Stutter-Step Q

Is Stutter-Step (sup) a hand strike? By the definition of hand strike and the text on Stutter-Step, it would seem so: Hand Strike: any non-ranged, non-weapon strike that deals damage based on the striking minion's strength, or any minion's non-ranged damage-dealing innate strike. [LSJ 19970224] Stutter-Step Combat Celerity Strike: Dodge <S> Strike: Dodge and inflict strength damage. This damage may be modified by effects that modify hand damage. Only usable at close range. Not usable as an additional strike, and this vampire cannot use any additional strikes this round. But, OTOH, Stutter-Step is also a dodge, and Dodges are not hand strikes. I'd think it shouldn't be a hand strike, but then the definition of a Hand Strike might need some revising for clarification. Flux

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:52:55 +0100, "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote: >Is Stutter-Step (sup) a hand strike? By the definition of hand strike and >the text on Stutter-Step, it would seem so: ><S> Strike: Dodge and inflict strength damage. This damage may be modified >by effects >that modify hand damage. Only usable at close range. Not usable as an >additional strike, >and this vampire cannot use any additional strikes this round. > >But, OTOH, Stutter-Step is also a dodge, and Dodges are not hand strikes. >I'd think it shouldn't be a hand strike, but then the definition of a Hand >Strike might need some revising for clarification. by literal card text reading, it's a Strike: Dodge that sets up an environmental damage effect of (strength) damage. So it's not a hand strike, although your Torn Signpost can increase the effect. -- Derek

[ quoted text not captured ] The strike is not a hand strike, correct. But the damage effect isn't environmental - it comes from a strike. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Ahh my head hurts. It is, but it isn't. AHHHHH! However, what is the advantage of this card. It seems a dodge, additional strike does the same thing and you can use anyold strike you want. Well I guess it costs one less blood. "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:3b27...@212.18.160.197... [ quoted text not captured ]

Then is it is the vamp effected by King of mountain? "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3B27E60C...@white-wolf.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:15:40 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> ><S> Strike: Dodge and inflict strength damage. This damage may be modified >> >by effects >> >that modify hand damage. Only usable at close range. Not usable as an >> >additional strike, >> >and this vampire cannot use any additional strikes this round. >> >> by literal card text reading, it's a Strike: Dodge that sets up an >> environmental damage effect of (strength) damage. So it's not a hand >> strike, although your Torn Signpost can increase the effect. > >The strike is not a hand strike, correct. >But the damage effect isn't environmental - it comes from a strike. Oh, is -that- what "inflict strength damage" means? =/ OK. So it's a strike that is a Dodge and strength damage, all in one, meaning you can Skin of Steel it and other "strike" cards. What happens if you use Scorpion Sting against it as a reacting minion? Does the whole strike blow up, or does just the Dodge part fail? I'd say that just the Dodge half fizzles, since Scorpion Sting's wording isn't "This minion may not play Dodge as a strike", the way Dog Pack does -- it just says "This strike may not be dodged"... meaning that any Dodge played has no effect. -- Derek

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:21:32 -0700, "Walter Denny" <wde...@telocity.com> wrote: >However, what is the advantage of this card. It seems a dodge, additional >strike does the same thing and you can use anyold strike you want. Well I >guess it costs one less blood. Yep. For the one blood, Acrobatics provides you with a separate additional strike, which gets around someone playing plain old Dodge - whereas this strike WON'T, but it's free and stacks with things like Torn Signpost, Depravity, and any innate strength bonuses on the minion. -- Derek

Walter Denny wrote: > > Then is it is the vamp effected by King of mountain? The damage is prevented at inferior, yes. As stated above (but you've quoted below for some reason), the strike is not a hand strike. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. It means that the dodge does not cancel the effects of the Scorpion Sting. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Then is it is the vamp effected by King of mountain? > > The damage is prevented at inferior, yes. > As stated above (but you've quoted below for some reason), the > strike is not a hand strike. > I was not clear, my apologies, I meant since it is not a hand strike does the superior form of King of the Mountain affect a person who strikes with stutter-step.

[ quoted text not captured ] No, for exactly that reason (card text). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iqrfit421ql8medro...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] AND it can be followed up by another additional strike card, not so for Acrobatics.

.begin card text. Stutter-Step Combat Celerity Strike: Dodge <S> Strike: Dodge and inflict strength damage. This damage may be modified by effects that modify hand damage. Only usable at close range. Not usable as an additional strike, and this vampire cannot use any additional strikes this round. .end card text. by "effects that modify hand damage", i assume things like wolf claws and innate agg hand damage (such as, say...hmm...Thetmes) WILL work with this? salem.

> AND it can be followed up by another additional strike card, not so for > Acrobatics. > Actually, the card text specifically prohibits this. Walter

"salem christ" <salem_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:a36647e2.01061...@posting.google.com... > by "effects that modify hand damage", i assume things like wolf claws > and innate agg hand damage (such as, say...hmm...Thetmes) WILL work > with this? Yes. In fact, that's the best use for this card - dodge the opposing minion's strike and poke his eye out so he won't have the chance to play additional strikes, seems custom made for !Gangrel. Kinda like an improved First Strike. Flux

. > > > AND it can be followed up by another additional strike card, not so for > Acrobatics. No, by card text. If you play Stutter Step at superior you cannot play further additional strikes. The only additional strike you should play with a superior Sttuter Step is Quickness. Tom, Mad&Co

"Walter Denny" <wde...@telocity.com> wrote in message news:<eIRV6.372$p7.8...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>... > what is the advantage of this card. The damage hits before your opponent's additional strikes do, so it could effectively trump cards like Blur, especially combined with the creamy new Assamite hand damage modifiers. Question: can superior Quickness be used to gain an additional strike after Stutter-Step? I would think not, but it's worth asking.

