Rules Questions (LSJ or anyone)
tinkrb...@my-deja.com
So we were playing some marathon games last night and a couple of
questions came up...
QUESTION 1: 2 minions with blood on them (The acting Vamp, Vamp A had 2
blood and Blocking Vamp, Vamp B had 1) are in combat. Range is close
and Vamp A declares his strike is "Entombment" paying his two blood to
play it. Vamp B play his strike as "Burst of Sunlight" at inferior.
What would the resolution of this combat be? Would both combatants end
up in torpor? Would Vamp A end up burned? Would Vamp A's strike take
effect and therefore Vamp B's strike has no effect? and if Vamp B goes
to torpor and his strike has no effect, why, then, doesn't the cardtext
read: "Strike: Combat ends. Opposing vampire goes to torpor"?
CARD TEXT:
Entombment [Sabbat, SW]
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 2 blood
Discipline: Obtenebration
Strike: burn the opposing ally. (S) Strike: send the opposing vampire
into torpor.
Burst of Sunlight [Jyhad, V:TES]
Cardtype: Combat
Discipline: Thaumaturgy
Strike: 1R, aggravated, to all vampires in combat. (S) Strike: 2R,
aggravated, to all vampires in combat
QUESTION 2: Player 1 declares a bleed against Player 2, Player 2
declares that Angelica the Canonicus is blocking. Player 1 adds
stealth, so Angelica burns a Master Card for +1 intercept. If Player 1
adds more stealth, can Player 2 continue to burn Master Cards for more
intercept as needed or can she burn only 1 card when the original
+1 stealth is added? And if she can only burn X cards once each time
she attempts to block, is each time she adds Intercept considered a new
blocking attempt? (i.e. Player 1 adds +2 stealth through 2 different
cards, therefore Angelica needs to burn a total of 3 Master Cards -
because she burned 1 card for +1 intercept and then had to burn 2
different cards because the first +1 Intercept was in her FIRST blocking
attempt and she needs +2 intercept for her second attempt)
CARD TEXT:
Angelica, The Canonicus [Sabbat, SW]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Lasombra
Capacity: 10
Discipline: DOM OBT POT cel obf
Sabbat Cardinal: Once each time Angelica attempts to block, you may burn
X master cards from your hand to give her +X intercept.
Thanks in advance for any help!
Mari
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Derek Ray
>Hi everyone :)
>
>So we were playing some marathon games last night and a couple of
>questions came up...
>
>QUESTION 1: 2 minions with blood on them (The acting Vamp, Vamp A had 2
>blood and Blocking Vamp, Vamp B had 1) are in combat. Range is close
>and Vamp A declares his strike is "Entombment" paying his two blood to
>play it. Vamp B play his strike as "Burst of Sunlight" at inferior.
>What would the resolution of this combat be? Would both combatants end
>up in torpor? Would Vamp A end up burned? Would Vamp A's strike take
>effect and therefore Vamp B's strike has no effect? and if Vamp B goes
>to torpor and his strike has no effect, why, then, doesn't the cardtext
>read: "Strike: Combat ends. Opposing vampire goes to torpor"?
Strikes normally resolve simultaneously.
In this case, Vamp A takes a point of aggravated damage while at 0
blood, becomes wounded, and goes to torpor. (If Burst of Sunlight had
been played at superior, he would burn, as the second point of agg
would require him to burn blood to prevent destruction, and he has
none.)
Vamp B ALSO takes a point of aggravated damage, and he suffers the
effects of a "Go to torpor" card. He may either go to torpor from the
Entombment, and then burn a blood to prevent destruction from the
Burst of Sunlight, or go to torpor from the Burst of Sunlight, and
then the Entombment will have no additional effect. Only difference;
he'll have 0 blood left in the first instance, and 1 blood in the
second.
>QUESTION 2: Player 1 declares a bleed against Player 2, Player 2
>declares that Angelica the Canonicus is blocking. Player 1 adds
>stealth, so Angelica burns a Master Card for +1 intercept. If Player 1
>adds more stealth, can Player 2 continue to burn Master Cards for more
>intercept as needed or can she burn only 1 card when the original
>+1 stealth is added? And if she can only burn X cards once each time
>she attempts to block, is each time she adds Intercept considered a new
>blocking attempt? (i.e. Player 1 adds +2 stealth through 2 different
>cards, therefore Angelica needs to burn a total of 3 Master Cards -
>because she burned 1 card for +1 intercept and then had to burn 2
>different cards because the first +1 Intercept was in her FIRST blocking
>attempt and she needs +2 intercept for her second attempt)
Her card text, "Once each time she attempts to block" implies "once
per action". In this case, she would not be able to continue to burn
Master cards after someone added additional stealth.
