Q on DI and Bundi

DI: If player A bleeds and player B tries to block, A plays stealth and B plays DI to cancel it, can player B now change blocker or does the original blocking minion have to block the action? This discussion happened last night, my guess is that player B cannot change blocker but we would like to know for sure. Bundi: As it says "strike:...." does it mean that you cannot strike with Bundi with an Undead Strength? As they're two separate strikes, unlike with a Bastard Swiord for example that merely gives +1 strength on strikes?

Cantila wrote: > DI: If player A bleeds and player B tries to block, A plays stealth > and B plays DI to cancel it, can player B now change blocker or does > the original blocking minion have to block the action? This discussion > happened last night, my guess is that player B cannot change blocker > but we would like to know for sure. Correct, you can't just decide to stop a currently-succeeding block attempt. > Bundi: As it says "strike:...." does it mean that you cannot strike > with Bundi with an Undead Strength? As they're two separate strikes, > unlike with a Bastard Swiord for example that merely gives +1 strength > on strikes? No, it doesn't mean that. All weapons say "strike...". Card text on Undead Strength allows it to be used with a weapon.

> > Bundi: As it says "strike:...." does it mean that you cannot strike > > with Bundi with an Undead Strength? As they're two separate strikes, > > unlike with a Bastard Swiord for example that merely gives +1 strength > > on strikes? > > No, it doesn't mean that. All weapons say "strike...". Card text on Undead > Strength allows it to be used with a weapon. Is this correct? To me it looks like the strike is a hand/melee weapon strike with +1 strength striking for 2 (with a basic vampire). If you strike with undead strength you make another strike for +1/+2 strength striking for 2 or 3 even if you have the Bundi equipped. Also not all melee weapons say "Strike:..." for instance: Bang Nakh says "Strength +2 damage each strike", Banshee Ironwall: "Strength +2 damage each strike", Bastard Sword: "Strength +1 damage each strike", Black Gloves: "Strenght +1 aggravated damage each strike" and on and on All those weapons don't have the wording "Strike:..." and can therefor be used in conjunction with undead strength. Or am I mistaken, and if so, please explain why all those weapons don't have the strike:.. wording on them and why for example even Talith (which came out in the same set) doesn't have that wording.

[ quoted text not captured ] I think LSJ would know if it is correct, yes. :) The wording on Bundi is more just extra text to ensure card clarity. All weapons are inherently Strike cards when they are used to strike. So in effect all are "Strike: card text" ... "strength + 1 damage each strike" is equivalent to "strike: strength + 1 damage". In any case, the wording on Undead Strength and similar cards allows for use on Bundi and similarly worded weapons (Argent Baton, Garotte, Nightstick). More than likely, the wording is more precise on these cards because of their additional effects and to avoid any unnecessary confusion. Undead Strength [pot] Strike: hand strike or use a melee weapon strike. This strike is at +1 damage. [POT] Strike: hand strike or use a melee weapon strike. This strike is at +2 damage. Since striking with Bundi is a melee weapon strike, by it's own card text, Undead Strength allows you to use that weapon strike at +1/+2 damage. Not also that cards such as Undead Strength apply to Melee Weapons. They won't affect Gun strikes, nor merely Weapons such as Talbot's Chainsaw. And if the inherent strike does no damage, there is no damage to enhance (Rowan Ring, for example). Chris, Thrall of Arika

Hmm, you make it sound so logical ;-) Thanks for the explanation. And yes, I was assuming LSJ knows the rules, but it just stroke me as weird. Still I wonder why Talith doesn't have that wording.

[ quoted text not captured ] I would say it all sounds terribly illogical. Afaik Bundi is the only card with that wording, and all other non-weapon strike cards who have such similar wording restricts you from using another strike card together with it. Which is why I thought Talith etc were worded the way they were and Bundi doesn't fit into that. If Bundi was worded the way it is to avoid confusion it failed miserably :P It's the wording as it is now that causes confusion if anythng. Had it been worded like other melee weapons it'd all been crystal clear IMO.

Cantila wrote: > On Feb 26, 7:11 pm, PaulWigg...@gmail.com wrote: >> Hmm, you make it sound so logical ;-) Thanks for the explanation. >> >> And yes, I was assuming LSJ knows the rules, but it just stroke me as >> weird. >> >> Still I wonder why Talith doesn't have that wording. > > I would say it all sounds terribly illogical. Afaik Bundi is the only > card with that wording, "That wording"? You mean "Strike: blah"? Argent Baton Flash Grenade Garrote Nightstick Waxen Poetica and, even: Talith (Ravnos alt. use) > and all other non-weapon strike cards who have > such similar wording restricts you from using another strike card > together with it. > Which is why I thought Talith etc were worded the > way they were and Bundi doesn't fit into that. I think this is the bit that is confusing you -- the idea that "strike: blah" texts are somehow self-restrictive while weapons' texts (other than the "strike: blah" templated ones) are not. Those "strike: blah" texts are not self-restrictive (just like weapons are not self-restrictive). "Strike: blah" is not self-restrictive (except by way of identifying the effect as a strike, just as "blah as a strike" or "blah each strike" identifies the effect as a strike). Granted, there are few strike cards that permit the use of other generic strikes (as opposed to weapons, for which there are many other strike cards that permit their use). > If Bundi was worded the > way it is to avoid confusion it failed miserably :P What would have been the proper wording? "Hand strike for strength+1 damage each strike"? Perhaps, but that 1) means exactly what the current text means while 2) being more stilted and equally clear/confusing (if approached honestly). > It's the wording > as it is now that causes confusion if anythng. Had it been worded like > other melee weapons it'd all been crystal clear IMO. Other melee weapons don't generate the Bundi effect, so wording it like them would mean changing the design of Bundi.

[ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps it's just me, but I never saw the confusion around "Strike: <blah>" and "<blah> each strike". The only thing I could possibly see is that one might think that the "Strike:" part limits the card to one use per action, which it doesn't. A weapon needs specific text _to_ limit it, i.e. Chainsaw, Gas-powered Chainsaw and Sawed-off Shotgun. Even then, the wording 'each strike' doesn't lead any more logically to being able to be used multiple times in a combat. If a weapon could only be used once for it's effect, we wouldn't have wording such as for Brass Knuckles - "Strength+1 damage each strike, only usable once each combat." Keep in mind that Bundi is also a _hand_ strike, not merely a weapon strike. Seeing LSJ's alternate wording makes me, as an editor, tremble in horror. Personally, I prefer the "Strike: <blah>" wording, as it's more concise, and parallels wording on combat strike cards (which are by default one use only, unless card text says otherwise). Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Feb 29, 12:40 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > Perhaps it's just me, but I never saw the confusion around "Strike: > <blah>" and "<blah> each strike". Well, not that I'm actually confused by it, but I'm definitely one of the folks who's been (and still is) extremely bothered by the templating, and especially by the fact that, even within the same set, it's not consistently applied. (See Bundi vs. Talith, and even Talith vs. Talith.) "<fnord> each strike" is text that, to me, tells you what the results are when you use the item in question as a strike. The rules grant you specific options to strike with your hand, a weapon, or a strike from a card effect, whether combat or other. Certain card effects, like Undead Strength, might allow you to use their Strike with either your hand or a melee weapon as the base. "Strike: <fnord>" is text that, to me, implies you're choosing to use that particular Strike *as* your strike. You only get one of those in each Choose Strike phase. You can't Undead Strength and Slam in the same choose strike phase. It seems, to me, very very counterintuitive to say "You only get one Strike: <fnord> effect, unless that effect says you can use a hand or weapon strike and you choose a weapon that's also written as Strike: <fnord>." Saying you can Undead Strength with a Strike: <fnord> weapon also leaves the implication that you could Undead Strength with a Slam. After all, they're both the same template. Sure, you can't US:Slam by *ruling* (or, more accurately, you *can* US:<Bundi> by ruling), but that's not as clean as it could be. Regarding proper alternate wording for Bundi: "Melee weapon. Strength + 1 damage each strike. Any strike made with a Bundi is both a hand strike and a melee weapon strike. Bearer may prevent 1 damage from each melee weapon strike made against him or her." Only 4 words longer, and clearer, IMO. - D.J.

Meej wrote: > On Feb 29, 12:40 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> > wrote: > >> Perhaps it's just me, but I never saw the confusion around "Strike: >> <blah>" and "<blah> each strike". > > Well, not that I'm actually confused by it, but I'm definitely one of > the folks who's been (and still is) extremely bothered by the > templating, and especially by the fact that, even within the same set, > it's not consistently applied. (See Bundi vs. Talith, and even Talith > vs. Talith.) > > "<fnord> each strike" is text that, to me, tells you what the results > are when you use the item in question as a strike. > > "Strike: <fnord>" is text that, to me, implies you're choosing to use > that particular Strike *as* your strike. Well, assuming you're not saying that having the equipment automatically forces you to choose it as your strike, the two things you've said above are equivalent: that <fnord> is what happens when you choose the particular item in question as your strike. > It seems, to me, very very counterintuitive to say "You only get one > Strike: <fnord> effect, unless that effect says you can use a hand or > weapon strike and you choose a weapon that's also written as Strike: > <fnord>." Saying you can Undead Strength with a Strike: <fnord> > weapon also leaves the implication that you could Undead Strength with > a Slam. After all, they're both the same template. Sure, you can't > US:Slam by *ruling* (or, more accurately, you *can* US:<Bundi> by > ruling), but that's not as clean as it could be. Incorrect. Undead Strength + Weapon text application: US: Strike: use a melee weapon strike. So then, as per the US text, you choose a melee weapon and use its strike. Undead Strength + Slam text application: US: Strike: hand strike. So then, your strike is "hand strike" and you're done. You don't get to choose Slam. Note the difference. The Undead Strength's hand strike part doesn't say "use a(ny) hand strike at...", it just says "Hand strike". > Regarding proper alternate wording for Bundi: > "Melee weapon. Strength + 1 damage each strike. Any strike made with > a Bundi is both a hand strike and a melee weapon strike. Bearer may > prevent 1 damage from each melee weapon strike made against him or > her." > > Only 4 words longer, and clearer, IMO. 4 words longer. Perhaps clearer. Perhaps less clear. (As text may be read such that the strike isn't a hand strike until it is made, can it be used under Grapple?, for example, would be one question that is arguably less clear with that wording than with the current).

