Bomb still hurts (errata)

Using the Bomb in combat hurts the bearer, as always, even when it is used by a Ghoul Retainer. The CE text says "strike", but that is too restrictive. Effective card text: Weapon. 5R damage as a strike. If the ={bomb is used in combat, the bearer}= takes 5 damage as well. The minion with this weapon may burn a location as a (D) action. Burn the Bomb after use. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E4D3E4...@white-wolf.com>... > Using the Bomb in combat hurts the bearer... During strike resolution, I assume? So S:CE would still avert damage to the bearer?

On 15 Feb 2003 09:44:52 -0800, emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote: >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E4D3E4...@white-wolf.com>... >> Using the Bomb in combat hurts the bearer... > >During strike resolution, I assume? So S:CE would still avert damage to the bearer? I believe that in the case of Bomb v. S:CE, as you never get to Strike resolution the Bomb remains intact. Similar to White Phosphorous Grenade and Rotschrek (on successful block). The grenade is declared for use followed by Rotschrek, such that combat is ended before strike resolution whereby the grenade does not burn. Blech.. If I'm wrong, surely a multitude of people will say so :-) Bernie

emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote in message news:<75bdf7ed.0302...@posting.google.com>... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E4D3E4...@white-wolf.com>... > > Using the Bomb in combat hurts the bearer... > > During strike resolution, I assume? So S:CE would still avert damage to the bearer? yes, There is no real difference made with this errata as there was already a ruling on bomb still doing side-effect damage when being used by a ghoul retainer. (The Ghoul is never the "bearer" of the weapon that it uses. Any side-effect of using the weapon (e.g. Zip Gun, Grenade) is applied to the employing minion, as normal. [TOM 19951114] ) Maybe you could see it as a hint some other retainer or affect enabling you to use bomb in another way as striking with it or using ghoul retainer will come out in anarchs. -Bram Vink (just guessing :P)

berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > I believe that in the case of Bomb v. S:CE, as you never get to Strike > resolution the Bomb remains intact. > > Similar to White Phosphorous Grenade and Rotschrek (on successful > block). The grenade is declared for use followed by Rotschrek, such > that combat is ended before strike resolution whereby the grenade does > not burn. Blech.. Correct. What's so blech about a grenade that isn't used not exploding? > If I'm wrong, surely a multitude of people will say so :-) Correct. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > Correct. What's so blech about a grenade that isn't used not exploding? Oh-mahgawd. C'mon, Scott... I'm not going to bother explaining the situation further, since I'm sure you know the interaction Bernie's talking about. If you're going to get a Rotshreck effect out of a weapon that burns when used, then the weapon should burn. This is the same sort of thing as "Allies go to the phantom zone." It may make perfect sense from a rules perspective, but aesthetically? Double-blech. And if aesthetics don't do it for you, here's a princely one: it's the kind of thing that make people who aren't already rabid fan-boys (such as myself) say "that's soooooooo stupid" and become less interested in the game. David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham, NC

> If you're going to get a Rotshreck effect out of a weapon >that burns when used, then the weapon should burn. why? you whip out an odd looking grenade, and every vampire knows what it does...you pull the ring, he goes"waaahh! i'm gonna burn! gotta run and hide!", scampers off rötschrecked...you put the ring back in and whistle a merry tune...

David Cherryholmes wrote > If you're going to get a Rotshreck effect out of a weapon > that burns when used, then the weapon should burn. pulling the pin might be enough to scare a vampire :-) just as pointing a flamethrower at a vampire could cause panic.

