Carrion Crows & First Strike Strikes (Not Anaesthetic Touch)

PB,

This one seems like it could be in another one of those parts of VTES where an 'instinctive reading' might be wildly wrong.

Vamp A is acting and plays Carrion Crows
Vamp B is blocking.

Later in the combat Vamp B plays a strike with first strike that will send Vamp A to torpor from the damage (not S:CE). Vamp A has played a strike that is not S:D or S:CE (but it is irrelevant otherwise).

Does Vamp B take the damage from Carrion Crows?

Carrion Crows
Type: Combat
Requires: Animalism
Only usable before range is chosen.
[ani] The opposing minion takes 1R damage each round of combat during strike resolution. A vampire can play only one Carrion Crows each combat.
[ANI] As above, but for 2R damage.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

PB,

This one seems like it could be in another one of those parts of VTES where an 'instinctive reading' might be wildly wrong.

Vamp A is acting and plays Carrion Crows
Vamp B is blocking.

Later in the combat Vamp B plays a strike with first strike that will send Vamp A to torpor from the damage (not S:CE). Vamp A has played a strike that is not S:D or S:CE (but it is irrelevant otherwise).

Does Vamp B take the damage from Carrion Crows?

Carrion Crows
Type: Combat
Requires: Animalism
Only usable before range is chosen.
[ani] The opposing minion takes 1R damage each round of combat during strike resolution. A vampire can play only one Carrion Crows each combat.
[ANI] As above, but for 2R damage.

Rulebook wrote:

First Strike. A strike done with first strike is resolved before a normal strike. Thus, if the opposing minion is burned or sent to torpor by a strike done with first strike, his strike will not be resolved at all.

Carrion Crows' damage is applied "during [normal] strike resolution". If that strike resolution doesn't happen - should it be because something "voluntarily" ends the combat (Alpha Glint, S:CE, Anesthetic Touch) or "unvoluntarily" ends it (First strike: Taste of Death; first strike: mummify, pre-range agg such as Outside of the Hourglass, ..) the "normal strike resolution" phase is never reached (and instead, we skip to the end of the round) - and the damage from CC is never applied.

Thanks PB.
Once again, the whole structure of combat seems needlessly complex.

The rules themselves don't create these multiple strike resolutions (outside the obvious additional strikes resolve in separate resolution windows) in an explicit way, they do sequence the order of strikes resolving (i.e. S:CE, S:D, S:1st, S) but don't suggest they occur in different windows merely that there is a window for resolving strike damage and that it must be done in order.

The rules create one window with many resolutions.
The ruling below, which is an LSJ ruling since it mirrors the Anaesthetic Touch ruling, creates multiple strike resolution windows in the one step.

The rules or the CRR could do with an explicit inclusion of that sort of text rather than having it in a ruling. And, based on the rules, I think LSJ made a bad decision on that ruling.

I believe the Rules for that are simple :

Everything that is not a CE, D, or FS, resolves at normal strike resolution.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

TThe rules themselves don't create these multiple strike resolutions (outside the obvious additional strikes resolve in separate resolution windows) in an explicit way, they do sequence the order of strikes resolving (i.e. S:CE, S:D, S:1st, S) but don't suggest they occur in different windows merely that there is a window for resolving strike damage and that it must be done in order.

The rules create one window with many resolutions.

The distinction you are making is totally, 100% irrelevant. It is one you have invented, with no relevance.

Whether you call them steps in a window, or separate windows, you apply the effects in an order. If combat ends due to something happening (an actual combat ends effect, a minion being unreadied etc.), you stop going through that order. Whether it's windows, steps, sequences, orders, frames, or any other terminology you want to invent.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

The rules or the CRR could do with an explicit inclusion of that sort of text rather than having it in a ruling. And, based on the rules, I think LSJ made a bad decision on that ruling.

The ruling on first strike torporization preventing "during strike resolution" effects wasn't even made by LSJ, it was made in 1994 by the then-rules-team. See: Wolf Companion.

vekn.net/card-rulings/card-rulings-p-to-z
groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.games.deckmaster/_6CXoKTSLnw/FdG67-3HEAQJ

Rules wrote:

The damage is done during normal damage dealing, so a Combat Ends will
stop it, as will sending its controller to torpor during first strike.

There is a difference James. If we want VTES to be a systematic game, then it should have systematic rules and not have to be held together with rulings constantly. Plus, the standard "Argument from Tradition" isn't always a good reason to have VTES run.

The rules themselves state that you resolve pairs of strikes, and mentions very little about how environmental damage resolves during combat. CRR VI and CRR VII provide no indication that a minion going to torpor stops non-strike damage from resolving. Rules 6.4.5 states that only strikes are lost by going to torpor if the opposing minion uses S:FS. Rules 6.4.6 is exclusive to damage prevention and mentions nothing about strikes other than that they cause damage. Rules 6.4.3 only mentions the immediately end, but this has also been shown to allow things like Taste of Vitae so "immediately end" is not "immediately end".


I apologise to LSJ for impugning him in this matter.