On Feb 29, 3:22 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Meej wrote: > > On Feb 29, 12:40 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> > > wrote: > > >> Perhaps it's just me, but I never saw the confusion around "Strike: > >> <blah>" and "<blah> each strike". > > > Well, not that I'm actually confused by it, but I'm definitely one of > > the folks who's been (and still is) extremely bothered by the > > templating, and especially by the fact that, even within the same set, > > it's not consistently applied. (See Bundi vs. Talith, and even Talith > > vs. Talith.) > > > "<fnord> each strike" is text that, to me, tells you what the results > > are when you use the item in question as a strike. > > > "Strike: <fnord>" is text that, to me, implies you're choosing to use > > that particular Strike *as* your strike. > > Well, assuming you're not saying that having the equipment automatically forces > you to choose it as your strike, the two things you've said above are > equivalent: that <fnord> is what happens when you choose the particular item in > question as your strike. I can see what you mean. What I was trying to express was the following: replace "as" with "during" in the "fnord each strike" description. Given that, can you see the distinction I'm seeing? If not, still, let me put it a little differently. "When you use <foo> it does <bar>" implies, to me, a variety of methods of using <foo> (Strength +1 damage each strike). "Use <foo> to do <bar>" implies, to me, that you get <bar> from your <foo> when used in exactly that way (Strike: Strength +1 damage). Yes, those are not the precise language used on the cards, and I recognize that that makes a difference, but if precise language is that important, why is the templating inconsistent? > > It seems, to me, very very counterintuitive to say "You only get one > > Strike: <fnord> effect, unless that effect says you can use a hand or > > weapon strike and you choose a weapon that's also written as Strike: > > <fnord>." Saying you can Undead Strength with a Strike: <fnord> > > weapon also leaves the implication that you could Undead Strength with > > a Slam. After all, they're both the same template. Sure, you can't > > US:Slam by *ruling* (or, more accurately, you *can* US:<Bundi> by > > ruling), but that's not as clean as it could be. > > Incorrect. That it's not as clean as it could be? That it could leave that implication by printed card text? If what you mean is that it's not the same templating, or that it's by ruling, I'll grant those - it's by online-issued clarification and (in a few cases, I'm guessing) MRP, which technically are a slightly different category of card text change rather than ruling. > Undead Strength + Weapon text application: > > US: Strike: use a melee weapon strike. > So then, as per the US text, you choose a melee weapon and use its strike. Some of them don't have "Strike:"s. They have added damage when used, sure. The rulebook allows you to use a melee weapon in a strike, sure. But the weapon doesn't have a strike in and of itself, does it? If the rulebook didn't say you could use a weapon without a Strike: card, would you be able to? A gun (any of them) doesn't specify a strike, it just says what it does when used as a strike, like with Projectile (or, currently, with the base rules) - how would you use it without one, if the rules only gave you the option of hand strikes, or card plays? (Yes, I'm being incredibly pedantic here, for the sake of a point: Why are some weapons set up one way, and some another? Especially given that the more-confusing version is a later addition, as far as I can tell?) > Undead Strength + Slam text application: > > US: Strike: hand strike. > So then, your strike is "hand strike" and you're done. You don't get to choose Slam. > > Note the difference. The Undead Strength's hand strike part doesn't say "use > a(ny) hand strike at...", it just says "Hand strike". Thanks for pointing that out. (Worth noting that that's via online clarification, since most of the strike cards with this situation in print actually read "Make a hand or melee weapon strike at...," but that's not a valid point of contention). Still, I can't see why you'd set it up that way, to be honest. It seems, to me, to be cleaner to have weapons tell their damage when used in a strike, the way it was set up until a few sets back, rather than use Strike: formatting exactly as on combat cards; Strike: formatting on non-combat cards seems to me to be a great tool for making it clear when something cannot (or, by its omission, can) be combined with other Strike:s. (For instance, Talith's weapon-breaking, or Nightstick's damage- prevention. Is the intent really that I can Undead Strength: Prevent Damage with a Nightstick to do no damage, but cycle the card anyway?) > > Regarding proper alternate wording for Bundi: > > "Melee weapon. Strength + 1 damage each strike. Any strike made with > > a Bundi is both a hand strike and a melee weapon strike. Bearer may > > prevent 1 damage from each melee weapon strike made against him or > > her." > > > Only 4 words longer, and clearer, IMO. > > 4 words longer. Perhaps clearer. Perhaps less clear. Hence the IMO. > (As text may be read such > that the strike isn't a hand strike until it is made, can it be used under > Grapple?, for example, would be one question that is arguably less clear with > that wording than with the current). Good catch. 3 words longer, then, and remove "made." I can't see how that is arguably less clear anymore. Honestly, LSJ - I'm not arguing that anything currently possible should be switched to be impossible, or that anything currently impossible should be switched to be possible, and I'm not disputing that the rulings, clarifications, whatever, work. I was answering Chris's question about what the issue raised in the past was. And to be honest, I'm continuing with it because, generally, you've shown yourself to be in favor of cleaner, less-confusing, more- consistent card text, and this is one of the few cases where it seems to me that the logical inferences from the card text distinctions run counter to the way you're looking at it. - D.J.

