Preferred hand strike text

So I am trying to figure out which text is better and what the ramifications are for the different text choices. Strike: make a hand strike Strike: strength damage Strike: use your hand Vegas gNat

On Jun 22, 2:37 pm, tigernat1 <tigern...@gmail.com> wrote: > So I am trying to figure out which text is better and what the > ramifications are for the different text choices. > > Strike: make a hand strike It's very clear a Hand strike... I prefer this one... There is no second guessing here. > Strike: strength damage If the strength damage is considered a hand strike then its too vague. There are range strike that are strength based, and equipment that is strength based... Thinking earthshoke, and bangnok. I remember when this was annoying to explain to newbies... It it's not considered a hand strike, then it needs to say it's not. Again, I think it's vague... > Strike: use your hand Use my hand for what? I like clear card text, I think this is too vague too.

On Jun 22, 3:26 pm, "kulaid...@gmail.com" <kulaid...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 2:37 pm, tigernat1 <tigern...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So I am trying to figure out which text is better and what the > > ramifications are for the different text choices. > > > Strike: make a hand strike > > It's very clear a Hand strike... > I prefer this one... There is no second guessing here. I WOULD prefer this one as well, except it prevents certain cards from working together as they should. To be honest, most cards with this wording say "or melee weapon strike" with Scorpion Sting being a counterexample. > > > Strike: strength damage > > If the strength damage is considered a hand strike then its too > vague. There are range strike that are strength based, and equipment > that is strength based... Thinking earthshoke, and bangnok. I > remember when this was annoying to explain to newbies... It it's not > considered a hand strike, then it needs to say it's not. Again, I > think it's vague... > To be honest, the cards that use this text model say "Strike: strength RANGED damage" (Ex: Earthshock) Why is it vague? A hand strike is clearly defined in the rules. This version is my personal preference because it allows certain cards to work together. Plus, it is consistent with how other cards are worded ("Strike: 2 damage.") Not sure if "Strike: strength or melee weapon damage" is clear enough though. LSJ,what do you think? LSJ: If Scorpion's Touch and Dagon's Call used the "strength damage" text, would they then do hand damage at long range with superior Blood of the Cobra? > > Strike: use your hand > > Use my hand for what? I like clear card text, I think this is too > vague too. This is my least favorite as well, but ironically enough, it is used on a recent card printing!!! (Vengeance of Samiel). Why the text change?

[ quoted text not captured ] I think it is unclear. strength is an amount. melee weapon damage is not. The current template is "make a hand strike". No "definition" of a hand strike needed. > LSJ: If Scorpion's Touch and Dagon's Call used the "strength damage" > text, would they then do hand damage at long range with superior Blood > of the Cobra? No. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 25, 1:08 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Why is it vague? A hand strike is clearly defined in the rules. This > > version is my personal preference because it allows certain cards to > > work together. Plus, it is consistent with how other cards are worded > > ("Strike: 2 damage.") Not sure if "Strike: strength or melee weapon > > damage" is clear enough though. LSJ,what do you think? > > I think it is unclear. strength is an amount. melee weapon damage is not. No less clear than repeating the word strike: "Strike: make a hand or melee weapon strike." Melee weapon damage is an amount too. If it weren't, I wouldn't have an amount to prevent! > > LSJ: If Scorpion's Touch and Dagon's Call used the "strength damage" > > text, would they then do hand damage at long range with superior Blood > > of the Cobra? > > No. HUH? says right on the card "Strike: ranged. Play a non-ranged strike that requires Quietus from your hand and use that strike AS IF IT WERE RANGED" Wouldn't the "use that strike as if it were ranged" part turn Strike: strength damage into Strike: strength RANGED damage? If not, what DOES it turn the strike into? How should Blood of the Cobra or Dagon's Call been worded so that hand strikes that require Quietus were effective at long range then? Is Vascular Explosion effective at long range using Superior Blood of the Cobra? To further belabor this point I quite the rulebook: Resolve Strike. The effects of the strikes from both minions are resolved simultaneously. Most strikes are effective only at close range. Unless the strike is identified as ranged or does "R" damage (or is a defensive strike such as dodge or combat ends), it is only effective at close range. Ranged strikes and strikes that do "R" damage can be used at any range, close or long It seems to me by this wording that a strike that is identified as RANGED is effective at long range. Does Blood of the Cobra change the identifier of Dagon's Call to ranged?

