Torn Signpost + Fists of Death

I have heard different version on how a Torn Signpost played after a Torn Signpost is counted : does is still set the strength to 3 (at sup), or is the Fists of Death still counted for +2, adding up to 5 ? Thanks, Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] Fists of Death counts for +2 (card text). -- 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/

I personally always have been confused by Torn Signpost's wording. I know it is supposed to set strength to 2(3), but inherent bonuses still count. So a Depraved POT guy still gets 4 STR from a signpost. I assume the wording originated from the fact that it's not stackable (as in, two TS don't give 6 STR), but as far as I'm concerned, it could just as well be read as A vampire can only play one TS each combat pot +1 STR POT +2 STR If not, are there situations where this does no apply and if so, why has the current wording been chosen?

Ulugh Beg II wrote: > I personally always have been confused by Torn Signpost's wording. Lots of people have. > I know it is supposed to set strength to 2(3), but inherent bonuses > still count. > So a Depraved POT guy still gets 4 STR from a signpost. Yup. TS gives you 2 or 3 strength. All other strength bonuses (that I can think of), at this point, are in terms of + or -, rather than simply setting a base number. > I assume the wording originated from the fact that it's not stackable > (as in, two TS don't give 6 STR), but as far as I'm concerned, it could > just as well be read as > > A vampire can only play one TS each combat > pot +1 STR > POT +2 STR It could be. But currently, you *can* play multiple TS a round--the extras just don't do anything. But changing the wording would reduce the cyclability of the card. Not necessarily unwarranted, but a significant change given the wording you propose. > If not, are there situations where this does no apply and if so, why has > the current wording been chosen? Presumably, to make it functionally different than Fists of Death while not removing the cycleability of it. It might be a perfectly good idea to change the wording of TS to what you propose, but it would have a significant change that you seemed to miss. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "The gun is good! The penis is bad!" -Zardoz

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BC039AAE.12905%pd...@lightlink.com... > Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > If not, are there situations where this does no apply and if so, why has > > the current wording been chosen? > > Presumably, to make it functionally different than Fists of Death while not > removing the cycleability of it. > > It might be a perfectly good idea to change the wording of TS to what you > propose, but it would have a significant change that you seemed to miss. Consider also a future card that sets hand damage to a base number, other than Torn Signpost (lets call it Torn Lamp Post and give it incapacitate for all the heroclix players out there). Wording torn sign post in the current manner allows such cards without any cumulative effects without additional card text like "only one card to modify base strength can be played per combat" -JTP

John P wrote: > Consider also a future card that sets hand damage to a base number, > other than Torn Signpost (lets call it Torn Lamp Post and give it > incapacitate for all the heroclix players out there). Wording torn > sign post in the current manner allows such cards without any cumulative > effects without additional card text like "only one card to modify base > strength > can be played per combat" Also a good point. I don't think there currently are any other cards that set a base hand damage rather than simply giving a +X effect. With the current TS wording, it is possible, should it be deemed a good idea, to give, say, Obtenebration a similar card that sets hand damage (say "Fists of Darkness" or something--requires obt, but it otherwise identical to TS) without giving the Lasombra unprecidented ability to increase hand damage by playing *two* free strength increasers. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > John P wrote: >>Consider also a future card that sets hand damage to a base number, >>other than Torn Signpost (lets call it Torn Lamp Post and give it >>incapacitate for all the heroclix players out there). Wording torn >>sign post in the current manner allows such cards without any cumulative >>effects without additional card text like "only one card to modify base >>strength >>can be played per combat" > > Also a good point. I don't think there currently are any other cards that > set a base hand damage rather than simply giving a +X effect. With the > current TS wording, it is possible, should it be deemed a good idea, to > give, say, Obtenebration a similar card that sets hand damage (say "Fists of > Darkness" or something--requires obt, but it otherwise identical to TS) > without giving the Lasombra unprecidented ability to increase hand damage by > playing *two* free strength increasers. Erosion sets a vampire's base strength to 0. It also matters for the Great Beast (who has 4 strength, not +3 strength) and for allies with strength less than or greater than 1 who can play Potence cards. If Torn Signpost is to be MRP'ed, it would likely be to take it back to its original wording, rather than to continue to prop up the current concept. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:27:43 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: >John P wrote: > >> Consider also a future card that sets hand damage to a base number, >> other than Torn Signpost (lets call it Torn Lamp Post and give it >> incapacitate for all the heroclix players out there). Wording torn >> sign post in the current manner allows such cards without any cumulative >> effects without additional card text like "only one card to modify base >> strength >> can be played per combat" > >Also a good point. I don't think there currently are any other cards that >set a base hand damage rather than simply giving a +X effect. Erosion. (sets base to 0. A Quietus action) An Eroded minion who plays a current TS at POT will have a base strength of 3. An Eroded minion who plays this proposed wording of TS (+1/+2 once per combat) at POT will have a resultant strength of 2. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

> Also a good point. I don't think there currently are any other cards that > set a base hand damage rather than simply giving a +X effect. The Great Beast doesn't get benefit from a Torn Signpost. Ira

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3FDE529A...@white-wolf.com... > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Also a good point. I don't think there currently are any other cards that > > set a base hand damage rather than simply giving a +X effect. With the > > current TS wording, it is possible, should it be deemed a good idea, to > > give, say, Obtenebration a similar card that sets hand damage (say "Fists of > > Darkness" or something--requires obt, but it otherwise identical to TS) > > without giving the Lasombra unprecidented ability to increase hand damage by > > playing *two* free strength increasers. > > Erosion sets a vampire's base strength to 0. > > It also matters for the Great Beast (who has 4 strength, not +3 strength) > and for allies with strength less than or greater than 1 who can play > Potence cards. > > If Torn Signpost is to be MRP'ed, it would likely be to take it back to its > original wording, rather than to continue to prop up the current concept. If this were to actually happen, do you mean its "original original" wording (in Jyhad - "Play before range is determined. This vampire does 2 hand damage for remainder of the combat") or its "second original" wording (in V:TES - "Only usable before range is determined. This vampire can inflict 2 hand damage as a strike for remainder of the combat")? Obviously I would prefer Jyhad, since it wouldn't change things by making Torn Signpost unstackable with Undead Strength (etcetera). Although given that, there wouldn't be much point in changing text from the current rather clearly stated "This vampire has a strength of 2 for the remainder of combat." ... except, perhaps, for the purposes of effects that could make a minion "immune" to Torn Signpost. :-) Josh doesn't really need to see any more cards get their text changed to move their functionality around more than it already has been

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>If Torn Signpost is to be MRP'ed, it would likely be to take it back to its >>original wording, rather than to continue to prop up the current concept. > > If this were to actually happen, do you mean its "original original" > wording (in Jyhad - "Play before range is determined. This vampire does > 2 hand damage for remainder of the combat") or its "second original" > wording (in V:TES - "Only usable before range is determined. This > vampire can inflict 2 hand damage as a strike for remainder of the > combat")? > > Obviously I would prefer Jyhad, since it wouldn't change things by > making Torn Signpost unstackable with Undead Strength (etcetera). > Although given that, there wouldn't be much point in changing text from > the current rather clearly stated "This vampire has a strength of 2 for > the remainder of combat." > > ... except, perhaps, for the purposes of effects that could make a > minion "immune" to Torn Signpost. :-) The V:TES wording could be seen as a version of one interpretation of the Jyhad wording (with a slight modification to make the strike optional). That was what I meant. > doesn't really need to see any more cards get their text changed to move > their functionality around more than it already has been Agreed. This is just a thought experiment. For now, anyway. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]