Meej wrote: > I can see what you mean. What I was trying to express was the > following: replace "as" with "during" in the "fnord each strike" > description. Given that, can you see the distinction I'm seeing? > > If not, still, let me put it a little differently. "When you use > <foo> it does <bar>" implies, to me, a variety of methods of using > <foo> (Strength +1 damage each strike). What variety? "Strength +1 damage each strike" is not a variety. It's one effect. An effect that happens to be a strike. > "Use <foo> to do <bar>" > implies, to me, that you get <bar> from your <foo> when used in > exactly that way (Strike: Strength +1 damage). True. That's also what "When you use <foo> it does <bar>" implies. > Yes, those are not the > precise language used on the cards, and I recognize that that makes a > difference, but if precise language is that important, why is the > templating inconsistent? Different effects sometimes require (or at least, benefit from) different templates. >> Undead Strength + Weapon text application: >> >> US: Strike: use a melee weapon strike. >> So then, as per the US text, you choose a melee weapon and use its strike. > > Some of them don't have "Strike:"s. But all weapons have strikes. > They have added damage when used, > sure. You omitted the word "strike" there: "They have added damage when used to strike." Technically, the "added damage" is just inherent damage (and is only "added" in the sense that the inherent amount is computed by adding some value to the bearer's strength). So it would be more proper to say: "They inflict some specified amount of damage with their strikes" or, more concisely: "Their strikes inflict some specified amount of damage". > The rulebook allows you to use a melee weapon in a strike, > sure. But the weapon doesn't have a strike in and of itself, does > it? Yes, the weapon has a strike. That is, it has a strike effect that occurs when it is used as a strike. > If the rulebook didn't say you could use a weapon without a > Strike: card, would you be able to? No. Having a strike effect is not the same as having a strike opportunity, although "has a strike" can be used to mean either, depending on context. > A gun (any of them) doesn't > specify a strike, it just says what it does when used as a strike, Same thing. > like with Projectile (or, currently, with the base rules) - how would > you use it without one, if the rules only gave you the option of hand > strikes, or card plays? I don't know. Fortunately, it's moot, since the rules don't "only give the option of hand strikes or card plays". Rulebook: "Choose Strike. Each minion chooses his strike. The strike can be from a combat card, from a weapon the minion possesses or (the default) from a hand strike." [6.4.3] > (Yes, I'm being incredibly pedantic here, for the sake of a point: Why > are some weapons set up one way, and some another? Especially given > that the more-confusing version is a later addition, as far as I can > tell?) To be pedantic: specifying the effect something has when used as a strike and specifying the strike effect for which something can be used are exactly the same thing. Some weapons use the alternate "Strike: <blah>" template when the effect being described warrants it. > It seems, to me, to be cleaner to > have weapons tell their damage when used in a strike, the way it was > set up until a few sets back, rather than use Strike: formatting > exactly as on combat cards; The Strike: formatting tells what the weapon does when used in a strike. > Strike: formatting on non-combat cards > seems to me to be a great tool for making it clear when something > cannot (or, by its omission, can) be combined with other Strike:s. Perhaps, but only if some additional rules text said it did (make the strike unable to be combined). Since, currently, the rules don't support that notion (and instead allow card text such as Undead Strength's to specify that a modified weapon's strike can be used). > (For instance, Talith's weapon-breaking, or Nightstick's damage- > prevention. Is the intent really that I can Undead Strength: Prevent > Damage with a Nightstick to do no damage, but cycle the card anyway?) Moot. We're discussion effect, not intent. Is the intent of Wake really that I can play it without attempting to block and without attempting to play another reaction card? > And to be honest, I'm continuing with it because, generally, you've > shown yourself to be in favor of cleaner, less-confusing, more- > consistent card text, and this is one of the few cases where it seems > to me that the logical inferences from the card text distinctions run > counter to the way you're looking at it. It still seems to be running the correct way to me.

On Feb 29, 2:22 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Undead Strength + Weapon text application: > > US: Strike: use a melee weapon strike. > So then, as per the US text, you choose a melee weapon and use its strike. > > Undead Strength + Slam text application: > > US: Strike: hand strike. > So then, your strike is "hand strike" and you're done. You don't get to choose Slam. > > Note the difference. The Undead Strength's hand strike part doesn't say "use > a(ny) hand strike at...", it just says "Hand strike". > As far as I can tell, Undead Strength says "Make a hand or melee weapon strike at +1/2 damage" (most recent printing). There may be some ruling that changes the text to say what you say above, which is fine. It's not that anyone is disputing that Undead Strength + Bundi works different from Undead Strength + Slam (or whatever other hand strike). It's just it doesn't *look* different per card text. Per card text, Undead Strength says "Make a hand or melee weapon strike at +1/2 damage." Bundi says "Strike: hand strike for strength+1 damage." whereas (let's pick a hand strike) Khabar:Honor says "Strike: strength +3 damage." Nothing in those card texts indicates that US can be used with Bundi but not with Khabar:Honor. Now, the text listed on the WW page is different. Slam, frex says "Strike: hand strike for +2 damage" instead of what the card says "Strike: make a hand strike at +2 damage", which *might* be interpreted to mean something different. And Undead Strength says what you quote above. But it all seems needlessly confusing. I'm not saying it shouldn't work the way you say it does. Your ruling makes sense. But are you saying you can't understand why people would be confused???

Chris Berger wrote: > On Feb 29, 2:22 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Undead Strength + Weapon text application: >> >> US: Strike: use a melee weapon strike. >> So then, as per the US text, you choose a melee weapon and use its strike. >> >> Undead Strength + Slam text application: >> >> US: Strike: hand strike. >> So then, your strike is "hand strike" and you're done. You don't get to choose Slam. >> >> Note the difference. The Undead Strength's hand strike part doesn't say "use >> a(ny) hand strike at...", it just says "Hand strike". >> > > As far as I can tell, Undead Strength says "Make a hand or melee > weapon strike at +1/2 damage" (most recent printing). There may be > some ruling that changes the text to say what you say above, which is > fine. Sure. I'm just using the official card text online. > It's not that anyone is disputing that Undead Strength + Bundi > works different from Undead Strength + Slam (or whatever other hand > strike). It's just it doesn't *look* different per card text. Well, yeah. Hence the clarified official card text. > But are you saying you can't > understand why people would be confused??? Obviously, I'm trying to say exactly what I've been saying: that the different templates on melee weapons do not have some secret meaning that somehow makes one of the template extra-self-restrictive.