tigernat1 wrote: > On Jun 25, 1:08 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> > Why is it vague? A hand strike is clearly defined in the rules. This >> > version is my personal preference because it allows certain cards to >> > work together. Plus, it is consistent with how other cards are worded >> > ("Strike: 2 damage.") Not sure if "Strike: strength or melee weapon >> > damage" is clear enough though. LSJ,what do you think? >> >> I think it is unclear. strength is an amount. melee weapon damage is not. > > No less clear than repeating the word strike: "Strike: make a hand or > melee weapon strike." > Melee weapon damage is an amount too. If it weren't, I wouldn't have > an amount to prevent! > >> > LSJ: If Scorpion's Touch and Dagon's Call used the "strength damage" >> > text, would they then do hand damage at long range with superior Blood >> > of the Cobra? >> >> No. > > HUH? says right on the card "Strike: ranged. Play a non-ranged strike > that requires Quietus from your hand and use that strike AS IF IT WERE > RANGED" > > Wouldn't the "use that strike as if it were ranged" part turn Strike: > strength damage into Strike: strength RANGED damage? If not, what > DOES it turn the strike into? Yes it would turn it into "Strike: strength RANGED damage". However, you originally asked "would they then do hand damage at long range". To which the answer is "no". Strength ranged damage is not hand damage at range. hand damage is only from a hand strike. Hand strikes, by definition, cannot be ranged. Try not to use strength and hand damage interchangeably, because they're not actually interchangeable in all situations. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] > - Hide quoted text - So when 2 minions are at long range with no other strike, the methuselahs should say my strike is strength, NOT hands...since a declared hand strike is illegal? And yes I guess you are right, I thought I was careful enough with my choice of words, but I did type hand damage at long range instead of strength damage at long range. Really, what I am getting at is, for the new Lords of Night set, a revision to the current card text of the Quietus hand strikes to strength damage. That way a R2 card from Final Nights won't just collect dust in my card box.

tigernat1 wrote: > On Jun 25, 1:08 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>> Why is it vague? A hand strike is clearly defined in the rules. This >>> version is my personal preference because it allows certain cards to >>> work together. Plus, it is consistent with how other cards are worded >>> ("Strike: 2 damage.") Not sure if "Strike: strength or melee weapon >>> damage" is clear enough though. LSJ,what do you think? >> I think it is unclear. strength is an amount. melee weapon damage is not. > > No less clear than repeating the word strike: "Strike: make a hand or > melee weapon strike." Note the unclear repetition in the sentence "this strike is a melee weapon strike." > Melee weapon damage is an amount too. If it weren't, I wouldn't have > an amount to prevent! What is the default value of melee? >>> LSJ: If Scorpion's Touch and Dagon's Call used the "strength damage" >>> text, would they then do hand damage at long range with superior Blood >>> of the Cobra? >> No. > > HUH? says right on the card "Strike: ranged. Play a non-ranged strike > that requires Quietus from your hand and use that strike AS IF IT WERE > RANGED" http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a1071f458ad61fd2 http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1ebdf5950ddfd2c7 > Wouldn't the "use that strike as if it were ranged" part turn Strike: > strength damage into Strike: strength RANGED damage? If not, what > DOES it turn the strike into? No. It turns it into: "hand strike ranged". The hand strike part does nothing at range. > How should Blood of the Cobra or Dagon's Call been worded so that hand > strikes that require Quietus were effective at long range then? Some other way, I suppose. The premise is that hand strikes are not ranged strikes and ranged strikes are not hand strikes. > Is Vascular Explosion effective at long range using Superior Blood of > the Cobra? Yes. Damage-dealing is not intrinsically non-ranged. Hand strikes are.

