Chainsaws Melee Weapons?

If I understand the rulings I've looked at recently, Melee Weapons are those weapons which are based on strength damage, such as Bang Nakh or Sengir Daggers. Talbot's Chainsaw isn't a melee weapon. Nor is the regular Chainsaw. However, we got this nifty new reprint in Camarilla Edition: Gas-Powered Chainsaw Equipment 1 pool Melee Weapon 3 damage each strike. This weapon is only usable once each combat. I'm kinda confused here. If Gas-Powered Chainsaw qualifies as a Melee Weapon, yet the other two Chainsaws do not, this seems inconsistent to me. Rowan Ring the other Melee Weapon which doesn't fit the strength-based definition. If this seeming discrepancy were resolved one way or the other, I can tell you with certainty how Fatima al-Faqadi (with Silence of Death, Blood Agony and Scorpion's Touch) would want the ruling to go. :D I know this issue isn't very important (because it would require errata to the cards), but adding a couple Chainsaws into the Melee Weapon category would liven things up ever so slightly for Potence, Quietus and Valeran combat. More importantly, it seems to me that common sense would say they ought to be Melee Weapons. The less corner-case rulings the better.

Jeff Kuta wrote: > If I understand the rulings I've looked at recently, Melee Weapons are > those weapons which are based on strength damage, such as Bang Nakh or > Sengir Daggers. Officially, melee weapons are those weapons that say "melee" in card text. That designation is reserved for strength-based (close range) weapons. > Talbot's Chainsaw isn't a melee weapon. Nor is the regular Chainsaw. > > However, we got this nifty new reprint in Camarilla Edition: > > Gas-Powered Chainsaw > Equipment > 1 pool > Melee Weapon > 3 damage each strike. This weapon is only usable once each combat. It was reprinted in Sabbat War as well. > I'm kinda confused here. If Gas-Powered Chainsaw qualifies as a Melee > Weapon, yet the other two Chainsaws do not, this seems inconsistent to > me. Rowan Ring the other Melee Weapon which doesn't fit the > strength-based definition. > > If this seeming discrepancy were resolved one way or the other, I can > tell you with certainty how Fatima al-Faqadi (with Silence of Death, > Blood Agony and Scorpion's Touch) would want the ruling to go. :D > > I know this issue isn't very important (because it would require > errata to the cards), but adding a couple Chainsaws into the Melee > Weapon category would liven things up ever so slightly for Potence, > Quietus and Valeran combat. More importantly, it seems to me that > common sense would say they ought to be Melee Weapons. The less > corner-case rulings the better. There is no ruling at work here - just card text. This is consistent (card text is followed). -- 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/

Presumably the thinking is that chainsaws do damage becase the chain is going round and not as a function of how hard you hit with them but you do hit with them in melee -you certainly don't use them as a hand strike -I think it would be cool if you could use Bang Nakh as hand strikes though. Quick check: Is a thrown sewer lid/gate a weapon? (eg against thaumaturgy cards) (no?)

Timlagor wrote: > Is a thrown sewer lid/gate a weapon? (eg against thaumaturgy cards) > (no?) Correct - they are not. Weapons are just the things that identify themselve as "weapon" in card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EDC8DAF...@white-wolf.com>... > Jeff Kuta wrote: > > More importantly, it seems to me that > > common sense would say they ought to be Melee Weapons. > > There is no ruling at work here - just card text. > This is consistent (card text is followed). Yes, it is logically consistent considering card text, but it's not logically consistent (to myself and many others) considering common sense. Sure, this is a game which exists outside of reality so common sense doesn't need to apply (and who's defining it anyway?). However, it would seem, for Rowan Ring and Talbot's Chainsaw, instead of sticking with the original card type "Unique Weapon" it would have made more sense to reprint them each as a "Unique Melee Weapon" which is emminently reasonable. It's kind of pointless to argue too hard for getting this changed because it's not really a game-breaker, but it's just one little nagging itch that could easily be cratched. Every time someone new to the game looks at this they'll be mystified at the rulings, then grudgingly accept it as a quirk of the game. But really, we don't need any more quirks.

> > I'm kinda confused here. If Gas-Powered Chainsaw qualifies as a Melee > > Weapon, yet the other two Chainsaws do not, this seems inconsistent to > > me. Rowan Ring the other Melee Weapon which doesn't fit the > > strength-based definition. > > > > If this seeming discrepancy were resolved one way or the other, I can > > tell you with certainty how Fatima al-Faqadi (with Silence of Death, > > Blood Agony and Scorpion's Touch) would want the ruling to go. :D > > > > I know this issue isn't very important (because it would require > > errata to the cards), but adding a couple Chainsaws into the Melee > > Weapon category would liven things up ever so slightly for Potence, > > Quietus and Valeran combat. More importantly, it seems to me that > > common sense would say they ought to be Melee Weapons. The less > > corner-case rulings the better. > > There is no ruling at work here - just card text. > This is consistent (card text is followed). I understand that there is no change planned for any of these but can we expect any future weapons of this sort to be designated mellee?

>> There is no ruling at work here - just card text. >> This is consistent (card text is followed). > >Yes, it is logically consistent considering card text, but it's not >logically consistent (to myself and many others) considering common >sense. > >Sure, this is a game which exists outside of reality so common sense >doesn't need to apply (and who's defining it anyway?). However, it >would seem, for Rowan Ring and Talbot's Chainsaw, instead of sticking >with the original card type "Unique Weapon" it would have made more >sense to reprint them each as a "Unique Melee Weapon" which is >emminently reasonable. If any change is forthcoming, it seems most likely that Gas-Powered Chainsaw would be changed to *not* be a melee weapon (as opposed to making all the other Chainsaws into melee weapons). LSJ seems to have implied that in a different thread (regarding how most melee weapons are based on strength and that the case of GPC hasn't become significant enough to change yet). So if people continue bellyaching, the exact opposite of what they want may very well happen! Halcyan 2