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > > >>Correct. What's so blech about a grenade that isn't used not exploding? > > > Oh-mahgawd. C'mon, Scott... I'm not going to bother explaining the > situation further, since I'm sure you know the interaction Bernie's > talking about. Spare the melodramatics, please. > If you're going to get a Rotshreck effect out of a weapon > that burns when used, then the weapon should burn. Incorrect. Why do you think so? > [snip OT] It may make perfect sense > from a rules perspective, but aesthetically? This is "aesthetically" correct as well. > And if aesthetics don't do it for you, here's a princely one: it's the > kind of thing that make people who aren't already rabid fan-boys (such as > myself) say "that's soooooooo stupid" and become less interested in the > game. Then maybe the prince should find a proper response. Just because a new player says "that's sooooooo stupid" when he hears about retainers not being able to be hit at close range doesn't mean the rule should be changed - it means that the idea that close combat is too harried to allow for extraneous targets should be explained. Rotschreck is the *fear* of burning from the non-yet-made strike. The grenade/bomb isn't used. It is threatened to be used. If I threaten to throw a grenade, but don't, why should the grenade burn? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > Spare the melodramatics, please. Sure, sorry about that. > Rotschreck is the *fear* of burning from the non-yet-made strike. > The grenade/bomb isn't used. It is threatened to be used. > If I threaten to throw a grenade, but don't, why should the grenade > burn? It boils down to the semantics of "use". The word requires a more precise definition than the colloquial within the context of the game. You've given one, and with this definition, logically the grenade doesn't burn due to the consequences of "combat ends". I think, however, "use" could have been defined in such a way that one-shot weapons burn if they are declared as strikes; it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that, at that point, they've been "used". It would obviate what appears to be a bolted-on "threatening to..." phase of combat, and plug an obvious loophole as a side benefit. I can at least give a coherent answer now to the Grenade/Rotschreck question. That would of course be because I have now read it, not because you've just now said it. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > > >>Spare the melodramatics, please. > > > Sure, sorry about that. > > >>Rotschreck is the *fear* of burning from the non-yet-made strike. >>The grenade/bomb isn't used. It is threatened to be used. >>If I threaten to throw a grenade, but don't, why should the grenade >>burn? > > > It boils down to the semantics of "use". The word requires a more precise > definition than the colloquial within the context of the game. You've > given one, and with this definition, logically the grenade doesn't burn > due to the consequences of "combat ends". I think, however, "use" could > have been defined in such a way that one-shot weapons burn if they are > declared as strikes; it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that, at that > point, they've been "used". It would obviate what appears to be a > bolted-on "threatening to..." phase of combat, and plug an obvious > loophole as a side benefit. I don't see how trying to manhandle the language is going to help here. Bolting-on a "declaration of intent to use in the future is to be considered use in some cases (but not, say, in the case of a Zip Gun)" is non-intuitive and problematic. The idea that strikes are declared in one step and used in a later step is not "bolted-on", it's designed into the game from the beginning. There are two steps to striking: declaring what you're going to do and then doing it. Trying to make the former the latter is inherently problematic. Let's say I've got one of those one use glow sticks (you know, you break it and it glows for some time and then goes out, forever). Now, I tell you I'm going to use it tonight. But then, on my way home (still in daylight), I get hit by a bus. Come tomorrow, would the glow stick (still sitting in its blister pack in my utility drawer at home) have been used (burned) or not? If the point of this is to stave of the "that's soooooo stupid" new players, it seems that you'll just be trading the new players from column A with a larger set from column B (the column that understands the difference between declaring and doing). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > Bolting-on a "declaration of intent to use in the future is to be > considered use in some cases (but not, say, in the case of a Zip Gun)" > is non-intuitive and problematic. I'm not following the ZG analogy. Pseudo-equipping at pre-range doesn't seem relevant, if that's what you're getting at. > The idea that strikes are declared in one step and used in a later step > is not "bolted-on", it's designed into the game from the beginning. Sure. But I don't think the implications of what I'm saying are that broad. "Use" is only applicable to equipment, right? If that's true, then we can confine the scope of the discussion to equipment. It seems pain-free to say that the requirements of "use" are met when a strike is declared with the weapon. It just seems arbitrary to me to say that a weapon is only used when strikes are resolved. It could go either way according to rules-rep fiat. > There are