lumpley wrote:
Oh hey, how about that. My mistake! Go with the rule in the book.

Thanks!

I would like to check some other answers I gave in the past and other thoughts on the healing conflicts, too. And ask some other questions

1) Many people say about healing conflicts that "when you try to heal someone, you roll the wounded person's "body" stat, not yours".  And this cause some confusion, with people who ask what happen if they make a raise using their own body, or start the conflict in an arena that doesn't require to roll "body". But this is caused by reading the rule in reverse: the real rule (quoted above) say that it's not YOU that roll the wounded Dog's "body", it's HIM that, in his own conflict against death, use the Healer's "acuity" in the conflict (because he can't act by himself)

2) This means that the healing conflict is a particular case in which two different Player Character, when fighting together (the healer and the wounded), use a single pool.  The rolls and the decisions are made by the healer (and he get the fallout). If he use only his own traits, the rule is clear (he only use the "body" stat of the wounded). But could he use the applicable traits of the wounded? (I am thinking about a trait that work even if the character is unconscious, for example "hard to kill") After all, the wounded is in conflict, too, and would roll that trait if cured by a NPC

3) Even if the Healer is a NPC, the rule seems to say that he get the fallout, as a PC. This means that in this case it's not possible for the GM to make a raise that would kill the healer outright, as it would be in a normal conflict?  (I am assuming that there are other possible healers around, so that would not get the stakes by itself)

4) Even if the healer doesn't try to cure the body of the wounded, but use something very high supernatural (like shooting the angel of death, or ordering death to leave the place, or praying the king of life for a miracle), he can't roll in another arena that doesn't use "body". Because the conflict is about the death of the wounded, it's always body+acuity. But this mean that the conflict can't be escalated? Or this is simply the starting arena?

5) There is a question raised a lot of time, about having a second healer (a third PC in the scene) helping the first one. Am I correct in assuming that this question doesn't have a fixed answer, because it really depends of the situation and the fiction? (my own guidelines on this are: if the second healer only "help" the first, he can only "help" as a improvised object + eventual relationship dice. To enter the conflict as a full participant, the player must think a way to do so that would make the character a independent healer in the same conflict and put him at risk somehow)

6) Other NPCs can enter the conflict trying to stop the healing? In this case, the GM can escalate? (something that in normal healing conflicts he can't do). This would really simplify having a third PC in the conflict ("I will take care of these bastards, you help Jimmy!")

All in all, I see the healing conflict as a part of the game where the importance of the stakes (that get the best ideas - and the worst rule abuse - from players, and the kind of conflict (with Death) can really push the system to the limit, with very fast rising of the supernatural dial.  So it' a delicate part of the game, where the "even only dissatisfied player" must be followed by the hilt. Especially if the dissatisfied player is you! (the GM). There is  LOT of judgment involved in these kind of conflicts.