On Feb 29, 9:55 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Meej wrote: > > I can see what you mean. What I was trying to express was the > > following: replace "as" with "during" in the "fnord each strike" > > description. Given that, can you see the distinction I'm seeing? > > > If not, still, let me put it a little differently. "When you use > > <foo> it does <bar>" implies, to me, a variety of methods of using > > <foo> (Strength +1 damage each strike). > > What variety? "Strength +1 damage each strike" is not a variety. It's one > effect. An effect that happens to be a strike. OK - it strikes me as being a description of how a strike, wherever it comes from, that uses that card functions - whether the strike is provided by a combat card (U.S.) or by the rulebook. > > "Use <foo> to do <bar>" > > implies, to me, that you get <bar> from your <foo> when used in > > exactly that way (Strike: Strength +1 damage). > > True. That's also what "When you use <foo> it does <bar>" implies. Not to me, clearly, or I wouldn't have made a distinction - to me, it reads: Here's a precise Strike: that you can make with this weapon. It implies nothing at all to me about generic uses for the weapon in a strike. (Other than by possible precedent from the prior-used, clearer wording, which leaves me wondering about the different templating.) > > Yes, those are not the > > precise language used on the cards, and I recognize that that makes a > > difference, but if precise language is that important, why is the > > templating inconsistent? > > Different effects sometimes require (or at least, benefit from) different templates. Sure. Why are there different templates being used for identical effects? Strike: 2R aggravated damage (Waxen Poetica) and 2R aggravated damage each strike (Improvised Flamethrower). Alternately, if the "burn after use" makes a difference, Waxen Poetica and Grenade. *Maybe* I can concede that the Strike: Strength +1 damage is important for the Nightstick, to make it clear that the "prevent 3 damage" strike doesn't get +1 damage. But that very distinction implies, to me, that you recognize that there's something different about "Strike: <foo>" and "<Foo> each strike." I'm not saying you do, actually, but it certainly implies that, if that's the justification. > >> Undead Strength + Weapon text application: > > >> US: Strike: use a melee weapon strike. > >> So then, as per the US text, you choose a melee weapon and use its strike. > > > Some of them don't have "Strike:"s. > > But all weapons have strikes. Due to the rulebook, yes. More properly, all weapons have an effect when used as a strike. Whether they all have strikes is sort of what we're discussing here; also, whether there is a difference between having an effect as a strike, and having a "Strike:" choice. (Or, I suppose - since by ruling/clarification/whatever, there's currently no difference - whether there should be, or whether there's an implied difference overruled by r/c/w.) > So it would be more proper to say: "They inflict some specified amount of damage > with their strikes" or, more concisely: "Their strikes inflict some specified > amount of damage". True, especially when you bring guns in. "Added" was poor phrasing on my part. But no argument here with your clarification. > > The rulebook allows you to use a melee weapon in a strike, > > sure. But the weapon doesn't have a strike in and of itself, does > > it? > > Yes, the weapon has a strike. That is, it has a strike effect that occurs when > it is used as a strike. Which seems to me to be different than having a strike. Something else, the rulebook or combat card in this case, provides the opportunity for the strike effect to be used, in my eyes. Unlike, say, Bundi, which has a Strike: printed on it. Does that seem like a purely semantic difference to you, and are you able to explain why there's not a distinction? > > If the rulebook didn't say you could use a weapon without a > > Strike: card, would you be able to? > > No. Having a strike effect is not the same as having a strike opportunity, > although "has a strike" can be used to mean either, depending on context. Hmm. I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're saying - do you mean that, barring the rules' allowance of using a weapon to strike, having "Strike: Strength +1 damage" printed on a weapon would not allow you to use that as a strike? > > A gun (any of them) doesn't > > specify a strike, it just says what it does when used as a strike, > > Same thing. Not at all, to me - specifying a strike means "here is a given, single, precise strike you are now allowed, by this very card, to do, when you have the opportunity to strike". What it does when used as a strike, on the other hand, means "whenever you use this as a strike, here's what it does," without expressly providing that strike. Fortunately, the rules do, as may other card effects. > > like with Projectile (or, currently, with the base rules) - how would > > you use it without one, if the rules only gave you the option of hand > > strikes, or card plays? > > I don't know. Fortunately, it's moot, since the rules don't "only give the > option of hand strikes or card plays". > > Rulebook: "Choose Strike. Each minion chooses his strike. The strike can be from > a combat card, from a weapon the minion possesses or (the default) from a hand > strike." [6.4.3] OK. So we're on the same page that it's the rules that allow you to choose "weapon strike" and specify a weapon, which allows the use of weapons. I'd argue that "combat card" should probably read "card effect" to allow for things such as Watchtower: Wolves Feed's effect more clearly, but that's an aside, as that does read "may strike for 2R damage" and thus, fairly clearly, allows a strike outside the normal rules for choosing them. > To be pedantic: specifying the effect something has when used as a strike and > specifying the strike effect for which something can be used are exactly the > same thing. How so? One includes, explicitly, a stated way of using that something, and the other only describes its effect when it's used. > Some weapons use the alternate "Strike: <blah>" template when the effect being > described warrants it. Are there any Combat cards that are, themselves, a strike (rather than, like Improvised Tactics, allowing one later), which don't use that template? I can't think of any... Why would some weapons warrant the non-Strike:<blah> template, then, if all strikes can be represented the same way? > > It seems, to me, to be cleaner to > > have weapons tell their damage when used in a strike, the way it was > > set up until a few sets back, rather than use Strike: formatting > > exactly as on combat cards; > > The Strike: formatting tells what the weapon does when used in a strike. That too, yes. > > Strike: formatting on non-combat cards > > seems to me to be a great tool for making it clear when something > > cannot (or, by its omission, can) be combined with other Strike:s. > > Perhaps, but only if some additional rules text said it did (make the strike > unable to be combined). Since, currently, the rules don't support that notion > (and instead allow card text such as Undead Strength's to specify that a > modified weapon's strike can be used). Through online clarification wording that didn't even make it into the MRP. Prior to that, it reads "Make a hand strike or melee weapon strike..." I'm not saying the rules support that notion, currently. I'm saying that even-more-careful use of formatting could intuitively support the correct interpretation of the rules, by having one formatting for "effect of a strike" and another for "choice of strike, with effect" - in other words, making it clear when something can be chosen by something else. If the rules (6.4.3) clearly stated "Choose Strike. Each minion chooses his strike. A minion may only use one effect that begins with 'Strike:' per strike declaration phase. The strike can be: a Strike: from a combat card or allowed by another card effect; Strike: use a weapon on this minion; or (the default) Strike: Hand strike," I firmly believe that the question of whether you can use Undead Strength with a Slam, for instance, would be clearer than currently, and provide for cleaner templating in the future. > > (For instance, Talith's weapon-breaking, or Nightstick's damage- > > prevention. Is the intent really that I can Undead Strength: Prevent > > Damage with a Nightstick to do no damage, but cycle the card anyway?) > > Moot. We're discussion effect, not intent. Is the intent of Wake really that I > can play it without attempting to block and without attempting to play another > reaction card? OK. Is the effect really that I can Undead Strength: Prevent damage with a Nightstick? If so, odd; I don't think I would have intuited that it could be played that way from the cards. > > And to be honest, I'm continuing with it because, generally, you've > > shown yourself to be in favor of cleaner, less-confusing, more- > > consistent card text, and this is one of the few cases where it seems > > to me that the logical inferences from the card text distinctions run > > counter to the way you're looking at it. > > It still seems to be running the correct way to me. Sure, by ruling/interpretation, online clarification, and accepted ambiguity. I'm not arguing that it doesn't work. I'm arguing that it could work better and with less ambiguity needed, as well as opening up possible predictable future options through cleaner templating. - D.J.

