Card text :
Sword of the Righteous [BL:C1]
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Valeren/Animalism
Only usable before range is determined.
[ani] Choose a melee weapon on this vampire. This vampire inflicts an
additional point of damage each strike with that weapon for the remainder of
the combat. A vampire can play only one Sword of the Righteous each combat.
[val] As [ani] above, and the damage inflicted by the weapon is aggravated.
[VAL] As [val] above, and prevent 1 damage this round.
Question :
Adonai has a Ghoul Retainer.
He decides to play Weighted walking stick, then Sword of the Righteous
nefore range is chosen in a given combat. Can the Ghoul Retaine strike for
2, Aggravated damage (environmental !) while Adonai plays any kind of strike
not involving the Weighted walking stick (like "strike : dodge") ? :)
i guess yes but it's always good to ask before building the deck.
reyda
PS : ph34r !
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'd say no by card text : "*This vampire* inflicts an
> additional point of damage each strike with that weapon for the remainder
of
> the combat. A vampire can play only one Sword of the Righteous each
combat.
> [val] As [ani] above, and the damage inflicted by the weapon is aggravated
So a ghoul or environmental damage wouldn't benefit from these.
Orpheus
"Orpheus" <orph...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote
> I'd say no by card text
I'd say yes by card text :
" [val] As [ani] above, and the damage inflicted by the weapon is
aggravated."
As it is written, nothing mention that only the vampire can use it !!
(although only the vampire get the +1 damage and the prevention part)
Orpheus wrote:
>>Adonai has a Ghoul Retainer.
>>He decides to play Weighted walking stick, then Sword of the Righteous
>>nefore range is chosen in a given combat. Can the Ghoul Retaine strike for
>>2, Aggravated damage (environmental !) while Adonai plays any kind of>
> strike
>>>not involving the Weighted walking stick (like "strike : dodge") ? :)
>>
>>i guess yes but it's always good to ask before building the deck.>
> I'd say no by card text : "*This vampire* inflicts an
Correct.
--
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'd say no by card text
>
> I'd say yes by card text :
> " [val] As [ani] above, and the damage inflicted by the weapon is
> aggravated."
>
> As it is written, nothing mention that only the vampire can use it !!
> (although only the vampire get the +1 damage and the prevention part)>> I'd say no by card text : "*This vampire* inflicts an> LSJ : Correct.
I am correct, nananananè-reu !! ;-)
Orphy-fou.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3F775971...@white-wolf.com...
> Orpheus wrote:
> >>Adonai has a Ghoul Retainer.
> >>He decides to play Weighted walking stick, then Sword of the Righteous
> >>nefore range is chosen in a given combat. Can the Ghoul Retaine strike
for
> >>2, Aggravated damage (environmental !) while Adonai plays any kind of
> >
> > strike
> >
> >>not involving the Weighted walking stick (like "strike : dodge") ? :)
> >>
> >>i guess yes but it's always good to ask before building the deck.
> >
> > I'd say no by card text : "*This vampire* inflicts an
>
> Correct.
no. card text says : this vampire inflicts +1 damage with the chosen weapon.
then card text says : the damage from the weapon is aggravated.
Are we going to see a ruling soon ?
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 00:15:32 +0200, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com>
scrawled:
>> > I'd say no by card text : "*This vampire* inflicts an
>>
>> Correct.>
>no. card text says : this vampire inflicts +1 damage with the chosen weapon.
>then card text says : the damage from the weapon is aggravated.
>
>Are we going to see a ruling soon ?
But before the agg bit it says 'as above'. try reading it as if it
included the 'above' text:
[VAL]
Only usable before range is determined.
Choose a melee weapon on this vampire. This vampire inflicts an
additional point of damage each strike with that weapon for the
remainder of the combat and the damage inflicted by the weapon is
aggravated and prevent 1 damage this round. A vampire can play only
one Sword of the Righteous each combat.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<8h7fnvst1vr0q0cbu...@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 00:15:32 +0200, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com>
> scrawled:
>
> >> > I'd say no by card text : "*This vampire* inflicts an
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >
> >no. card text says : this vampire inflicts +1 damage with the chosen weapon.