two steps to striking: declaring what you're going to do and > then doing it. Trying to make the former the latter is inherently > problematic. Still no reason to link "use" with strike resolution. If there were a hypothetical burn-after-use weapon that gave the minion a maneuver, would the weapon be "used" to maneuver? Would that weapon then burn in the Rotschreck scenario? <snip glow stick example> The time frame that a combat encompasses is vague enough that you could dilate it out to make my argument seem groundless. If you need to invoke that kind of an extreme, though, then you're also suggesting that I can send vampires into Rotschreck with a nasty letter. I am assuming a combat scene that takes place in a relatively short amount of time where "using the grenade" would be chucking it, and the vampire runs away screaming. > If the point of this is to stave of the "that's soooooo stupid" new > players, it seems that you'll just be trading the new players from > column A with a larger set from column B (the column that understands > the difference between declaring and doing). If you accept that "doing" and "use" are the same thing in this context. I'm willing to accept that this is just the way things are, but I fail to see how it is necessarily so. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > > >>Bolting-on a "declaration of intent to use in the future is to be >>considered use in some cases (but not, say, in the case of a Zip Gun)" >>is non-intuitive and problematic. > > > I'm not following the ZG analogy. Pseudo-equipping at pre-range doesn't > seem relevant, if that's what you're getting at. > > >>The idea that strikes are declared in one step and used in a later step >>is not "bolted-on", it's designed into the game from the beginning. > > > Sure. But I don't think the implications of what I'm saying are that > broad. "Use" is only applicable to equipment, right? No. Breath of the Dragon Immortal Grapple > If that's true, > then we can confine the scope of the discussion to equipment. Possibly, but it's not. > It seems > pain-free to say that the requirements of "use" are met when a strike is > declared with the weapon. It just seems arbitrary to me to say that a > weapon is only used when strikes are resolved. It could go either way > according to rules-rep fiat. So you would have the White Phosphorous Grenade bearer to suffer 1 aggravated damage even if his opponent used a Majesty to end combat at close range? >>There are two steps to striking: declaring what you're going to do and >>then doing it. Trying to make the former the latter is inherently >>problematic. > > Still no reason to link "use" with strike resolution. Except for the obvious one - that that (strike resolution) is when it (the use) occurs. > If there were a > hypothetical burn-after-use weapon that gave the minion a maneuver, would > the weapon be "used" to maneuver? Yes. Using a weapon to maneuver is using the weapon. > Would that weapon then burn in the > Rotschreck scenario? Yes. It would be burned before Rotschreck could be played - at the moment of "use" - that is, when it is used to maneuver or strike. > <snip glow stick example> > > The time frame that a combat encompasses is vague enough that you could > dilate it out to make my argument seem groundless. If you need to invoke > that kind of an extreme, though, then you're also suggesting that I can > send vampires into Rotschreck with a nasty letter. No dilation "needed". It was used to help illustrate the point you seem to have difficulty grasping - that intention to use and use are not the same. > I am assuming a combat > scene that takes place in a relatively short amount of time where "using > the grenade" would be chucking it, and the vampire runs away screaming. Yes. But announcing the intention to use the grenade is not chucking it. Announcing your intention to strike with the grenade is just that. Then, during strike resolution (if you get that far), you chuck it. But, if the vampire runs away before you do, then you don't chuck it. >>If the point of this is to stave of the "that's soooooo stupid" new >>players, it seems that you'll just be trading the new players from >>column A with a larger set from column B (the column that understands >>the difference between declaring and doing). > > If you accept that "doing" and "use" are the same thing in this > context. I'm willing to accept that this is just the way things are, but > I fail to see how it is necessarily so. Announcing a strike is not striking. Striking is using. Maneuvering is using. Planning to use (even announcing such a plan) is not use. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:58:54 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >David Cherryholmes wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: >> >>>Spare the melodramatics, please. >> >> Sure, sorry about that. >> >>>Rotschreck is the *fear* of burning from the non-yet-made strike. >>>The grenade/bomb isn't used. It is threatened to be used. >>>If I threaten to throw a grenade, but don't, why should the grenade >>>burn? >> >> It boils down to the semantics of "use". The word requires a more precise >> definition than the colloquial within the context of the game. You've >> given one, and with this definition, logically the grenade doesn't burn >> due to the consequences of "combat ends". I think, however, "use" could >> have been defined in such a way that one-shot weapons burn if they are >> declared as