I believe she WOULD be able to burn extra Master cards during her
"once", however, as her special ability is a single effect; so she
could drop 3 Masters and gain +3 intercept, even though she only
needed one. Normally the rules prevent you from playing multiple
effects to gain more intercept than you need; but playing superior
Enhanced Senses to block a +1 stealth action is legal since it is a
single effect, and I believe this would be as well.
-- Derek
Goon-of-the-Month club member
"In a MAN's game, you tap things that block." -- F. Scott, 2001
Gomi no Sensei
Hi!
>QUESTION 1: 2 minions with blood on them (The acting Vamp, Vamp A had 2
>blood and Blocking Vamp, Vamp B had 1) are in combat. Range is close
>and Vamp A declares his strike is "Entombment" paying his two blood to
>play it. Vamp B play his strike as "Burst of Sunlight" at inferior.
>What would the resolution of this combat be? Would both combatants end
>up in torpor? Would Vamp A end up burned? Would Vamp A's strike take
>effect and therefore Vamp B's strike has no effect? and if Vamp B goes
>to torpor and his strike has no effect, why, then, doesn't the cardtext
>read: "Strike: Combat ends. Opposing vampire goes to torpor"?
All strikes resolve simultaneously, but damage is resolved after other
effects. So Vampire B becomes wounded due to Entombment, then burns 1
blood to prevent destruction from the 1 aggravated damage caused by
Burst of Sunlight. Vampire B goes to torpor, empty. Vampire A takes 1
aggravated damage from Burst of Sunlight and becomes 'wounded,' going
to torpor empty.
>QUESTION 2: Player 1 declares a bleed against Player 2, Player 2
>declares that Angelica the Canonicus is blocking. Player 1 adds
>stealth, so Angelica burns a Master Card for +1 intercept. If Player 1
>adds more stealth, can Player 2 continue to burn Master Cards for more
>intercept as needed or can she burn only 1 card when the original
>+1 stealth is added? And if she can only burn X cards once each time
>she attempts to block, is each time she adds Intercept considered a new
>blocking attempt? (i.e. Player 1 adds +2 stealth through 2 different
>cards, therefore Angelica needs to burn a total of 3 Master Cards -
>because she burned 1 card for +1 intercept and then had to burn 2
>different cards because the first +1 Intercept was in her FIRST blocking
>attempt and she needs +2 intercept for her second attempt)
You know, I had a good answer here, but as I read it I kept realizing
it was more and more incorrect. So I'm just stumped.
gomi
--
PART II: WHAT DOSE DIRECT X 8.00 HAEV THAT TEH OTHARS DIDANT NOT INCLUDE?
many things, stuped!!! but they dont work
-Jeff K.
LSJ
> tinkrb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >QUESTION 1: 2 minions with blood on them (Vamp A had 2
> >blood and Blocking Vamp, Vamp B had 1) are in combat. Range is close
> >and Vamp A declares his strike is "Entombment" paying his two blood
> >to play it. Vamp B play his strike as "Burst of Sunlight" at
> >inferior.
> >What would the resolution of this combat be? Would both combatants
> > end up in torpor? Would Vamp A end up burned? Would Vamp A's
> >strike take effect and therefore Vamp B's strike has no effect?
> >and if Vamp B goes to torpor and his strike has no effect,
> >why, then, doesn't the cardtext read: "Strike: Combat ends.
> >Opposing vampire goes to torpor"?
>
> Strikes normally resolve simultaneously.
>
> In this case, Vamp A takes a point of aggravated damage while at 0
> blood, becomes wounded, and goes to torpor. (If Burst of Sunlight had
> been played at superior, he would burn, as the second point of agg
> would require him to burn blood to prevent destruction, and he has
> none.)
Right.
> Vamp B ALSO takes a point of aggravated damage, and he suffers the
> effects of a "Go to torpor" card. He may either go to torpor from the
> Entombment, and then burn a blood to prevent destruction from the
> Burst of Sunlight, or go to torpor from the Burst of Sunlight, and
> then the Entombment will have no additional effect. Only difference;
> he'll have 0 blood left in the first instance, and 1 blood in the
> second.
No. The effects of the strike are applied and then damage is handled.
So Entombment sends the vampire on his way to torpor and 1 agg is
applied to him. He then must handle the damage. The 1 agg will burn
him, since he's already wounded by the Entombment, so he must burn a
blood to prevent his destruction.
