Re: Damage immunity

Greets!

My vamp is immune to non-aggravated damage. Does the non-aggra damage inflicted to her count "successfully inflicted" or not?

My guess it does, because it isn't reduced or prevented only my vamp ignores its effects (like Deep Song against Gotsdam - successful action with no effect), but correct me if I'm wrong.

Not succesfuly inflicted.
damage prevented and/or damage that are reduced to 0, inflict no damage.

Reyda wrote:

Not succesfuly inflicted.
damage prevented and/or damage that are reduced to 0, inflict no damage.

Correct.

Reyda wrote:

Not succesfuly inflicted.
damage prevented and/or damage that are reduced to 0, inflict no damage.

But where is it written that Immunity to damage does either of those? I haven't found it anywhere on the site.

Seems like we're on a trend for these questions....it's certainly not in the rulebook so here it is relying on the usual English sense of Immunity. .

Non-existant user wrote:

Reyda wrote:

Not succesfuly inflicted.
damage prevented and/or damage that are reduced to 0, inflict no damage.

But where is it written that Immunity to damage does either of those? I haven't found it anywhere on the site.

As many card games, Vtes is based on two things:
- words that people know from common usage
- "keywords" (that might also be used in common usage, but mostly with a different meaning).

"Immune" is of the first category. Other examples: "card", "next", "attempt", ...

"Vampire", "maneuver", "strike", "pool", "aggravated", "equipment", "recruit", "Prince", .. are of the second category).

If you think "immune" should be explicitely in the second category, please let me know.

First of all, I completely agree that Reyda's answer is the most intuitive one. However one cannot rely on common sense when defining what is successful and what is not because we already have counterintuitive examples of successful bleeds burning no pool (which is the root of all evil if you ask me). What tells you that Immunity effectively changes the damage instead of only nullifying the effect just like Strix prevents burning pool without reducing the bleed amount?

Rather than a definition of Immunity, I would rather have a definition of Successful that is consistent across situations, but that would require a reversal on the effect of Strix. If you want to keep Strix as it is, then you need to specify everything because Strix proves that common sense does not work.

Non-existant user wrote:

First of all, I completely agree that Reyda's answer is the most intuitive one. However one cannot rely on common sense when defining what is successful and what is not because we already have counterintuitive examples of successful bleeds burning no pool (which is the root of all evil if you ask me).

There is Evil in the term "immune", but there is no Evil involved in defining bleeds and actions.

A "bleed action" is a special type of action, which is clearly, unambiguously defined in 6.1.1.

A bleed action that burns no pool is not a successful BLEED [6.1.1].

A bleed action that is unblocked but burns no pool is a successful ACTION [6].

KevinM wrote:

A bleed action that burns no pool is not a successful BLEED [6.1.1].

Not true in general: Strix causes the bleed to burn no pool but the bleed is still successful because the bleed amount does not change:
www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/6-rules-questions/17899-strix-superior-and-the-edge

Non-existant user wrote:

Rather than a definition of Immunity, I would rather have a definition of Successful that is consistent across situations,

Why? Combat isn't taking an action. Blocking isn't conducting a referendum. Damage handling isn't bleed resolution.

Many things are treated differently between different aspects of the game. Why the need to crowbar things which are manifestly different into being the same?