> >then card text says : the damage from the weapon is aggravated.
> >
> >Are we going to see a ruling soon ?
>
> But before the agg bit it says 'as above'. try reading it as if it
> included the 'above' text:
>
> [VAL]
> Only usable before range is determined.
> Choose a melee weapon on this vampire. This vampire inflicts an
> additional point of damage each strike with that weapon for the
> remainder of the combat and the damage inflicted by the weapon is
> aggravated
Those sentences still aren't connected.
The additional damage only applies when the vampire inflicts it, while
the aggravated damage clause doesn't need any vampire being involved.
If it would've stated "and the damage inflicted by these strikes are
aggravated" or something similar, it would've referenced back.
The damage from the ghoul retainer is still 'damage inflicted by the
weapon' and as far as i can see sword of the righteous does apply to
that.
Barring rulings, it should IMO be aggravated.
-Bram Vink
Reyda wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message>>Orpheus wrote:>>>I'd say no by card text : "*This vampire* inflicts an>>
>>Correct.>
> no. card text says : this vampire inflicts +1 damage with the chosen weapon.
> then card text says : the damage from the weapon is aggravated.
>
> Are we going to see a ruling soon ?
We just did.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3F780FBE...@white-wolf.com...
> Reyda wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> >>Orpheus wrote:
> >>>I'd say no by card text : "*This vampire* inflicts an
> >>
> >>Correct.
> >
> > no. card text says : this vampire inflicts +1 damage with the chosen
weapon.
> > then card text says : the damage from the weapon is aggravated.
> >
> > Are we going to see a ruling soon ?
>
> We just did.
You mean ? =D
Reyda wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message>>Reyda wrote:>>>"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message>>>>Orpheus wrote:>>>>>I'd say no by card text : "*This vampire* inflicts an>>>>Correct.>>>
>>>no. card text says : this vampire inflicts +1 damage with the chosen weapon.>>>>then card text says : the damage from the weapon is aggravated.
>>>Are we going to see a ruling soon ?>>
>>We just did.>
> You mean ? =D
I mean: We just saw a ruling. You quoted it above.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3F781CF...@white-wolf.com...
> Reyda wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> >>Reyda wrote:
> >>>"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> >>>>Orpheus wrote:
> >>>>>I'd say no by card text : "*This vampire* inflicts an
> >>>>Correct.
> >>>
> >>>no. card text says : this vampire inflicts +1 damage with the chosen
weapon.
> >
> >>>then card text says : the damage from the weapon is aggravated.
> >>>Are we going to see a ruling soon ?
> >>
> >>We just did.
> >
> > You mean ? =D
>
> I mean: We just saw a ruling. You quoted it above.
Yaaay !
let's tone down overpowered card like the oh-so-mighty Sword of the
Righteous !
So the damage is not aggravated if a retainer use it, *despite the card
text*.
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F780FBE...@white-wolf.com>...
> Reyda wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> >>Orpheus wrote:
> >>>I'd say no by card text : "*This vampire* inflicts an
> >>
> >>Correct.
> >
> > no. card text says : this vampire inflicts +1 damage with the chosen weapon.
> > then card text says : the damage from the weapon is aggravated.
> >
> > Are we going to see a ruling soon ?
>
> We just did.
what a silly, unproductive, illogical and unintuitive ruling :(
-Bram
Darky expounded:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Clearly the vampire has to be holding the sword to make it righteous.
The card does say "vampire" - I think there would be people who thought
it was silly whichever way it was ruled.
"Timlagor" <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19e295be9...@news.freeserve.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yeah, you mean like a demon calling votes ?
or a ghoul hurt by the sunlight ?
> > what a silly, unproductive, illogical and unintuitive ruling :(
>
> cool. some people still care about the game.
What game ?
You like games ?
You should have told me about it before...
What about some Heroclix one of these nights ? ;-)
Orpheus, professional kidder.