> >QUESTION 2: Player 1 declares a bleed against Player 2, Player 2
> >declares that Angelica the Canonicus is blocking. Player 1 adds
> >stealth, so Angelica burns a Master Card for +1 intercept. If Player
> >1 adds more stealth, can Player 2 continue to burn Master Cards for
> >more intercept as needed or can she burn only 1 card when the
> >original +1 stealth is added? And if she can only burn X cards once
> >each time she attempts to block, is each time she adds Intercept
> >considered a new blocking attempt? (i.e. Player 1 adds +2 stealth
> >through 2 different cards, therefore Angelica needs to burn a total
> >of 3 Master Cards - because she burned 1 card for +1 intercept and
> >then had to burn 2 different cards because the first +1 Intercept was
> >in her FIRST blocking attempt and she needs +2 intercept for her
> >second attempt)
>
> Her card text, "Once each time she attempts to block" implies "once
> per action". In this case, she would not be able to continue to burn
> Master cards after someone added additional stealth.
Correct.
> I believe she WOULD be able to burn extra Master cards during her
> "once", however, as her special ability is a single effect; so she
> could drop 3 Masters and gain +3 intercept, even though she only
> needed one. Normally the rules prevent you from playing multiple
> effects to gain more intercept than you need; but playing superior
> Enhanced Senses to block a +1 stealth action is legal since it is a
> single effect, and I believe this would be as well.
Correct.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
vol...@my-deja.com
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > tinkrb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >QUESTION 1: 2 minions with blood on them (Vamp A had 2
> > >blood and Blocking Vamp, Vamp B had 1) are in combat. Range is
close
> > >and Vamp A declares his strike is "Entombment" paying his two blood
> > >to play it. Vamp B play his strike as "Burst of Sunlight" at
> > >inferior.
> > >What would the resolution of this combat be? Would both combatants
> > > end up in torpor? Would Vamp A end up burned? Would Vamp A's
> > >strike take effect and therefore Vamp B's strike has no effect?
> > >and if Vamp B goes to torpor and his strike has no effect,
> > >why, then, doesn't the cardtext read: "Strike: Combat ends.
> > >Opposing vampire goes to torpor"?
> >
> > Strikes normally resolve simultaneously.
> >
> > In this case, Vamp A takes a point of aggravated damage while at 0
> > blood, becomes wounded, and goes to torpor. (If Burst of Sunlight
had
> > been played at superior, he would burn, as the second point of agg
> > would require him to burn blood to prevent destruction, and he has
> > none.)
>
> Right.
Does this mean that Vamp A has the opportunity to prevent the damage
from BoS, in spite of the fact that the opposing minion is already in
torpor (ending combat)? In that case, does Vamp B also have the
opportunity to prevent, even though she is already in torpor?
If they can not prevent because combat is over, then combat should have
been over the instant Vamp B went into torpor. (Current rules indicate
that "If one or both of the combatants are no longer ready, combat ends
immediately." (6.4.3, Resolve Strike))
So, either:
1) no damage is done, because combat is over
2) only Vamp A can prevent the BoS
3) both Vamp A and Vamp B can prevent
I think #3 is ludicrous, but I am confused by this ruling anyway.
Regarding Angelica...
> > I believe she WOULD be able to burn extra Master cards during her
> > "once", however, as her special ability is a single effect; so she
> > could drop 3 Masters and gain +3 intercept, even though she only
> > needed one. Normally the rules prevent you from playing multiple
> > effects to gain more intercept than you need; but playing superior
> > Enhanced Senses to block a +1 stealth action is legal since it is a
> > single effect, and I believe this would be as well.
>
> Correct.
Can you draw to replace during this ability, or can you only play
masters from your hand, then replace after the ability?
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > > Strikes normally resolve simultaneously.
> > >
> > > In this case, Vamp A takes a point of aggravated damage while at 0
> > > blood, becomes wounded, and goes to torpor. (If Burst of Sunlight
> had
> > > been played at superior, he would burn, as the second point of agg
> > > would require him to burn blood to prevent destruction, and he has
> > > none.)
> >
> > Right.
>
> Does this mean that Vamp A has the opportunity to prevent the damage
> from BoS, in spite of the fact that the opposing minion is already in
> torpor (ending combat)? In that case, does Vamp B also have the
The opposing minion is not already in torpor - the strikes resolve
simultaneously, as stated.
Yes, vamp A has an opportunity (when the effects of the strikes are
bing applied) to prevent damage.
> opportunity to prevent, even though she is already in torpor?
