a vampire until the end of damage resolution,
> > which would mean that barring additional damage, an ally would not
> > burn from spending to zero life until after damage resolution.
>
> If *the card* wanted to burn him, right. But the card's effect isn't the
> thing that burns him. Being an empty ally burns him. This is not an
> effect generated by the card. This is an effect generated by the world
> (the rules).
Being empty is an effect of the card, just like receiving one point of
aggravated damage is. I fail to see the difference. Going to torpor is
NOT an effect of a card that inflicts aggravated damage. Burst of
Sunlight, unless it's been drastically rewritten, does NOT say "go to
torpor." Inflicting aggravated damage is it's effect, and there are
innumerable ways a vampire can get around going to torpor because of
it (flak jacket, fortitude modifiers, Heart of Darkness, being Merril
Molitor, etc.).
I fail to see how the "allies take aggravated damage as normal damage"
rule is different than a vampire that has a special power to prevent
or ignore aggravated damage. The ally is simply treated as a vampire
with the special powers of an ally.
You are combining the effects of the cards (go to zero blood, take 1
agg.) with the effects of the effects (stay alive at zero blood, go to
torpor), but only applying the second set of effects when it involves
torpor. That seems to be an abitrary distinction.
> > > As per previous posts, he gains just fine. The part in excess of
> > > his capacity wouldn't drain off until after, by which time he
> > > has no capacity to constrain him.
> >
> > I find this completely inconsistant. You have said the following:
> >
> > When an ally plays a card to gain blood, they are "outside the card"
> > and not a vampire when they receive the blood.
>
> I have not said that.
You did. You said Akhenatan gains life from Summon Soul. This makes
gaining the life not part of the card, and thus gaining the blood
treats him as an ally, not as a vampire.
> > When an ally plays a card that costs blood to gain blood, and go to
> > zero life due to the card cost, they are "inside the card" and still a
> > vampire when they receive the blood.
>
> I have not said that.
You did. You said that if an ally played a hypothetical action card
that stole 2 blood but cost 1 ("Really Cryptic Mission"), they would
not burn.
> > When an ally plays a card that costs blood in combat, and go to zero
> > life as a result, they are "outside the card" and not a vampire before
> > strike resolution, and burn.
>
> I have not said that.]
You did. You said it in the beginning of the post I am quoting now.
You said that if an ally goes to zero blood as the result of paying
the cost of a card in combat, they burn.
> > When an ally plays a card that does aggravated damage to them in
> > combat, they are "inside the card" and still a vampire until after
> > strike resolution and go to torpor.
>
> Except for the poor choice of words, this is very close to what I
> have said. Properly stated: When the ally plays a card as a vampire,
> then as a vampire is how he plays the card. If the play of the card
> inflicts aggravated damage on him as a vampire, then as a vampire
> is how the aggravated damage is inflicted on him. That results in
> torpor (as a vampire) unless the damage is prevented.
All vampires that take aggravated damage do not go to torpor. Thus,
allies do not automatically go to torpor. There is no rule that states
if a vampire takes aggravated damage, they go to torpor no matter
what. Instead, the rule is that they go to torpor unless some other
effect or property of the vampire prevents that from happening.
In this case, the effect or property is the rule that allies take
aggravated damage as if it was normal. Nowhere on the ally cards does
it say "play as a vampire that has none of the special properties
granted to an ally". As those special properties are not explicitly
removed, I see no reason they would be gone.
>
> Allies that can play cards as vampires may play cards as vampires.
> If, as a vampire, the ally plays a card whose resolution has some
> effect on him, then that effect treats him as a vampire, since as
> a vampire is how he plays it.
How is
"the resolution is that he takes aggravated damage, which sometimes
sends a vampire to torpor, sometimes not, so the ally goes to torpor
because they're treated as a vampire even though a vampire wouldn't
always go there, where they normally cannot possibly go"
and
"the resolution is that he goes to zero blood, which doesn't hurt a
vampire at all, but because the ally is treated as a vampire they burn
even though a vampire wouldn't do that, unless, of course, this is a
card that is paid for and resolves simultaneously, in which case they
don't burn, even though they are at zero blood for some tiny instant"
not going to confuse people? I consider myself reasonably knowledgable
about the rules, and it confuses the hell out of me, and makes me
angry that the game makes no sense now (at least to me). How is this
supposed to make sense to people that are less steeped in VTES
minutae?
JSpektr - we'll keep playing, I'm sure. We'll just ignore this ruling
until a better one comes out.
