Disarm vs. Combat ends
26 Apr 2012 21:58 #28778
by Juggernaut1981




Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Replied by Juggernaut1981 on topic Re: Disarm vs. Combat ends
James, I am not saying that there aren't "rulings on this stuff" but I honestly still find them to contain internal logic faults. So I will probably continually agitate against them. For example, the 'colours' black and white do not exist (I can prove it easily enough via simple methods) but yet in day to day life is to assume they are colours. Just because they are a certain way, doesn't mean they always MUST be a certain way and doesn't necessarily mean that it is 'right'.





Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Juggernaut1981
-
- Offline
- Antediluvian
-
Less
More
- Posts: 2376
- Thank you received: 326
26 Apr 2012 22:03 #28780
by KevinM
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
Replied by KevinM on topic Re: Disarm vs. Combat ends
Jugg, sometimes you have to choose your battles, and make judgement calls as to what is worth fighting against.
Is this really worth fighting against?
Is this really worth fighting against?

Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
26 Apr 2012 22:28 #28781
by Juggernaut1981




Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Replied by Juggernaut1981 on topic Re: Disarm vs. Combat ends
Are we talking about "Worth it to get the win" or "Worth it for the struggle"?

I know what you're saying, but even if I don't 'win'... for me it's not always about the win and more about having people detail and explain their position.

I know what you're saying, but even if I don't 'win'... for me it's not always about the win and more about having people detail and explain their position.





Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Juggernaut1981
-
- Offline
- Antediluvian
-
Less
More
- Posts: 2376
- Thank you received: 326
26 Apr 2012 22:35 - 26 Apr 2012 22:39 #28782
by 1up20x6
Just to use your example of carrion crows from earlier....
From The Eternal Struggle: A Player's Guide to the Jyhad, "When a servant loses blood points in a block or a direct combat, it does not always mean she has been physically injure. Instead, it represent a tangible loss in her personal resources. [...] Only when a servant is actually burnt is the block considers to have been lethal combat."
So, the internal logic isn't the vampire sending 10,000 crows to attack the victim, but that she's merely destroying her resources, such as sending 10,000 crows to perch outside the victim's business, causing it to lose money and eventually go bankrupt as less people want to shop while being examined by a murder of crows.
So, since the vampire and the crows aren't even actively doing anything, I'd say it logically and thematically qualifies as environmental damage.
Any deck can win, whether you're using stealth bleed, rush combat, or Soul Gem combos. It doesn't matter if your minions use Auspex, Thaumaturgy, or Melpominee. What matters is the Methuselah uses Presence. That is how deals are made. That is how games are won.
No, you misunderstand. I don't want...
Replied by 1up20x6 on topic Re: Disarm vs. Combat ends
James, I am not saying that there aren't "rulings on this stuff" but I honestly still find them to contain internal logic faults. So I will probably continually agitate against them.
Just to use your example of carrion crows from earlier....
From The Eternal Struggle: A Player's Guide to the Jyhad, "When a servant loses blood points in a block or a direct combat, it does not always mean she has been physically injure. Instead, it represent a tangible loss in her personal resources. [...] Only when a servant is actually burnt is the block considers to have been lethal combat."
So, the internal logic isn't the vampire sending 10,000 crows to attack the victim, but that she's merely destroying her resources, such as sending 10,000 crows to perch outside the victim's business, causing it to lose money and eventually go bankrupt as less people want to shop while being examined by a murder of crows.
So, since the vampire and the crows aren't even actively doing anything, I'd say it logically and thematically qualifies as environmental damage.
Any deck can win, whether you're using stealth bleed, rush combat, or Soul Gem combos. It doesn't matter if your minions use Auspex, Thaumaturgy, or Melpominee. What matters is the Methuselah uses Presence. That is how deals are made. That is how games are won.
No, you misunderstand. I don't want...
Last edit: 26 Apr 2012 22:39 by 1up20x6.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
27 Apr 2012 04:38 - 27 Apr 2012 04:42 #28789
by Ankha
Using a passive form to identify environmental damage seems quite logical (no acting subject, the "victim" takes X damage from environmental source).
Using an active form on the other hand (with an acting subject) defines clearly the source of damage.
When player A in combat with player B loses 1 pool from a Tension in the Ranks played by player C, do you consider player C is dealing the pool damage? Isn't it an "environmental" pool loss?
(As for RPG considerations, I also see a difference between the two. Outside the Hourglass: the True Brujah stops time and punches the opposing minion before the combat really starts. Easy to imagine he can snatch his arm off. Carrion Crows: an uncontrollable swarm of birds attacks the opposing minion but the vampire has no control on it and can't tell them to attack some part of the body. You could find a thousand different RPG explanations anyway, and it's really not a rule subject).
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Disarm vs. Combat ends
Which are? In your previous post, you talk about "real world" and rpg considerations, which have nothing to do in a rule section.but I honestly still find them to contain internal logic faults.
Using a passive form to identify environmental damage seems quite logical (no acting subject, the "victim" takes X damage from environmental source).
Using an active form on the other hand (with an acting subject) defines clearly the source of damage.
When player A in combat with player B loses 1 pool from a Tension in the Ranks played by player C, do you consider player C is dealing the pool damage? Isn't it an "environmental" pool loss?
(As for RPG considerations, I also see a difference between the two. Outside the Hourglass: the True Brujah stops time and punches the opposing minion before the combat really starts. Easy to imagine he can snatch his arm off. Carrion Crows: an uncontrollable swarm of birds attacks the opposing minion but the vampire has no control on it and can't tell them to attack some part of the body. You could find a thousand different RPG explanations anyway, and it's really not a rule subject).
Last edit: 27 Apr 2012 04:42 by Ankha.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
27 Apr 2012 05:27 #28793
by jamesatzephyr
When it's already happened, repeatedly, it's not about other people explaining their position because they've already done it.
If you just want to repeatedly dredge up the same arguments, again and again, without contributing anything even slightly useful, please don't clutter up genuine rules questions threads with your obsessive-compulsive need to do so. Thanks.
Replied by jamesatzephyr on topic Re: Disarm vs. Combat ends
Are we talking about "Worth it to get the win" or "Worth it for the struggle"?
I know what you're saying, but even if I don't 'win'... for me it's not always about the win and more about having people detail and explain their position.
When it's already happened, repeatedly, it's not about other people explaining their position because they've already done it.
If you just want to repeatedly dredge up the same arguments, again and again, without contributing anything even slightly useful, please don't clutter up genuine rules questions threads with your obsessive-compulsive need to do so. Thanks.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Ankha
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- jamesatzephyr
-
- Offline
- Antediluvian
-
Less
More
- Posts: 2788
- Thank you received: 958
Time to create page: 0.101 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Rules Questions
- Disarm vs. Combat ends