strikes; it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that, at that >> point, they've been "used". It would obviate what appears to be a >> bolted-on "threatening to..." phase of combat, and plug an obvious >> loophole as a side benefit. > >I don't see how trying to manhandle the language is going to help here. > >Bolting-on a "declaration of intent to use in the future is to be >considered use in some cases (but not, say, in the case of a Zip Gun)" >is non-intuitive and problematic. > >The idea that strikes are declared in one step and used in a later step >is not "bolted-on", it's designed into the game from the beginning. I thought strikes were declared in one step, and resolved after declaration. All strikes resolve simultaneously, it's just that some strikes take precedence in timing over others. The following are hypothetical situations and resolutions for one-shot weapons on declaration of use. So if a grenade burns on declaration of use (preferred by myself, and Dave in this instance), a new problem arises in the instance of First Strike. An oddity comes into play if you declare the use of a grenade, then get sent to torpor via First Strike. Which means your strike doesn't get to resolve damage (due to the trip to torpor). Easy answer would be that the weapon burns as it's use was declared. Even though no damage is dealt by the weapon in question. Just to add a bit, for completeness; If Player A with a Bomb enters combat with Player B, Player A (acting minion) declares it's strike is with the bomb, Player B declares Strike:CE. The bomb would still burn as it's use was declared, regardless of the timing on Strike:CE even though neither minion would receive damage from the exploded bomb. Another oddity. If Player A with a Bomb enters combat with Player B, Player A (acting minion) declares it's strike is with the bomb, Player B declares Steal Weapon with First Strike The bomb would still burn, though no damage would be received to minions of Player A or B.. Guess the Bomb squad removed the weapon prior to detonation. Granted the above situations are moot, but are listed to provide an example of repercussions of what seems to be a simple change. I would not expect any changes in this matter, as it should have been addressed with the CE edition (being as it's the new basic set). >There are two steps to striking: declaring what you're going to do and >then doing it. Trying to make the former the latter is inherently >problematic. > >Let's say I've got one of those one use glow sticks (you know, you break >it and it glows for some time and then goes out, forever). > >Now, I tell you I'm going to use it tonight. But then, on my way home >(still in daylight), I get hit by a bus. > >Come tomorrow, would the glow stick (still sitting in its blister pack >in my utility drawer at home) have been used (burned) or not? This is a bit of a silly conversation. David made a pretty good explanation of why Rotschrek & White Phos. Grenade [WPG] is a super-cheese combo. Here's some other silly thoughts.. How does a Vampire know that it's a WPG, and not a regular Grenade? If you pull the pin from a grenade and leave it sitting on your desk, does it explode when you're not at home? At least I can understand why the change was made to Zip Gun, so as to bring it back into balance. Even though in real life a Zip Gun is primarily a one-shot makeshift weapon that could use any ammo (in theory). >If the point of this is to stave of the "that's soooooo stupid" new >players, it seems that you'll just be trading the new players from >column A with a larger set from column B (the column that understands >the difference between declaring and doing). Or you may have a player scoop their cards in the middle of a tournament, like I had at last years qualifier. All because of the Rotschreck super-cheese WPG combo. >LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > I thought strikes were declared in one step, and resolved after > declaration. All strikes resolve simultaneously, it's just that some > strikes take precedence in timing over others. Yes. Strikes are declared in the "choose strike" step. They resolve later in the "resolve strike" step. The resolution is normally simultaneous (in the "4th step of resolution" - 'normal strikes'), but some resolve earlier). > The following are hypothetical situations and resolutions for one-shot > weapons on declaration of use. > > So if a grenade burns on declaration of use (preferred by myself, and > Dave in this instance), a new problem arises in the instance of First > Strike. > > An oddity comes into play if you declare the use of a grenade, then get > sent to torpor via First Strike. Which means your strike doesn't get to > resolve damage (due to the trip to torpor). > Easy answer would be that the weapon burns as it's use was declared. > Even though no damage is dealt by the weapon in question. ... and no use actually occurred. Also note the problem with White Phosphorous grenade - the bearer would suffer 1 agg at close range upon declaration in your "declaration = use" paradigm, which would end combat even before the first strike stage, so the opposing minion would not be harmed at all by the WPG. > Just to add a bit, for completeness; > If Player A with a Bomb enters combat with Player B, > Player A (acting minion) declares it's strike is with the bomb, > Player B declares Strike:CE. > The bomb would still burn as it's use was declared, regardless of the > timing on Strike:CE even though neither minion would receive