Raille
LSJ wrote:
>
> As stated elsewhere (in response to a viable alternative), this
> topic is back on the list for review.
Which means I can ignore the remaining 23999 posts on this Allies/torpor
thing
Huzza!
Raille
lactamaeon
> Mission" card that costs one blood and steals 2? Isn't this an action,
> which would mean you are incorrect in saying the ally would not burn?
> You just said actions are paid for then resolve, but also said an ally
> paying for "Really Cryptic Mission" to go to zero blood, then
> resolving separately would not die.
>
> Explain?
The action card resolves at the same time as its costs are paid [LSJ
above].
> Being empty is an effect of the card, just like receiving one point of
> aggravated damage is. I fail to see the difference. Going to torpor is
> NOT an effect of a card that inflicts aggravated damage. Burst of
> Sunlight, unless it's been drastically rewritten, does NOT say "go to
> torpor." Inflicting aggravated damage is it's effect, and there are
> innumerable ways a vampire can get around going to torpor because of
> it (flak jacket, fortitude modifiers, Heart of Darkness, being Merril
> Molitor, etc.).
Having no life, an ally burns. Having no life is not an effect of a
card, it is a result of paying the cost of the card. Taking agg damage
is an effect of the card.
> I fail to see how the "allies take aggravated damage as normal damage"
> rule is different than a vampire that has a special power to prevent
> or ignore aggravated damage. The ally is simply treated as a vampire
> with the special powers of an ally.
>
> You are combining the effects of the cards (go to zero blood, take 1
> agg.) with the effects of the effects (stay alive at zero blood, go to
> torpor), but only applying the second set of effects when it involves
> torpor. That seems to be an abitrary distinction.
See above.
> You did. You said Akhenatan gains life from Summon Soul. This makes
> gaining the life not part of the card, and thus gaining the blood
> treats him as an ally, not as a vampire.
Card text - "if the card would give him blood, give him life instead."
Summon Soul treats him like a vampire, his card text does the rest.
> > > When an ally plays a card that costs blood to gain blood, and go to
> > > zero life due to the card cost, they are "inside the card" and still a
> > > vampire when they receive the blood.
> >
> > I have not said that.
>
> You did. You said that if an ally played a hypothetical action card
> that stole 2 blood but cost 1 ("Really Cryptic Mission"), they would
> not burn.
See above.
> > > When an ally plays a card that costs blood in combat, and go to zero
> > > life as a result, they are "outside the card" and not a vampire before
> > > strike resolution, and burn.
> >
> > I have not said that.]
>
> You did. You said it in the beginning of the post I am quoting now.
> You said that if an ally goes to zero blood as the result of paying
> the cost of a card in combat, they burn.
See above.
> > > When an ally plays a card that does aggravated damage to them in
> > > combat, they are "inside the card" and still a vampire until after
> > > strike resolution and go to torpor.
> >
> > Except for the poor choice of words, this is very close to what I
> > have said. Properly stated: When the ally plays a card as a vampire,
> > then as a vampire is how he plays the card. If the play of the card
> > inflicts aggravated damage on him as a vampire, then as a vampire
> > is how the aggravated damage is inflicted on him. That results in
> > torpor (as a vampire) unless the damage is prevented.
>
> All vampires that take aggravated damage do not go to torpor. Thus,
> allies do not automatically go to torpor. There is no rule that states
> if a vampire takes aggravated damage, they go to torpor no matter
> what. Instead, the rule is that they go to torpor unless some other
> effect or property of the vampire prevents that from happening.
All vampires that do not have special text or damage-prevention
abilities go to torpor. An ally that takes aggravated damage as a
vampire suffers the same consequences.
An ally that could play both Skin of Night and Burst of Sunlight
should take it as normal damage, I think. LSJ?
> In this case, the effect or property is the rule that allies take
> aggravated damage as if it was normal. Nowhere on the ally cards does
> it say "play as a vampire that has none of the special properties
> granted to an ally". As those special properties are not explicitly
> removed, I see no reason they would be gone.
"Any remaining damage (damage that was not prevented) is successfully
inflicted. The damage is then healed (if the victim is a vampire) or
causes a loss of life points (if the victim is an ally or retainer)."
[6.4.6]
Since BoS treats the ally as a vampire, the damage must be healed. See
the rest of the rules for the consequences of unhealed damage.
