Ahriman's Demesne vs undead persistence
gabusanvtes
Undead Persistence at inferior?
LSJ
> Could a vampire survive an "Ahriman Demesne" at superior by playing
> Undead Persistence at inferior?
No. With Ahriman's Demesne, you're not going to torpor, so you don't
meet the requirements for Undead Persistence.
--
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:eb4eb7f8.0406...@posting.google.com...
> gpa...@hotmail.com (gabusanvtes) wrote:
> > Could a vampire survive an "Ahriman Demesne" at superior by playing
> > Undead Persistence at inferior?
>
> No. With Ahriman's Demesne, you're not going to torpor, so you don't
> meet the requirements for Undead Persistence.
It looks to me like when you resolve the Ahriman's Demesne 1R aggravated
damage, you have Ahriman's Demesne trying to replace "go to torpor" with
"burn", but Undead Persistence is at the same time trying to replace "go
to torpor" with "will not go to torpor until combat ends". Why does
Ahriman's win? Is it because as soon as the Ahriman's strike resolves
uncanceled, it is replacing "would go to torpor during this strike
resolution" with "burned"?
It seems like it could be a sequencing issue: that when the unprevented
damage is applied from Ahriman's, the acting minion gets the first
chance to replace the normal "wounded vampire goes to torpor" with a
replacement effect (either Ahriman's or Undead Persistence, depending on
who is the acting minion). But it doesn't sound like that's what you're
saying here?
Josh
undeadly
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>No. With Ahriman's Demesne, you're not going to torpor, so you don't
>>meet the requirements for Undead Persistence.
>
> It looks to me like when you resolve the Ahriman's Demesne 1R aggravated
> damage, you have Ahriman's Demesne trying to replace "go to torpor" with
> "burn", but Undead Persistence is at the same time trying to replace "go
> to torpor" with "will not go to torpor until combat ends". Why does
> Ahriman's win? Is it because as soon as the Ahriman's strike resolves
> uncanceled, it is replacing "would go to torpor during this strike
> resolution" with "burned"?
AD isn't "trying to replace" - it has replaced.
UP isn't "at the same time trying" - it hasn't been played.
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>No. With Ahriman's Demesne, you're not going to torpor, so you don't
> >>meet the requirements for Undead Persistence.
> >
> > It looks to me like when you resolve the Ahriman's Demesne 1R
aggravated
> > damage, you have Ahriman's Demesne trying to replace "go to torpor"
with
> > "burn", but Undead Persistence is at the same time trying to replace
"go
> > to torpor" with "will not go to torpor until combat ends". Why does
> > Ahriman's win? Is it because as soon as the Ahriman's strike
resolves
> > uncanceled, it is replacing "would go to torpor during this strike
> > resolution" with "burned"?
>
> AD isn't "trying to replace" - it has replaced.
>
> UP isn't "at the same time trying" - it hasn't been played.
OK, so Ahriman's Demesne isn't like an effect that will pop up during
strike resolution and say (if that vampire enters a "go to torpor"
state) "burn that vampire now". It's an effect that has already said
"instead of entering a "go to torpor" state, that vampire will be burned
instead." Yeah?
Thanks.
Josh
master of my demesne