damage from > the exploded bomb. Another problem: If the player declares a "burn a location" action with the bomb, the bomb would be burned at that time under your "declaration = use" paradigm, but everyone knows that, if blocked, the bomb is still in the possession of the acting minion (and can even be "really" used in the resulting combat). > Another oddity. > If Player A with a Bomb enters combat with Player B, > Player A (acting minion) declares it's strike is with the bomb, > Player B declares Steal Weapon with First Strike > The bomb would still burn, though no damage would be received to minions > of Player A or B.. > Guess the Bomb squad removed the weapon prior to detonation. > > Granted the above situations are moot, but are listed to provide an > example of repercussions of what seems to be a simple change. > > I would not expect any changes in this matter, as it should have been > addressed with the CE edition (being as it's the new basic set). > > >>There are two steps to striking: declaring what you're going to do and >>then doing it. Trying to make the former the latter is inherently >>problematic. >> >>Let's say I've got one of those one use glow sticks (you know, you break >>it and it glows for some time and then goes out, forever). >> >>Now, I tell you I'm going to use it tonight. But then, on my way home >>(still in daylight), I get hit by a bus. >> >>Come tomorrow, would the glow stick (still sitting in its blister pack >>in my utility drawer at home) have been used (burned) or not? > > > This is a bit of a silly conversation. David made a pretty good > explanation of why Rotschrek & White Phos. Grenade [WPG] is a > super-cheese combo. Super-cheese it may be. But that doesn't mean the problem is in the fairly direct observation that declaration of intent to use is not the same as use. If cheese is the problem, then state the problem as "this combo is cheesy and needs to be addressed" rather than muddying the waters with language contortions. > Here's some other silly thoughts.. > How does a Vampire know that it's a WPG, and not a regular Grenade? > If you pull the pin from a grenade and leave it sitting on your desk, > does it explode when you're not at home? Even in your world, how would he know before being hit with the stuff? You can't wait until after it explodes to then examine the shrapnel and decide if you should've run away before it exploded. Proper WoD answer: WPG shouldn't trigger Rotschreck before it's too late in any event. Similarly Dragon's Breath Rounds. But the card (Rotschreck) doesn't accomplish that model, so, since it's a card game... > At least I can understand why the change was made to Zip Gun, so as to > bring it back into balance. Even though in real life a Zip Gun is > primarily a one-shot makeshift weapon that could use any ammo (in > theory). Right. The change addressed the cheese problem, not some spurious language problem. > >>If the point of this is to stave of the "that's soooooo stupid" new >>players, it seems that you'll just be trading the new players from >>column A with a larger set from column B (the column that understands >>the difference between declaring and doing). > > > Or you may have a player scoop their cards in the middle of a > tournament, like I had at last years qualifier. All because of the > Rotschreck super-cheese WPG combo. Then report the cheese problem as part of the tournament report. Trying to fix up a language problem Trojan horse fix doesn't work if the language problem isn't real. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > So you would have the White Phosphorous Grenade bearer to suffer 1 aggravated > damage even if his opponent used a Majesty to end combat at close range? No. I would say that damage -- all damage -- isn't inflicted until damage resolution. S:CE preempts ever getting there. Thus, the weapon was used, but damage is resolved in the same way it always has. I guess, unless it doesn't resolve the way I always thought it did, and god knows I'm no Rulesmonger. > Except for the obvious one - that that (strike resolution) is when it (the use) > occurs. Because you say so. Beyond this, I don't have anything to add. Please don't think that I don't get what you are trying to say, but I think you are missing the fact that you are layering arbitrary choices -- which may indeed be the best arbitrary choices -- into the situation and portraying them as natural facts. Oh, wait, I do have one thing to add: WPG and Rotschreck is really cheesy. Please fix it. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > > >>So you would have the White Phosphorous Grenade bearer to suffer 1 aggravated >>damage even if his opponent used a Majesty to end combat at close range? > > > No. I would say that damage -- all damage -- isn't inflicted until damage > resolution. S:CE preempts ever getting there. Thus, the weapon was used, > but damage is resolved in the same way it always has. I guess, unless it > doesn't resolve the way I always thought it did, and god knows I'm no > Rulesmonger. Card text says he takes the damage when the weapon is used. It says this because, as is obvious, it isn't used until it is used. You can't have it both ways. Both used (to burn) and not used (to avoid damage). > > >>Except for the obvious one - that that (strike resolution) is when it (the use) >>occurs. > > > Because you say so. That use occurs when the use occurs and not was back when the intention to use was announced is not just because I say so. > Beyond this, I don't have anything to add. Please > don't think that I don't get what you are trying to say, but I think you > are missing the fact that you are layering arbitrary choices -- which may > indeed be the best arbitrary choices -- into the situation and portraying > them as natural facts. They are. Use occurs at use. See WPG and Bomb. > Oh, wait, I do have one thing to add: WPG and Rotschreck is really > cheesy. Please fix it. I'll keep a look out for those tournament reports... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > Card text says he takes the damage when the weapon is used. > It says this because, as is obvious, it isn't used until it is used. I don't see it. It looks to me like the bearer takes damage if he strikes with it, which he will take if we ever get to damage resolution, which we don't if somebody plays a S:CE effect. "Use" is, syntactically at least, entirely disconnected from taking the damage. Unless, that is, we add in your personal interpretation of "use". ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bomb Weapon. 5R damage as a strike. If the bearer strikes with this weapon, he or she takes 5 damage as well. The minion with this weapon may burn a location as a (D) action. Burn the bomb after use. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > > [Re: White Phosphorous Grenade] >>Card text says he takes the damage when the weapon is used. >>It says this because, as is obvious, it isn't used until it is used. > > > I don't see it. It looks to me like the bearer takes damage if he strikes > with it, which he will take if we ever get to damage resolution, which we > don't if somebody plays a S:CE effect. Hurray! Card text: "if White Phosphorus Grenade is used " Your interpretation: "if White Phosphorous Grenade's strike reaches resolution". > "Use" is, syntactically at least, > entirely disconnected from taking the damage. Unless, that is, we add in > your personal interpretation of "use". <boggle> "use" is *directly* connected to taking the damage: If used, take damage. Note that it doesn't specify "if used, take damage during strike resolution". Why? Because WPG has only one use - it can be used to strike. There is no other use. Striking (i.e., use) only occurs at one stage - strike resolution. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Bomb > > Weapon. > > 5R damage as a strike. If the bearer strikes with this weapon, he or she > takes 5 damage as well. The minion with this weapon may burn a location as > a (D) action. Burn the bomb after use. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- If we contort the language to your desired meaning: the declaration of use being use, the Bomb would be burned when the action to burn a location is declared. But it isn't. Because the use doesn't occur until resolution. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > Hurray! > <boggle> Spare me the melodramatics, please; it's hypocritical. > "use" is *directly* connected to taking the damage: If used, take damage. Yeah, take damage, when it comes time to take damage. If we're done before we ever get there, then what's the problem? Use is connected with nothing more than use, a trivial tautology you keep restating. Attaching use to announcing the strike or actually striking is a choice. > If we contort the language to your desired meaning: the declaration of > use being use, the Bomb would be burned when the action to burn a location > is declared. But it isn't. Because the use doesn't occur until resolution. If your aim is to defend the status quo, and I can see reasons for that being the default postion, then this isn't going to mean much to you. But if you *wanted* to fix/change/whatever those cards, the fact that the card texts actually say "after" and /not/ "right the hell now" would leave plenty of room for such a ruling. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > > >>Hurray! >><boggle> > > > Spare me the melodramatics, please; it's hypocritical. See context (snipped from above). Blatant contradictory assertions back-to-back leads to boggling. > >>"use" is *directly* connected to taking the damage: If used, take damage. > > > Yeah, take damage, when it comes time to take damage. If we're done > before we ever get there, then what's the problem? Use is connected with > nothing more than use, a trivial tautology you keep restating. Attaching > use to announcing the strike or actually striking is a choice. If used, take damage. (card text) You claim it is used when the strike is chosen. Yet you claim no damage is done. Contradiction. The escape from this paradox is to realize that the "choose strike" thing is not the thing that causes damage. The thing (use) that causes damage is the striking, not the selection of the strike. > >>If we contort the language to your desired meaning: the declaration of >>use being use, the Bomb would be burned when the action to burn a location >>is declared. But it isn't. Because the use doesn't occur until resolution. > > > If your aim is to defend the status quo, and I can see reasons for that > being the default postion, then this isn't going to mean much to you. But > if you *wanted* to fix/change/whatever those cards, the fact that the card > texts actually say "after" and /not/ "right the hell now" would leave > plenty of room for such a ruling. Nice try. So you'd have "after" mean "at some arbitrary time in the future - whenever you're in the mood to do so."