Reverand Blackwood's +1 Damage Ability

A quick question about the Tremere anti-tribu Reverand Blackwood. His ability gives him +1 damage on any strike requiring Thaumaturgy, so: 1. Is the damage the same kind that the card already does. For example, when playing Walk of Flame (at superior for example), does it do 3R Aggravated, or 2R Aggravated and 1 (close) normal? 2. Second, does it also work when the strike does not deal damage? Does Theft of Vitae at Superior steal 2 blood ranged, and do 1 damage (ranged or no?)? Halcyan 2

On 7 Jun 1999 23:08:51 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: >A quick question about the Tremere anti-tribu Reverand Blackwood. His ability >gives him +1 damage on any strike requiring Thaumaturgy, so: > >1. Is the damage the same kind that the card already does. For example, when >playing Walk of Flame (at superior for example), does it do 3R Aggravated, or >2R Aggravated and 1 (close) normal? All damage is +1 >2. Second, does it also work when the strike does not deal damage? Does Theft >of Vitae at Superior steal 2 blood ranged, and do 1 damage (ranged or no?)? No it states damage but all damage is +1

In article <19990607190851...@ng-fg1.aol.com>, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > A quick question about the Tremere anti-tribu Reverand Blackwood. His ability > gives him +1 damage on any strike requiring Thaumaturgy, so: > > 1. Is the damage the same kind that the card already does. For example, when > playing Walk of Flame (at superior for example), does it do 3R Aggravated, or > 2R Aggravated and 1 (close) normal? It's just +1 (normal) damage. > > 2. Second, does it also work when the strike does not deal damage? Does Theft > of Vitae at Superior steal 2 blood ranged, and do 1 damage (ranged or no?)? Well, the Reverend's special ability says: ...does +1 damage with each Thaumaturgy strike. Now, IMO, Theft of Vitae is a strike, though it deals no damage the Reverend should inflict an additional +1 damage on top of the stolen blood. Why? Hm, well I guess his strikes hurt a bit. :) But AFAIK the ruling is different, so you can only deal +1 damage when the strike deals damage. I can't see why this is so, but I won't rant now. Carl > > Halcyan 2 > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > A quick question about the Tremere anti-tribu Reverand > Blackwood. His ability gives him +1 damage on any strike > requiring Thaumaturgy, so: > > 1. Is the damage the same kind that the card already does. Yes. > For example, when playing Walk of Flame (at superior for > example), does it do 3R Aggravated, or 2R Aggravated and > 1 (close) normal? 3R aggravated. > 2. Second, does it also work when the strike does not deal > damage? Does Theft of Vitae at Superior steal 2 blood > ranged, and do 1 damage (ranged or no?)? No. Strikes that don't deal damage do not benefit from damage modifiers. The Theft of Vitae will no do any damage, it will just move two blood from the opposing minion tothe Reverend. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7jig4m$de6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, carl.pi...@philips.com writes >But AFAIK the ruling is different, so you can only deal +1 damage when >the strike deals damage. I can't see why this is so, but I won't >rant now. Your beliefs would be correct if Theft of Vitae stole 1/2 blood and did 0 damage. It does not. It steals 1/2 blood and damage is non-existent. You cannot modify something which isn't there e.g. you cannot play Bonding on a political action for stealth, because the political action is not also doing a bleed for 0, there is no bleed there to modify. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

> Your beliefs would be correct if Theft of Vitae stole 1/2 blood and did > 0 damage. It does not. It steals 1/2 blood and damage is non- existent. > > You cannot modify something which isn't there e.g. you cannot play > Bonding on a political action for stealth, because the political action > is not also doing a bleed for 0, there is no bleed there to modify. No argument with the bleed/stealth issue. I don't see, why in combat you cannot do 2 types of "damage" at once. You could steal the blood. This does no damage at all. OK, no argument here. But there's no reason, why (under certain circumstances, like card text) you cannot deal, in addition to the other effect, normal damage? Look at fractured armament. This card contradicts the rules, as allowed by golden rule of the cards. It has a non-damaging effect plus 1 damage. The same could be said for Reverend Blackwood. He strikes, and in add. to the effenct of his strike he deals 1 damage. I don't see why this would cause any problems. Also, I don't think that this 1 damage could be changed into aggravated by an aggravated strike. Or would you call that "stealth errata". I wouldn't. It simply says "1 add. damage" nothing with aggr. at all. Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7jqeqs$9tk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, carl.pi...@philips.com writes >Also, I don't think that this 1 damage could be changed into aggravated >by an aggravated strike. Or would you call that "stealth errata". I >wouldn't. It simply says "1 add. damage" nothing with aggr. at all. There is/was a ruling to deal with modification of damage, versus modification of the source of the damage. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <7jqeqs$9tk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, carl.pi...@philips.com > writes > >Also, I don't think that this 1 damage could be changed into aggravated > >by an aggravated strike. Or would you call that "stealth errata". I > >wouldn't. It simply says "1 add. damage" nothing with aggr. at all. > > There is/was a ruling to deal with modification of damage, versus > modification of the source of the damage. Right [TOM 25-FEB-1996]. If the strike deals ranged damage, the 1 additional damage will be ranged. If the strike deals agg damage, the 1 additional damage will be agg. If the strike deals unpreventable damage, the 1 additional damage will be unpreventable. If the strike deals non-existent damamge, the 1 additional damage will be non-existent. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:45:33 GMT carl.pi...@philips.com wrote: For a minute, let's just say Rev. Blackwood's ability applied to all strikes, not just Thaumaturgy. > I don't see, why in combat you cannot do 2 types of "damage" at > once. You could steal the blood. This does no damage at all. OK, no > argument here. But there's no reason, why (under certain > circumstances, like card text) you cannot deal, in addition to the > other effect, normal damage? Because there's no damage involved. Do you think Reverend Blackwood's ability would add one damage to his strike if he used Entombment? Coma? Dodge? S:CE? Stealing blood is just like these. Just because damage involves burning blood and stealing blood removes blood doesn't mean they are alike in any way other than being both strikes. > Look at fractured armament. This card contradicts the rules, as > allowed by golden rule of the cards. It has a non-damaging effect > plus 1 damage. The same could be said for Reverend Blackwood. He > strikes, and in add. to the effenct of his strike he deals 1 > damage. I don't see why this would cause any problems. So you think that if he S:CE, he does +1 damage like Catatonic Fear? Or if he dodges, he does +1 damage? If it were worded anything differently than "+1 damage," I might agree with you. But to me, +1 damage implies to me that there's damage to modify. It's similar to using the Rowan Ring. You can't use Undead Strength with Rowan Ring because it doesn't do damage as a strike. Do you also feel that Increased Strength should make Shattering Blow do damage? It is worded with the same template as Blackwood. > Also, I don't think that this 1 damage could be changed into > aggravated by an aggravated strike. Or would you call that "stealth > errata". I wouldn't. It simply says "1 add. damage" nothing with > aggr. at all. It makes handling damage simpler. It also makes more sense. If you hit someone with a Burning Wrath, how is it that you have 1 point of regular damage and 2 points of aggravated? Also, I don't think that it says anywhere in the rules how to deal with damage that is modified with a different type of damage. That would make this a ruling, rather than an errata. Mike -- Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).