tigernat1 wrote: > So when 2 minions are at long range with no other strike, the > methuselahs should say my strike is strength, NOT hands...since a > declared hand strike is illegal? No. "strength" is not a strike. It is the amount of damage a minion does with a default hand strike. The minions with no other strike would each say "my strike is hands for 1" (assuming the minion's strength was 1). > And yes I guess you are right, I thought I was careful enough with my > choice of words, but I did type hand damage at long range instead of > strength damage at long range. > > Really, what I am getting at is, for the new Lords of Night set, a > revision to the current card text of the Quietus hand strikes to > strength damage. That way a R2 card from Final Nights won't just > collect dust in my card box. LotN is already at the printers, so the issue of changing text there is moot, but just so I understand what you're asking: Which Quietus hand strikes?

[ quoted text not captured ] Scorpion's Touch and Dagon's Call

On Jun 25, 5:29 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > tigernat1 wrote: > > On Jun 25, 1:08 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >>> Why is it vague? A hand strike is clearly defined in the rules. This > >>> version is my personal preference because it allows certain cards to > >>> work together. Plus, it is consistent with how other cards are worded > >>> ("Strike: 2 damage.") Not sure if "Strike: strength or melee weapon > >>> damage" is clear enough though. LSJ,what do you think? > >> I think it is unclear. strength is an amount. melee weapon damage is not. > > > No less clear than repeating the word strike: "Strike: make a hand or > > melee weapon strike." > > Note the unclear repetition in the sentence "this strike is a melee weapon strike." > > > Melee weapon damage is an amount too. If it weren't, I wouldn't have > > an amount to prevent! > > What is the default value of melee? > So you are saying a value has to have a default to be considered clear? What about "Strike: strength or melee weapon strike damage?" > >>> LSJ: If Scorpion's Touch and Dagon's Call used the "strength damage" > >>> text, would they then do hand damage at long range with superior Blood > >>> of the Cobra? > >> No. LSJ, I understand the ruling for the CURRENT card text. Please note I am NOT using current card text but a hypothetical change in card text to Strike: strength damage. My original question had a textual error in it. My apologies. My reworded question is below: If Scorpion's Touch and Dagon's Call used the "Strike: strength damage" text model, would the STRENGTH damage then be effective at long range with superior Blood of the Cobra? Note also that changing Scorpion's Touch text to the strength damage text would possibly make the melee weapon part of it unclear/ inconsistent as discussed above. However, Dagon's Call does NOT have the melee weapon text and therefore could easily be reworded to be Strike: strength damage and the opposing... so that it would be an effective strength damage strike at long range using Blood of the Cobra.