? No, sorry. "After X" means "when X occurs, after doing the X part" not "at some undisclosed time after X has occurred" [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: I hope you know that I am *not* arguing for the sake of arguing. If you want to drop it, we'll drop it. Until then, I'll keep replying if I have something to add. > If used, take damage. (card text) Agreed. > You claim it is used when the strike is chosen. No, I'm proposing it as a possibility. > Yet you claim no damage is done. Only because combat ends before damage resolution. If I Push the Limit and my opponent Majesty's, I have "used" Pushing the Limit. We just never get to the point at which it resolves. Oversimplifying the terms obscures the issue. > Contradiction. As you've set it up in your terms, yes. I hope I've shown that some of those terms aren't my terms, nor are they particularly accurate.. > The escape from this paradox is to realize that the "choose strike" thing is > not the thing that causes damage. The thing (use) that causes damage is > the striking, not the selection of the strike. And, thus, no paradox to escape from. All you've really done is restate that the definition of "use" is debatable. Under my paradigm, I've used Pushing the Limit in the example above. I'd assume you would say I haven't. > > If your aim is to defend the status quo, and I can see reasons for that > > being the default postion, then this isn't going to mean much to you. But > > if you *wanted* to fix/change/whatever those cards, the fact that the card > > texts actually say "after" and /not/ "right the hell now" would leave > > plenty of room for such a ruling. > > Nice try. > So you'd have "after" mean "at some arbitrary time in the future - whenever > you're in the mood to do so."? Nice tone. Yeah, this is all about my "mood". It clearly can't have anything to do with logic, since my conclusions differ from yours. No, I'd have "after" in this specific case be clarified in such a way that the weapon burns regardless of whether the opponent short-circuits combat. Of course this would be arbitrary. Are you claiming now that you haven't made piles and piles of arbitrary rulings? AFAIK, that's your job: you get to be the guy who says arbitrary things that the rest of us have to accept. > No, sorry. "After X" means "when X occurs, after doing the X part" not > "at some undisclosed time after X has occurred" You've included the term in the definition of the term, so I can't see that solving the issue. I understand the spirit of the ruling, though, and I think it's generally good. But it is, ironically, an arbitrary definition of "after" which you've decided in your role as Arbitrary Man. It certainly doesn't mean that, and only that, in colloquial English. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david dot cherryholmes at duke dot edu

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > > I hope you know that I am *not* arguing for the sake of arguing. If you > want to drop it, we'll drop it. Until then, I'll keep replying if I have > something to add. > > >>If used, take damage. (card text) > > Agreed. > >>You claim it is used when the strike is chosen. > > No, I'm proposing it as a possibility. Right. The context of my quote above. No negation warranted. >>Yet you claim no damage is done. > > Only because combat ends before damage resolution. You agree that it is used (in your proposed possibility). Card text, you've agreed, leads to the minion taking damage if it is used. p: use q: take damage p -> q => !q -> !p If no damage is taken, then it isn't used Yet you conclude that, even though it is used (in your proposed possibility), the minion somehow doesn't take damage. Not taking damage means that it wasn't used. > If I Push the Limit > and my opponent Majesty's, I have "used" Pushing the Limit. You've played the card, yes. You didn't get to use the strike, though. > We just never > get to the point at which it resolves. Oversimplifying the terms obscures > the issue. Actions and strikes do not resolve when played/declared. >>Contradiction. > > > As you've set it up in your terms, yes. I hope I've shown that some of > those terms aren't my terms, nor are they particularly accurate.. Use meaning use *is* particularly accurate. Extending use to mean intent is not accurate, no. > >>The escape from this paradox is to realize that the "choose strike" thing is >>not the thing that causes damage. The thing (use) that causes damage is >>the striking, not the selection of the strike. > > > And, thus, no paradox to escape from. All you've really done is restate > that the definition of "use" is debatable. Under my paradigm, I've used > Pushing the Limit in the example above. I'd assume you would say I > haven't. It isn't debatable. That someone chooses to argue an indefensible position doesn't make that position any more tenable. > > >>>If your aim is to defend the status quo, and I can see reasons for that >>>being the default postion, then this isn't going to mean much to you. But >>>if you *wanted* to fix/change/whatever those cards, the fact that the card >>>texts actually say "after" and /not/ "right the hell now" would leave >>>plenty of room for such a ruling. >> >>Nice try. >>So you'd have "after" mean "at some arbitrary time in the future - whenever >>you're in the mood to do so."