Meej wrote: > On Feb 29, 9:55 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> What variety? "Strength +1 damage each strike" is not a variety. It's one >> effect. An effect that happens to be a strike. > > OK - it strikes me as being a description of how a strike, wherever it > comes from, that uses that card functions - whether the strike is > provided by a combat card (U.S.) or by the rulebook. Yes. It is a single effect that, since it happens to be a strike, can only be used as a strike. >>> "Use <foo> to do <bar>" >>> implies, to me, that you get <bar> from your <foo> when used in >>> exactly that way (Strike: Strength +1 damage). >> True. That's also what "When you use <foo> it does <bar>" implies. > > Not to me, clearly, or I wouldn't have made a distinction - to me, it People infer all sorts of things from text, even things that the texts do not imply. > reads: Here's a precise Strike: that you can make with this weapon. > It implies nothing at all to me about generic uses for the weapon in a > strike. (Other than by possible precedent from the prior-used, > clearer wording, which leaves me wondering about the different > templating.) And yet, it reads: Here's a strike effect that this weapon produces. Just like the other template reads. > Why are there different templates being used for identical effects? > Strike: 2R aggravated damage (Waxen Poetica) and 2R aggravated damage > each strike (Improvised Flamethrower). Alternately, if the "burn > after use" makes a difference, Waxen Poetica and Grenade. Oversight. > *Maybe* I can concede that the Strike: Strength +1 damage is important > for the Nightstick, to make it clear that the "prevent 3 damage" > strike doesn't get +1 damage. But that very distinction implies, to > me, that you recognize that there's something different about "Strike: > <foo>" and "<Foo> each strike." I'm not saying you do, actually, but > it certainly implies that, if that's the justification. That distinction doesn't imply that at all. I cannot see how that can be inferred. The two templates mean exactly the same thing. The distinction of templates is only in readability. Making a distinction (of readabilty) in no way implies a difference of function. >> But all weapons have strikes. > Due to the rulebook, yes. ? Due to card text. Name any weapon whose card text doesn't specify a strike effect that the weapon provides. > More properly, all weapons have an effect > when used as a strike. Exactly the same; not more or less proper. > Whether they all have strikes is sort of what > we're discussing here; A weapon has a strike. See also all ammo, Baal's Bloody Talons, Strike at the True Flesh, Sword of Nuln: "this weapon's strike". Some have more than one strike option. Many also have maneuvers (which are, generally, also optional). Some even have presses. And damage prevention. > also, whether there is a difference between > having an effect as a strike, and having a "Strike:" choice. The weapons all grant their strikes as strike options to their bearers. > (Or, I > suppose - since by ruling/clarification/whatever, there's currently no > difference - whether there should be, or whether there's an implied > difference overruled by r/c/w.) There is no difference effected by the card text templates, in the absence of the rulings/clarifications/whatever. It would take errata to change the text function into the other more self-restrictive effect. >>> The rulebook allows you to use a melee weapon in a strike, >>> sure. But the weapon doesn't have a strike in and of itself, does >>> it? >> Yes, the weapon has a strike. That is, it has a strike effect that occurs when >> it is used as a strike. > > Which seems to me to be different than having a strike. What would it mean for a weapon to have a strike, then, other than having some strike effect that occurs when the weapon is used as a strike? > Something > else, the rulebook or combat card in this case, provides the > opportunity for the strike effect to be used, in my eyes. The rulebook specifies when strikes can be chosen. The "Choose Strike" phase, provided by the rulebook, is the opportunity for minions to select strike effects to use. The "Resolve Strike" phase, provided by the rulebook, is the opportunity for the selected strikes to be "used". > Unlike, > say, Bundi, which has a Strike: printed on it. So you say that Bundi's text provides the opportunity for the strike effect to be used? That's another matter altogether. If this is your argument, this whole discussion will be much simpler. Let me know if this is the case. > Does that seem like a > purely semantic difference to you, and are you able to explain why > there's not a distinction? The explanation of why there's no difference in things that mean the same thing? Just grammar and vocabulary. "Why" is there no difference between Bob bleeds Sue and Sue is bled by Bob? >>> If the rulebook didn't say you could use a weapon without a >>> Strike: card, would you be able to? >> No. Having a strike effect is not the same as having a strike opportunity, >> although "has a strike" can be used to mean either, depending on context. > > Hmm. I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're saying - do you mean that, > barring the rules' allowance of using a weapon to strike, having > "Strike: Strength +1 damage" printed on a weapon would not allow you > to use that as a strike? The game mechanics provide the opportunity to strike. That is, minions can strike during the strike phase of combat (and the rules also provide maneuver opportunities, press opportunities, action declaration opportunities, and so on. The game is just a sequence of opportunities to apply various effects. A minion "has" one strike each round by default. But may have more than one, given the existence of effects which produce additional strikes. A minion also has an inherent strike. This strike (default hand strike) that he "has" is unrelated to the "has" in the preceding paragraph. Weapons also "have" strikes. The bearer of a weapon may use the weapon's strike for his in-combt strike-opportunity strike, or he may use his default hand strike. >>> A gun (any of them) doesn't >>> specify a strike, it just says what it does when used as a strike, >> Same thing. > > Not at all, to me - specifying a strike means "here is a given, > single, precise strike you are now allowed, by this very card, to do, > when you have the opportunity to strike". That's exactly what the other template means, as well. "This given, single, precise strike you are now allowed, by this very card, to do each strike opportunity you have." > What it does when used as a > strike, on the other hand, means "whenever you use this