[ quoted text not captured ] Traditionally for the !Gangrel, this trick has meant spending two blood - Acrobatics and Claws. Gets really expensive after awhile. =) Now it's much more usable to Ambush/Lost in Crowds/Stutter-Step, and see if they Dodge as well before playing your own Claws - *zero* blood lost on a failed combat. =) -- Derek

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:11:12 +0200, "Tom, Mad&Co" <t...@almadrava.net> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] No, by card text. "This vampire cannot use any additional strikes this round." =) Any means any. =) -- Derek

>>The only additional strike you should play with a superior Sttuter Step is >>Quickness. > >No, by card text. "This vampire cannot use any additional strikes >this round." =) Any means any. =) Well couldn't you *play* any additional strike cards you want (for cycling purposes). You just can't *use* any of the additional strikes? Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] If I knew what "use" meant, I could answer that a lot more easily. (Bill Clinton may never leave us) But there are two literal readings: one would be "you may gain additional strikes, but you may not use them." OK. Makes sense. the other would imply that using a card that gained you additional strikes was "using an additional strike card." reaching back a bit, Hidden Lurker says "This minion may not strike", but I know that HL doesn't prevent you from gaining additional strikes. On that precedent, I'll go ahead and reverse my opinion here and say that yeah, you could PLAY the Blur or whatever, but nothing would happen. -- Derek

[ quoted text not captured ] No. Just as you cannot burn extra PA cards (and fail to "use" the votes) and cannot play extra +1 intercept and fail to use the intercept and cannot play Bonding after Conditioning and fail to use the +1 bleed part of Bonding. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Just as you cannot burn extra PA cards (and fail to "use" the votes) and > cannot play extra +1 intercept and fail to use the intercept and cannot > play Bonding after Conditioning and fail to use the +1 bleed part of > Bonding. > Since when did this become possible (the bonding after Conditioning thingy)?

[ quoted text not captured ] It isn't, as I stated (and you quoted). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <RDbW6.34515$mR5.4...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, [ quoted text not captured ] He just said it _wasn't_ possible. gomi -- Yes, I believe but I'd rather not pray What I believe in I'd rather not say, baby

> > >Is Stutter-Step (sup) a hand strike? By the definition of hand strike and > > >the text on Stutter-Step, it would seem so: > > > > ><S> Strike: Dodge and inflict strength damage. This damage may be modified > > >by effects > > >that modify hand damage. Only usable at close range. Not usable as an > > >additional strike, > > >and this vampire cannot use any additional strikes this round. <snip> > The strike is not a hand strike, correct. > But the damage effect isn't environmental - it comes from a strike. Sorry to come back to this, but I'd like a more detailed explanation. Why is it not a hand strike, when it's clearly strength-based and non-ranged, hence conforming to the ruling on what a hand strike is? Is it because it's actually a Dodge (and a strike cannot be a Hand Strike _and_ a Dodge - while we're at it, why not?)? Should we consider the Dodge text to take precedence over the Hand Strike definition, or is it only because it's written first? Would this be a hand strike then: Strike: inflict strength damage, and Dodge the opposing minion's strike. (...) Or would we need this: Strike: make a hand strike. Cancel opposing minion's strike's effects on this minion. Of course, then it wouldn't be a Dodge (Scorpion Sting would have no effect, and First Strike would still hit). Flux

Flux wrote: [non-attributed quote snipped] > Sorry to come back to this, but I'd like a more detailed explanation. > Why is it not a hand strike, when it's clearly strength-based and > non-ranged, hence conforming to the ruling on what a hand strike is? Because it's a dodge. > Is it because it's actually a Dodge (and a strike cannot be a Hand Strike > _and_ a Dodge - while we're at it, why not?)? Should we consider the Dodge > text to take precedence over the Hand Strike definition, or is it only > because it's written first? > Would this be a hand strike then: > > Strike: inflict strength damage, and Dodge the opposing minion's strike. > (...) > > Or would we need this: > > Strike: make a hand strike. Cancel opposing minion's strike's effects on > this minion. The latter. > Of course, then it wouldn't be a Dodge (Scorpion Sting would have no effect, > and First Strike would still hit). Right. [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote > Flux wrote: > > Sorry to come back to this, but I'd like a more detailed explanation. > > Why is it not a hand strike, when it's clearly strength-based and > > non-ranged, hence conforming to the ruling on what a hand strike is? > > Because it's a dodge. > But it also conforms with the current definition of hand strikes, right? Do you think it's necessary to change the definition of hand strikes? David Pontes

David Pontes wrote: > > vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote > > Flux wrote: > > > Sorry to come back to this, but I'd like a more detailed explanation. > > > Why is it not a hand strike, when it's clearly strength-based and > > > non-ranged, hence conforming to the ruling on what a hand strike is? > > > > Because it's a dodge. > > > > But it also conforms with the current definition of hand strikes, right? Yes. > Do you think it's necessary to change the definition of hand strikes? Yes - the message you quote just did. [ quoted text not captured ]