> How is
>
> "the resolution is that he takes aggravated damage, which sometimes
> sends a vampire to torpor, sometimes not, so the ally goes to torpor
> because they're treated as a vampire even though a vampire wouldn't
> always go there, where they normally cannot possibly go"
>
> and
>
> "the resolution is that he goes to zero blood, which doesn't hurt a
> vampire at all, but because the ally is treated as a vampire they burn
> even though a vampire wouldn't do that, unless, of course, this is a
> card that is paid for and resolves simultaneously, in which case they
> don't burn, even though they are at zero blood for some tiny instant"
Cost is not part of resolution. Sometimes, resolution and cost are
simultaneous (actions, action modifiers, etc). Sometimes, they are not
(strikes). If a cost reduces you to zero life and there is no
simultaneous effect to give you back a life, you burn.
Lactamaeon.
tetragrammaton
"lactamaeon" <newq...@rose-hulman.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:786c1f73.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > Isn't the example we're talking about a hypothetical "Really Cryptic
> > Mission" card that costs one blood and steals 2? Isn't this an action,
> > which would mean you are incorrect in saying the ally would not burn?
> > You just said actions are paid for then resolve, but also said an ally
> > paying for "Really Cryptic Mission" to go to zero blood, then
> > resolving separately would not die.
> >
> > Explain?
>
> The action card resolves at the same time as its costs are paid [LSJ
> above].
>
> > Being empty is an effect of the card, just like receiving one point of
> > aggravated damage is. I fail to see the difference. Going to torpor is
> > NOT an effect of a card that inflicts aggravated damage. Burst of
> > Sunlight, unless it's been drastically rewritten, does NOT say "go to
> > torpor." Inflicting aggravated damage is it's effect, and there are
> > innumerable ways a vampire can get around going to torpor because of
> > it (flak jacket, fortitude modifiers, Heart of Darkness, being Merril
> > Molitor, etc.).
>
> Having no life, an ally burns. Having no life is not an effect of a
> card, it is a result of paying the cost of the card. Taking agg damage
> is an effect of the card.
Yes, as it is stealing the blood via Theft of Vitae.
Isn't ?
The only incosistent point still lies in that, imho:
ally plays BoS, the agg damage from the card treat it as a vampire, and that
ally
gop to torpor.
ally plays ToV, the blood gained by the card *don't* treat him as a vampire,
and the ally can gain more blood(life) than is X capacity (since he/s
playing
as a vampire of X capacity).
Emiliano
<snip>
LSJ
> All vampires that do not have special text or damage-prevention
> abilities go to torpor. An ally that takes aggravated damage as a
> vampire suffers the same consequences.
>
> An ally that could play both Skin of Night and Burst of Sunlight
> should take it as normal damage, I think. LSJ?
Correct.
[snip lengthy correct restatement of the points I had previously made
for the benfit of the questioner who had missed them - thanks for
all the typing, lactamaeon]
Ulugh Beg
L O L :-) . hi m8, i don愒 think that u are hallucinated, i think like
u The rule is insconsistente, if the effect is applicated when
resolve strike , as can play un charm looby un ally as Helard??
maybe that i 惴 hallucinated too ;-)
Yours :
Ulugh Beg( IC TREMERE?????!!! ))) yes plz yeesssssssssss!!!
jspektr
> > Being empty is an effect of the card, just like receiving one point of
> > aggravated damage is. I fail to see the difference. Going to torpor is
> > NOT an effect of a card that inflicts aggravated damage. Burst of
> > Sunlight, unless it's been drastically rewritten, does NOT say "go to
> > torpor." Inflicting aggravated damage is it's effect, and there are
> > innumerable ways a vampire can get around going to torpor because of
> > it (flak jacket, fortitude modifiers, Heart of Darkness, being Merril
> > Molitor, etc.).
>
> Having no life, an ally burns. Having no life is not an effect of a
> card, it is a result of paying the cost of the card. Taking agg damage
> is an effect of the card.
True, but going to torpor is not. The point stands.
> All vampires that do not have special text or damage-prevention
> abilities go to torpor. An ally that takes aggravated damage as a
> vampire suffers the same consequences.
So if it's not printed on the card (ie: the way allies treat agg.
damage), it's ignored by other cards? Nowhere in the "as a vampire"
does it say "as a vampire that loses all inherent abilities possessed
already by this minion".
Perhaps you're suggesting that for the purposes of being "as a
vampire" they are "as a vampire that is totally generic". Which would
mean they no longer have the life, strength, special powers or
anything else that the ally has. If Akhenaton played a hypothetical
Necromancy card, "Necropummel," that did Strength +1 damage, would he
do 2 damage or 5? If he ignores his special ability to treat
aggravated damage as normal, would he not also ignore his other
special abilities when "as a vampire?"