as a strike, > here's what it does," without expressly providing that strike. ? If it doesn't provide the strike, then there's no new strike to be chosen in the choose strike phase, so the minion would be left with just his default strike to choose (or a strike card). > Fortunately, the rules do, as may other card effects. The rules do what? Allow weapons to be used as strikes according to the strike effects listed on their card texts? Exactly. That is the same for both templates. The rules say a weapon can be used to strike. They also say that a strike card can be used. Some strike cards specify strike whose effects are just to use a weapon (and modify the weapon's strike in some way). >>> like with Projectile (or, currently, with the base rules) - how would >>> you use it without one, if the rules only gave you the option of hand >>> strikes, or card plays? >> I don't know. Fortunately, it's moot, since the rules don't "only give the >> option of hand strikes or card plays". >> >> Rulebook: "Choose Strike. Each minion chooses his strike. The strike can be from >> a combat card, from a weapon the minion possesses or (the default) from a hand >> strike." [6.4.3] > > OK. So we're on the same page that it's the rules that allow you to > choose "weapon strike" and specify a weapon, which allows the use of > weapons. > > I'd argue that "combat card" should probably read "card effect" to > allow for things such as Watchtower: Wolves Feed's effect more > clearly, but that's an aside, as that does read "may strike for 2R > damage" and thus, fairly clearly, allows a strike outside the normal > rules for choosing them. An aside covered by the golden rule, yes. :-) >> To be pedantic: specifying the effect something has when used as a strike and >> specifying the strike effect for which something can be used are exactly the >> same thing. > > How so? One includes, explicitly, a stated way of using that > something, and the other only describes its effect when it's used. How so: because they each describe the effect of the use. (Each time you strike, you may use this weapon to) strike: (to inflict) 1R agg damage (with this weapon) is exactly the same as (this weapon inflicts) 1R agg damage each strike (you use it to strike) >> Some weapons use the alternate "Strike: <blah>" template when the effect being >> described warrants it. > > Are there any Combat cards that are, themselves, a strike (rather > than, like Improvised Tactics, allowing one later), which don't use > that template? "Are there any cards that use the longer template uselessly"? I hope not. Improvised Tactics is a perfect example. > I can't think of any... Why would some weapons > warrant the non-Strike:<blah> template, then, if all strikes can be > represented the same way? Clarity, I presume. >>> It seems, to me, to be cleaner to >>> have weapons tell their damage when used in a strike, the way it was >>> set up until a few sets back, rather than use Strike: formatting >>> exactly as on combat cards; >> The Strike: formatting tells what the weapon does when used in a strike. > > That too, yes. > >>> Strike: formatting on non-combat cards >>> seems to me to be a great tool for making it clear when something >>> cannot (or, by its omission, can) be combined with other Strike:s. >> Perhaps, but only if some additional rules text said it did (make the strike >> unable to be combined). Since, currently, the rules don't support that notion >> (and instead allow card text such as Undead Strength's to specify that a >> modified weapon's strike can be used). > > Through online clarification wording that didn't even make it into the > MRP. Prior to that, it reads "Make a hand strike or melee weapon > strike..." Being clarified after the MRP, it would have been difficult to make it into the MRP, yes. Temporis is only found in the WoD, not in this world. The exact issue you are now picking up on was picked up on earlier and resulted in the clarified card texts. > I'm not saying the rules support that notion, currently. > I'm saying that even-more-careful use of formatting could intuitively > support the correct interpretation of the rules, by having one > formatting for "effect of a strike" and another for "choice of strike, > with effect" - in other words, making it clear when something can be > chosen by something else. Perhaps when the designers design an effect that they want to be additionally self-restrictive, they'll use an appropriate template to convey that additional restrictiveness. But they will undoubtedly not use either of the current templates, since neither of them accomplish that restrictiveness. > If the rules (6.4.3) clearly stated "Choose Strike. Each minion > chooses his strike. A minion may only use one effect that begins with > 'Strike:' per strike declaration phase. The strike can be: a Strike: > from a combat card or allowed by another card effect; Strike: use a > weapon on this minion; or (the default) Strike: Hand strike," I firmly > believe that the question of whether you can use Undead Strength with > a Slam, for instance, would be clearer than currently, and provide for > cleaner templating in the future. > >>> (For instance, Talith's weapon-breaking, or Nightstick's damage- >>> prevention. Is the intent really that I can Undead Strength: Prevent >>> Damage with a Nightstick to do no damage, but cycle the card anyway?) >> Moot. We're discussion effect, not intent. Is the intent of Wake really that I >> can play it without attempting to block and without attempting to play another >> reaction card? > > OK. Is the effect really that I can Undead Strength: Prevent damage > with a Nightstick? If so, odd; I don't think I would have intuited > that it could be played that way from the cards. Yes. >>> And to be honest, I'm continuing with it because, generally, you've >>> shown yourself to be in favor of cleaner, less-confusing, more- >>> consistent card text, and this is one of the few cases where it seems >>> to me that the logical inferences from the card text distinctions run >>> counter to the way you're looking at it. >> It still seems to be running the correct way to me. > > Sure, by ruling/interpretation, online clarification, and accepted > ambiguity. I'm not arguing that it doesn't work. I'm arguing that it > could work better and with less ambiguity needed, as well as opening > up possible predictable future options through cleaner templating. Except for the "accepted ambiguity" bit, yes. The current official/clarified card text doesn't have the ambiguity you describe. Future cards relying on such seemingly-identical-meaning templates to indicate such different effects would be bad (unnecessarily confusing the players).