tigernat1 wrote: > On Jun 25, 5:29 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> tigernat1 wrote: >>> On Jun 25, 1:08 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>>> Why is it vague? A hand strike is clearly defined in the rules. This >>>>> version is my personal preference because it allows certain cards to >>>>> work together. Plus, it is consistent with how other cards are worded >>>>> ("Strike: 2 damage.") Not sure if "Strike: strength or melee weapon >>>>> damage" is clear enough though. LSJ,what do you think? >>>> I think it is unclear. strength is an amount. melee weapon damage is not. >>> No less clear than repeating the word strike: "Strike: make a hand or >>> melee weapon strike." >> Note the unclear repetition in the sentence "this strike is a melee weapon strike." >> >>> Melee weapon damage is an amount too. If it weren't, I wouldn't have >>> an amount to prevent! >> What is the default value of melee? >> > > So you are saying a value has to have a default to be considered > clear? No, I'm saying a strike has to do some defined amount of damage. Strength is an amount. Melee is not an amount. Melee weapon is not an amount. How much damage is done by a strike that says "strike: melee weapon damage"? Answer: unknown. The type of damage is specified, but no amount of damage is given. > What about "Strike: strength or melee weapon strike damage?" Same. Strength damage is fine (although it becomes a hand strike only by definition of the term hand strike, unlike the current clearer template of "make a hand strike". But the "strike: melee weapon strike damage" is doing an unspecified amount of damage. If you want your strike card to allow the minion to make a strike with his melee weapon, you say so, as in: "strike: make a melee weapon strike" or "strike: use your melee weapon". >>>>> LSJ: If Scorpion's Touch and Dagon's Call used the "strength damage" >>>>> text, would they then do hand damage at long range with superior Blood >>>>> of the Cobra? >>>> No. > > LSJ, > I understand the ruling for the CURRENT card text. Please note I am > NOT using current card text but a hypothetical change in card text to > Strike: strength damage. My original question had a textual error in > it. My apologies. My reworded question is below: > > If Scorpion's Touch and Dagon's Call used the "Strike: strength > damage" text model, would the STRENGTH damage then be effective at > long range with superior Blood of the Cobra? Yes. And it wouldn't be a hand strike. They'd be hand strikes when used at close range by the obsolete definition of "hand strike", though. The new wording gets away from dependence on that definition. The current wording matches backstory, as well, unlike your proposed wording. > Note also that changing Scorpion's Touch text to the strength damage > text would possibly make the melee weapon part of it unclear/ Changing it to "strike: strength damage." would eliminate the possibility of using it with a melee weapon altogether. > inconsistent as discussed above. However, Dagon's Call does NOT have > the melee weapon text and therefore could easily be reworded to be > Strike: strength damage and the opposing... so that it would be an > effective strength damage strike at long range using Blood of the > Cobra. Of course. Indeed, you could reword most anything to turn it into most anything else.

On Jun 26, 4:35 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>>>> LSJ: If Scorpion's Touch and Dagon's Call used the "strength damage" > >>>>> text, would they then do hand damage at long range with superior Blood > >>>>> of the Cobra? > >>>> No. > > > LSJ, > > I understand the ruling for the CURRENT card text. Please note I am > > NOT using current card text but a hypothetical change in card text to > > Strike: strength damage. My original question had a textual error in > > it. My apologies. My reworded question is below: > > > If Scorpion's Touch and Dagon's Call used the "Strike: strength > > damage" text model, would the STRENGTH damage then be effective at > > long range with superior Blood of the Cobra? > > Yes. And it wouldn't be a hand strike. > They'd be hand strikes when used at close range by the obsolete definition of > "hand strike", though. > The new wording gets away from dependence on that definition. > > The current wording matches backstory, as well, unlike your proposed wording. You know as well as I that backstory is never a valid excuse for current wording. Many cards in VTES are changed from the soruce material to fit game design (Ex:WWeF). > > > Note also that changing Scorpion's Touch text to the strength damage > > text would possibly make the melee weapon part of it unclear/ > > Changing it to "strike: strength damage." would eliminate the possibility of > using it with a melee weapon altogether. > > > inconsistent as discussed above. However, Dagon's Call does NOT have > > the melee weapon text and therefore could easily be reworded to be > > Strike: strength damage and the opposing... so that it would be an > > effective strength damage strike at long range using Blood of the > > Cobra. > > Of course. Indeed, you could reword most anything to turn it into most anything > else.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I believe you were around for card design in 2001 when Final Nights was printed. What was the purpose of Blood of the Cobra? It is pretty close to wallpaper as printed since it doesn't "work" with any of the close range strikes printed then or since. In fact, Dagon's Call works the same whether used with Blood of the Cobra or not since the only part that takes effect at long range is the press damage each round.

[ quoted text not captured ] Strike: ranged. Steal 2 blood. -- Dorrinal Blackmantle Chantry Elder of Salt Lake City