Vamp B also has an opportunity (at the same time) to prevent his
damage as well, yes.
> Regarding Angelica...
> Can you draw to replace during this ability, or can you only play
> masters from your hand, then replace after the ability?
The latter. You play X masters once, not a master X times.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
cantila
Does Corpse Minion work the same way in that you can only brun blood
once per action to gain intercept?
LSJ
No.
See the online rulings list, under "Corpse Minion".
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Derek Ray
wrote:
>Does Corpse Minion work the same way in that you can only brun blood
>once per action to gain intercept?
Nope; Corpse Minion lacks the "once per" text.
stua...@my-deja.com
> The opposing minion is not already in torpor -
> the strikes resolve simultaneously, as stated.
The Rulebook sentence which states:
[6.4.3.resolve strikes]
"If one or both of the combatants are no longer
ready(*), then combat ends immediately."
[Example which does not apply has been snipped]
would lead you to believe that the resolution of
the entombment strike (which makes the opposing
minion not ready) ends combat upon resolution.
If the entombment strike has resolved (strike
resolution) then the opposing minion must now be
in torpor and combat must be over. There is
still damage which has to be handled, however,
the combat must be over at that point. There is
no 'wounding' as is often the case with many
different sources of damage resolving during
damage resolution, since damage resolution, which
is part of combat, is never reached [since combat
must be over if the strike has resolved].
If entombment said "wound opposing vampire",
or "opposing vampire goes to torpor after/during
damage resolution", then I would agree with what
you say, but Coma and Entombment are cards which
have the power to break the rules by their card
text and end combat prematurely by placing the
opposing vampire in torpor. It appears to me
that they do break the rules by ending combat
prematurely.
There is certainly damage that has not been
prevented or healed at that point, however combat
has already ended by that point and combat cards
could not be played.
A couple of side questions which might make this
more obvious to me:
Is damage resolution in combat an
interrupt driven event and not a logical
progression from step to step of a list?
And if so, does damage outside of combat
cause a damage resolution (prevent and heal)
event, requiring all that "cannot be prevented
text"?
Is any vampire which should go to torpor
for any reason 'wounded' until such time as all
damage has been prevent/heal/destroy and only
then does the vampire actually 'go to torpor'?
What I cannot find in the rules is something
which says: "any time a vampire should go to
torpor, that vampire is considered 'wounded' and
must resolve all damage before entering torpor".
That seems to be the missing rule which others
are taking as Gospel.
Just my 2 pool,
Stu
- who started this mess late last night (or
early this morning if you prefer accuracy).
LSJ
> would lead you to believe that the resolution of
> the entombment strike (which makes the opposing
> minion not ready) ends combat upon resolution.
Correct. Just as a single point of damage that remains
unhealed ends combat upon resolution.
> If the entombment strike has resolved (strike
> resolution) then the opposing minion must now be
> in torpor and combat must be over. There is
> still damage which has to be handled, however,
> the combat must be over at that point. There is
> no 'wounding' as is often the case with many
> different sources of damage resolving during
> damage resolution, since damage resolution, which
> is part of combat, is never reached [since combat
> must be over if the strike has resolved].
No. Damage resolution doesn't occur after strike
resolution. It is a part of strike resolution.
Combat reaches strike resolution.
Strike resolution inflicts X agg damage and
also applies a "go to torpor" effect.
The vampire is then on his way to torpor and
has X agg damage to deal with.
> A couple of side questions which might make this
> more obvious to me:
> Is damage resolution in combat an
> interrupt driven event and not a logical
> progression from step to step of a list?
It is a process that is done whenever damage
is pending.
> And if so, does damage outside of combat
> cause a damage resolution (prevent and heal)
> event, requiring all that "cannot be prevented
> text"?
It is such an event, but it doesn't require "all
that" text.
> Is any vampire which should go to torpor
> for any reason 'wounded' until such time as all
> damage has been prevent/heal/destroy and only
> then does the vampire actually 'go to torpor'?
In a sense.
The vampire is also "on his way" long enough to
play Undead Persistence or get tagged with
Amaranth, for example.
The part you're describing, however, is more of
a simultaneous thing. The bit about apply effects
and then handle damage just tells you how to
figure out where the blood is when it's time to
start healing and incidentally resolves some
ordering issues about "when am I wounded".
> What I cannot find in the rules is something
> which says: "any time a vampire should go to
> torpor, that vampire is considered 'wounded' and
> must resolve all damage before entering torpor".
Damage already pending doesn't mysteriously
vanish just because the vampire has become
wounded.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/