On Mar 3, 9:19 am, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Feb 29, 9:55 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Why are there different templates being used for identical effects? > Strike: 2R aggravated damage (Waxen Poetica) and 2R aggravated damage > each strike (Improvised Flamethrower). Alternately, if the "burn > after use" makes a difference, Waxen Poetica and Grenade. Personally, I find the use of "each strike" for one use equipment to be rather silly and needlessly confusing. Sawed-off Shotgun has made more than one player I know wonder at the wording. "If I can only use it once per combat, why does it say each strike?". I would say that Waxen Poetica was following Grenade's wording, where it's even more evident that "Strike: <effect>" is equivalent to "<effect> as a strike>". There's no need to errata something just to make an old card fit a newer wording template. > *Maybe* I can concede that the Strike: Strength +1 damage is important > for the Nightstick, to make it clear that the "prevent 3 damage" > strike doesn't get +1 damage. But that very distinction implies, to > me, that you recognize that there's something different about "Strike: > <foo>" and "<Foo> each strike." I'm not saying you do, actually, but > it certainly implies that, if that's the justification. I think it's more that English is often an imprecise language, with the same word having different meanings based on context. Most weapons only have one strike effect, and so having 'each strike' doesn't affect understanding of the card's effects. Nightstick allows for two very different strikes. The distinction in wording only implies that there could be confusion and arguments arising from the use of one wording over the other. Why slavishly follow a template that could cause confusion, when another perfectly equivalent way of wording the effect can be used to avoid any misunderstanding? I personally prefer the "Strike: <effect>" template. It's clear, concise and leaves little room for misinterpretation. > > To be pedantic: specifying the effect something has when used as a strike and > > specifying the strike effect for which something can be used are exactly the > > same thing. > > How so? One includes, explicitly, a stated way of using that > something, and the other only describes its effect when it's used. The wordings are different, in that they use different words to say the same thing .. the effects are identical. Take as an example, a Bastard Sword. Current text allows me to strike with the sword for strength+1 damage. I can additional strike and strike again with the sword for strength+1 damage. Now if we use the Strike: template, so the Bastard Sword reads "Strike: Strength + 1 damage." I can strike with the sword for strenght+1 damage. I can additional strike and strike again with the sword for strength+1 damage. Either wording is a melee weapon strike, and so I can use Undead Strength on it. Beyond the actual words used, I fail to see how the template wordings are not the same thing. > > > (For instance, Talith's weapon-breaking, or Nightstick's damage- > > > prevention. Is the intent really that I can Undead Strength: Prevent > > > Damage with a Nightstick to do no damage, but cycle the card anyway?) > > > Moot. We're discussion effect, not intent. Is the intent of Wake really that I > > can play it without attempting to block and without attempting to play another > > reaction card? > > OK. Is the effect really that I can Undead Strength: Prevent damage > with a Nightstick? If so, odd; I don't think I would have intuited > that it could be played that way from the cards. Not any odder than Undead Strength: Strike with Rowan Ring. I can see what you're getting at, but there seems to be no need to change wordings that have been around for a long time, just to have everything follow one selected template. The "each strike" wording for most weapons is perfectly fine, and as you seem to support, more intuitive to game play. It's only when the potential for confusion, especially with weapons with multiple strike options, that a different wording template should be used, thus we have the "Strike:" for Bundi and the like. Why errata dozens of cards to fit a new template when it's not warrented, and isn't necessary for clarity of rulings and interpretations? Chris, Thrall of Arika