> An ally that could play both Skin of Night and Burst of Sunlight
> should take it as normal damage, I think. LSJ?
>
> > In this case, the effect or property is the rule that allies take
> > aggravated damage as if it was normal. Nowhere on the ally cards does
> > it say "play as a vampire that has none of the special properties
> > granted to an ally". As those special properties are not explicitly
> > removed, I see no reason they would be gone.
>
> "Any remaining damage (damage that was not prevented) is successfully
> inflicted. The damage is then healed (if the victim is a vampire) or
> causes a loss of life points (if the victim is an ally or retainer)."
> [6.4.6]
>
> Since BoS treats the ally as a vampire, the damage must be healed. See
> the rest of the rules for the consequences of unhealed damage.
Good of you to point out. Allies cannot heal damage, as they have no
blood, and their card text does not grant them blood. Therefor all
allies go to torpor whenever they use a discipline card that does them
damage, aggravated or not. By your own agruement, Rutor's Hand and
Burst of Sunlight would never cause a loss of life to the acting ally,
because it treats them as a vampire, not an ally.
> Cost is not part of resolution. Sometimes, resolution and cost are
> simultaneous (actions, action modifiers, etc). Sometimes, they are not
> (strikes). If a cost reduces you to zero life and there is no
> simultaneous effect to give you back a life, you burn.
And going to torpor is not part of taking aggravated damage. The most
likely effect? Yes. But not an inherent part of it. If it was, there'd
be no reason to have it, all aggravated cards would just say "go to
torpor" instead of "take X aggravated damage."
JSpektr
LSJ
>
> newq...@rose-hulman.edu (lactamaeon) wrote in message news:<786c1f73.02050...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > Being empty is an effect of the card, just like receiving one point of
> > > aggravated damage is. I fail to see the difference. Going to torpor is
> > > NOT an effect of a card that inflicts aggravated damage. Burst of
> > > Sunlight, unless it's been drastically rewritten, does NOT say "go to
> > > torpor." Inflicting aggravated damage is it's effect, and there are
> > > innumerable ways a vampire can get around going to torpor because of
> > > it (flak jacket, fortitude modifiers, Heart of Darkness, being Merril
> > > Molitor, etc.).
> >
> > Having no life, an ally burns. Having no life is not an effect of a
> > card, it is a result of paying the cost of the card. Taking agg damage
> > is an effect of the card.
>
> True, but going to torpor is not. The point stands.
Card play -> agg damage inflicted -> agg damage handled -> torpor
"as a vampire".
This point has already been repeatedly answered.
> > All vampires that do not have special text or damage-prevention
> > abilities go to torpor. An ally that takes aggravated damage as a
> > vampire suffers the same consequences.
>
> So if it's not printed on the card (ie: the way allies treat agg.
> damage), it's ignored by other cards? Nowhere in the "as a vampire"
> does it say "as a vampire that loses all inherent abilities possessed
> already by this minion".
>
> Perhaps you're suggesting that for the purposes of being "as a
> vampire" they are "as a vampire that is totally generic". Which would
> mean they no longer have the life, strength, special powers or
> anything else that the ally has. If Akhenaton played a hypothetical
> Necromancy card, "Necropummel," that did Strength +1 damage, would he
> do 2 damage or 5? If he ignores his special ability to treat
> aggravated damage as normal, would he not also ignore his other
> special abilities when "as a vampire?"
What special ability are you imagining on a Rafastio Ghoul that would
keep him out of torpor if he took aggravated damage as a vampire?
[...]
> > Cost is not part of resolution. Sometimes, resolution and cost are
> > simultaneous (actions, action modifiers, etc). Sometimes, they are not
> > (strikes). If a cost reduces you to zero life and there is no
> > simultaneous effect to give you back a life, you burn.
>
> And going to torpor is not part of taking aggravated damage. The most
Yes, it is. [6.4.6]
> likely effect? Yes. But not an inherent part of it. If it was, there'd
> be no reason to have it, all aggravated cards would just say "go to
> torpor" instead of "take X aggravated damage."
That fact that it isn't automatic doesn't mean it isn't a part.
A Computer Hacking can be blocked. That doesn't mean that the
pool loss if it is successful is not an inherent part of the action.
Sure the damage could be prevented or not.
It is still done as part of the resolution of the card.