? > > > Nice tone. Yeah, this is all about my "mood". It clearly can't have > anything to do with logic, since my conclusions differ from yours. Your premise (that use can mean intent to use) is faulty. Your logic is fine, except for the premise you start from. I say nothing of *your* mood. Note the position of the quotes above. > No, I'd have "after" in this specific case be clarified in such a way that > the weapon burns regardless of whether the opponent short-circuits > combat. Of course this would be arbitrary. Are you claiming now that you > haven't made piles and piles of arbitrary rulings? AFAIK, that's your > job: you get to be the guy who says arbitrary things that the rest of us > have to accept. So you'd have the Bomb burn after the action to burn a location was blocked? The action was still declared, so by your extended definition of "use", the Bomb was still used, so it should be burned "after" use (with no need to fall back on any Arbitrary meaning of after). Right? If that doesn't convince you of the error in the premise, nothing will, so either way, yeah, I'm done here. > >>No, sorry. "After X" means "when X occurs, after doing the X part" not >>"at some undisclosed time after X has occurred" > > > You've included the term in the definition of the term, so I can't see > that solving the issue. I understand the spirit of the ruling, though, > and I think it's generally good. But it is, ironically, an arbitrary > definition of "after" which you've decided in your role as Arbitrary > Man. It certainly doesn't mean that, and only that, in colloquial > English. Granted. But in the game, after pretty much has to mean when. The other option just isn't tenable, so it isn't really an option. It is not a result of my role as Arbitrary Man. It is necessary for the card game. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > You agree that it is used (in your proposed possibility). > Card text, you've agreed, leads to the minion taking damage if it is used. > p: use > q: take damage > > p -> q > > => !q -> !p > > If no damage is taken, then it isn't used And Ray Charles is God (somebody will get that). By that logic, if I use any strike and the damage is prevented, then I haven't used it. I'm only saying that it isn't as simple, nor are the terms as self-evident, as you are making them out to be. > So you'd have the Bomb burn after the action to burn a location was blocked? > The action was still declared, so by your extended definition of "use", the > Bomb was still used, so it should be burned "after" use (with no need to > fall back on any Arbitrary meaning of after). > If that doesn't convince you of the error in the premise, nothing will, so > either way, yeah, I'm done here. Burning the bomb after the action is blocked is, however, a pretty problematic consequence of what I'm proposing. I'd therefore conclude that I've not proposed the best definition of "use". That doesn't prove that the current definition is best, either. If I had some solution, I'd offer it. Lacking that, I'll just restate that this whole can of worms was opened by the WPG/Rotshreck interaction, one that I wish weren't in the game, but not one I'll be losing any sleep over. Sorry it got a little snippy in there, [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: >>You agree that it is used (in your proposed possibility). >>Card text, you've agreed, leads to the minion taking damage if it is used. >>p: use >>q: take damage >> >>p -> q >> >>=> !q -> !p >> >>If no damage is taken, then it isn't used > > > And Ray Charles is God (somebody will get that). By that logic, if I use > any strike and the damage is prevented, then I haven't used it. Only if you start with the assertion that if you use a strike then damage will be successfully inflicted as a basis. I doubt you believe that assertion. The basis for my above assertion, however, is one that we've already agreed upon. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:41:34 -0500, LSJ wrote: >Planning to use (even announcing such a plan) is not use. Time for me to pick up the torch from David and see if I can use it to provoke a Rotschreck frenzy. If choosing/declaring/planning the use of a weapon is not actual usage then consider this scenario: Vampire A has a White Phosphorous Grenade and gets into combat with Vampire B. Vampire B doesn't like the look of this and so arranges for his master to play Frenzy upon Vampire A. The Frenzy card reads: "Only usable before range is chosen in a round of combat. Choose a vampire in combat. In this combat round, that vampire cannot use equipment..." But then, despite his frenzy, Vampire A still chooses the WPG as his weapon during the Choose Strike phase and then arranges for _his_ master to play Rotschreck upon Vampire B. He claims that this is perfectly legal because he won't actually use the weapon - just wave it around to drive the other Vampire into a Rotschreck frenzy. Methuselah C exclaims "this is sooooooo stupid!" and plays Sudden Reversal to cancel the Rotschreck. Now what? Vampire A is committed to using the WPG but may not do so. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:41:34 -0500, LSJ wrote: > > >>Planning to use (even announcing such a plan) is not use. > > > Time for me to pick up the torch from David and see if I can use it to > provoke a Rotschreck frenzy. > [can a minion who "cannot use equipment" choose a weapon strike?] No. Cannot attempt what you cannot do. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C6F0D50.52ADB5BB%40white-wolf.com http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C7120EA.7756F1CD%40white-wolf.com etc. See also requirements for playing cards, costs, targets, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]