"Timlagor" <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> > > > what a silly, unproductive, illogical and unintuitive ruling :(
> > >
> > > Clearly the vampire has to be holding the sword to make it righteous.
> > > The card does say "vampire" - I think there would be people who
thought
> > > it was silly whichever way it was ruled.
> >
> > Yeah, you mean like a demon calling votes ?
> > or a ghoul hurt by the sunlight ?
>
> No I mean that card taxt clearly says "vampire".
The problem does come partly from card text and partly from LSJ.
Sometime he says "play as worded" and sometime "but this is not designer's
intent".
Then may we suggest that the designer write the things correctly on the
cards, with the right wording -and while we're at it, with the correct cost
and no annoying typos please. And no wallpaper like panacea and Razyel song,
if you are still reading.
Then may we suggest that the designer write the things correctly on the
> cards, with the right wording -and while we're at it, with the correct
cost
> and no annoying typos please. And no wallpaper like panacea and Razyel
song,
> if you are still reading.
And Putrefaction, Infection, Absorb the Mind, Basilisk's Touch, Toreador's
Bane, Darkling Trickery, all the Holds, etc, etc... ?
Orpheus, having already covered the walls of his toilets with lots of stuff
to read.
> And Putrefaction, Infection, Absorb the Mind, Basilisk's Touch, Toreador's
> Bane, Darkling Trickery, all the Holds, etc, etc... ?
>
Hiya,
If you really think Darkling Trickery is wallpaper, you can put them
all in an envelope and send them so me (or just give them to me along
with the bottle of Champagne you'll be owing me ;-)
I will be very gratefull.
Same goes for Cold Amber's Hold.
greetz
Jo
"Orpheus" <orph...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote in message news:<3f7929a6$0$20160$626a...@news.free.fr>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Infection r0xx... And so does Darkling Trickery.
And Absorb the Mind kicks ass if it's placed on a Shadow Court Satyr :)
> And no wallpaper like panacea and Razyel
> song,
> > if you are still reading.
>
> And Putrefaction, Infection, Absorb the Mind, Basilisk's Touch, Toreador's
> Bane, Darkling Trickery, all the Holds, etc, etc... ?
>
> Orpheus, having already covered the walls of his toilets with lots of stuff
> to read.
Yeah, the wallpaper cardlist is really long on VTES. Have been playing
for almost 8 years now and they seem to never learn... then I wonder:
is this on purpose to make us buy more boosters to get the really good
cards? Will we become like "other" cardgames?
Dragos
"Orpheus" <orph...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote in message news:<3f7929a6$0$20160$626a...@news.free.fr>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm sorry to get into this thread in the middle, but it's stronger
than me:P
nononononono Orpheus,
please, write this post again and start with
tortured confession, save face, nosferatu putrescence and bauble
facing those monsters Sword of the righteous is still a powerful card,
even if the aggravated damage can be done only if used by a vampire
somebody out there wants some conflict of interest?
:)
ciao
Andrea
"Timlagor" <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> > > > what a silly, unproductive, illogical and unintuitive ruling :(
> > >
> > > Clearly the vampire has to be holding the sword to make it righteous.
> > > The card does say "vampire" - I think there would be people who
thought
> > > it was silly whichever way it was ruled.
> >
> > Yeah, you mean like a demon calling votes ?
> > or a ghoul hurt by the sunlight ?
>
> No I mean that card taxt clearly says "vampire".
Yes, but it says "vampire" in a way that can't grammatically refer
to the effects of superior. The superior is written in passive voice,
the inferior in active voice. In English, the subject of the inferior
clause can't be referred to without a passive voice construction.
It's pretty clear what the intent of the
designer is, but I always thought cards were played as written unless
it really screwed up the game. Certainly lots of examples of that.
Given how often the situation in question comes up I'd think this
flies below reprint or errata level. The game hardly needs more of
that. And we certainly don't want card that don't do what they say
for no detectable reason. Newbies buying cards shouldn't be
expected to read LSJ's mind.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson