Burning Wrath (was Question for Rulemongers)

In thinking over Petri's question in the original thread, I came acrossed something interesting: Burning Wrath Combat Potence 3 blood Normal: Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated Superior: Strike: +2 hand damage, aggravated. According to this card's text, it is not a hand strike, or else it would have been worded: Normal: Strike: Use your hand damage at +1 damage, aggravated Superior: Strike: Use your hand damage at +2 damage, aggravated As written, this card should be treated like Bastard Sword: Bastard Sword Equipment 1 pool MELEE WEAPON. +1 hand damage each strike. ...Which is not treated as a hand strike. Comments? @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : It is also not a melee weapon strike (so would not be boosted by Mass : Reality (or Blood Agony - changing it from 1+2agg to 3 agg :-)). : It is simply a strike, like Blood Rage, which does damage, but is not : modifiable. That it happens to be based on hand damage is inconsequential. : -- : L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | In theory there is no difference : http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | between theory and practice. : Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | So, correct me if I'm wrong, but an Immortal Grapple would prevent Burning Wrath from being used, yes? Would cards such as Undead Strength and Growing Fury be similarly affected? I seem to recall they have similar wordings as Burning Wrath, unless they were changed in V:tES. Wallpaper Paste for all those useless cards

The Corrupter wrote: > In thinking over Petri's question in the original thread, I came acrossed > something interesting: > > Burning Wrath Combat Potence 3 blood > Normal: Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated > Superior: Strike: +2 hand damage, aggravated. > > According to this card's text, it is not a hand strike, or else it would > have been worded: > Normal: Strike: Use your hand damage at +1 damage, aggravated > Superior: Strike: Use your hand damage at +2 damage, aggravated > > As written, this card should be treated like Bastard Sword: > Bastard Sword Equipment 1 pool > MELEE WEAPON. +1 hand damage each strike. > > ...Which is not treated as a hand strike. > > Comments? My first comment is--I'm taking it to the rules team. :) Okay, here's my take. Bastard Sword's text reads, "Minion with this weapon inflicts +1 hand damage with each strike." So... (let's see if I can follow this through) using a Bastard Sword is not a strike per se, but enhances a strike. Burning Wrath is a strike, which deals +1 agg. or +2 agg. to whatever the base strike is. With a Bastard Sword, the base strike is 2 damage. So, you *can* use Burning Wrath with a Bastard Sword, causing a total of 3 damage (1 of which is agg.) at basic, and 4 damage (2 of which is agg.) at superior. I think the key is that Burning Wrath is a strike, straight up; it says "Strike:," which signifies that you play it during the strike phase of combat. I know that's the way the card was *intended*, but that doesn't mean much if it is not worded that way. This is my call here, but I am going to take it to the rules team to see if this is how it truly breaks down. Until then... "What do you think, sirs?" ********************************************************************** * Shawn F. Carnes sw...@wizards.com * * Game Designer and Developer Wizards of the Coast, Inc. * ********************************************************************** * The opinions I express are probably not even mine... HELP! * ********************************************************************** * "We cannot rest, knowing that The Captain and Tennille are in good * * health!" --Milk and Cheese * **********************************************************************

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >In thinking over Petri's question in the original thread, I came acrossed >something interesting: >Burning Wrath Combat Potence 3 blood > Normal: Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated > Superior: Strike: +2 hand damage, aggravated. >According to this card's text, it is not a hand strike, or else it would >have been worded: > Normal: Strike: Use your hand damage at +1 damage, aggravated > Superior: Strike: Use your hand damage at +2 damage, aggravated >As written, this card should be treated like Bastard Sword: > Bastard Sword Equipment 1 pool > MELEE WEAPON. +1 hand damage each strike. >...Which is not treated as a hand strike. >Comments? Small note: [ quoted text not captured ]

"Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> writes: >My first comment is--I'm taking it to the rules team. :) >Okay, here's my take. Bastard Sword's text reads, "Minion with this weapon inflicts +1 hand >damage with each strike." So... (let's see if I can follow this through) using a Bastard >Sword is not a strike per se, but enhances a strike. Burning Wrath is a strike, which deals >+1 agg. or +2 agg. to whatever the base strike is. With a Bastard Sword, the base strike is >2 damage. So, you *can* use Burning Wrath with a Bastard Sword, causing a total of 3 damage >(1 of which is agg.) at basic, and 4 damage (2 of which is agg.) at superior. >I think the key is that Burning Wrath is a strike, straight up; it says "Strike:," which >signifies that you play it during the strike phase of combat. I know that's the way the >card was *intended*, but that doesn't mean much if it is not worded that way. This is my >call here, but I am going to take it to the rules team to see if this is how it truly breaks >down. Until then... "What do you think, sirs?" (Well, since you asked :-) The Sword's "with each strike" wording is a poorly worded attempt at suggesting that the Sword's effect is a modifiable strike. As such it cannot be combined with Buring Wrath (which says nothing about modifying a melee weapon's strike). If this is not the case, then why do Lucky Blow, Undead Strength, Growing Fury, et.al. go out of their way to say that they can be used as a strike by themselves *or* with a melee weapon? Lucky Blow could have been (if the Sword's effect wasn't a strike) worded as "Strike: +1 hand damage". I assume that the simple, easy-to-understand wording of the Jyhad Sword ("Strike: 2 damage" - errata'ed to "Strike: +1 hand damage" for VtES) was changed to avoid any complications resulting from using two "Strike" cards for the same strike (Sword + Lucky Blow, for example). This change was both unnecessary and poorly executed. The text on all of the melee-weapon-modification cards was sufficiently explicit to allow the combination (with no room for misinterpretation), while the new weapons' template ("minion...inflicts +N damage with each strike") is nearly impossible to pin down. Is it a strike? Is it a hand strike (the weapon isn't striking, the *minion* is)? Can its "+N" bonus be applies willy-nilly to other strikes (steal blood, Burning Wrath, etc.)? I hope we get a braod clarification for the new melee weapons' template, and soon (there's a tournament next week, you know? :-). The smoothest, cleanest solution would be to errata/rule them all back to the original template: "Strike: +N hand damage". Alternatively, to be absolutely clear, the following wording could be used: "Minion with this melee weapon may use this weapon as a strike in combat at close range, which would inflict Hand +N damage if successful." [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <31FE77...@castle.wizards.com> "Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> writes: >The Corrupter wrote: > >> In thinking over Petri's question in the original thread, I came acrossed >> something interesting: >> >> Burning Wrath Combat Potence 3 blood >> Normal: Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated >> Superior: Strike: +2 hand damage, aggravated. >> >> According to this card's text, it is not a hand strike, or else it would >> have been worded: >> Normal: Strike: Use your hand damage at +1 damage, aggravated >> Superior: Strike: Use your hand damage at +2 damage, aggravated >> >> As written, this card should be treated like Bastard Sword: >> Bastard Sword Equipment 1 pool >> MELEE WEAPON. +1 hand damage each strike. >> >> ...Which is not treated as a hand strike. >> >> Comments? > >My first comment is--I'm taking it to the rules team. :) > >Okay, here's my take. Bastard Sword's text reads, "Minion with this weapon inflicts +1 hand >damage with each strike." So... (let's see if I can follow this through) using a Bastard >Sword is not a strike per se, but enhances a strike. Burning Wrath is a strike, which deals >+1 agg. or +2 agg. to whatever the base strike is. With a Bastard Sword, the base strike is >2 damage. So, you *can* use Burning Wrath with a Bastard Sword, causing a total of 3 damage >(1 of which is agg.) at basic, and 4 damage (2 of which is agg.) at superior. > >I think the key is that Burning Wrath is a strike, straight up; it says "Strike:," which >signifies that you play it during the strike phase of combat. I know that's the way the >card was *intended*, but that doesn't mean much if it is not worded that way. This is my >call here, but I am going to take it to the rules team to see if this is how it truly breaks >down. Until then... "What do you think, sirs?" If the bastard sword can modify other hand strikes, and there is no limit on the number of bastard swords one can have, I can stack 4 bastard swords and 4 bang-nakh(sp) tigers claws for 13 hand damage each strike. I think this is silly, use of the sword is a strike, not a hand-damage modifier. > >********************************************************************** >* Shawn F. Carnes sw...@wizards.com * >* Game Designer and Developer Wizards of the Coast, Inc. * >********************************************************************** >* The opinions I express are probably not even mine... HELP! * >********************************************************************** >* "We cannot rest, knowing that The Captain and Tennille are in good * >* health!" --Milk and Cheese * >********************************************************************** -- -- Nyarlathotep : The Crawling Chaos

dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Wallpaper Paste) writes: >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: >: It is also not a melee weapon strike (so would not be boosted by Mass >: Reality (or Blood Agony - changing it from 1+2agg to 3 agg :-)). >: It is simply a strike, like Blood Rage, which does damage, but is not >: modifiable. That it happens to be based on hand damage is inconsequential. >So, correct me if I'm wrong, but an Immortal Grapple would >prevent Burning Wrath from being used, yes? Would cards such Yes. >as Undead Strength and Growing Fury be similarly affected? I >seem to recall they have similar wordings as Burning Wrath, No, the say "use your hand ... for +N damage" not "strike: +N hand damage" Thus, they are still hand strikes. >unless they were changed in V:tES. [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: [discussion of what constitutes a hand strike] > > The smoothest, cleanest solution would be to errata/rule them all back to > the original template: "Strike: +N hand damage". > > Alternatively, to be absolutely clear, the following wording could be used: > "Minion with this melee weapon may use this weapon as a strike in combat > at close range, which would inflict Hand +N damage if successful." Despite all the various wordings on the cards, is it essentially correct to say that: Any strike with a weapon is not a hand strike. Any other strike whose damage is based on hand damage is a hand strike. Other strikes are not hand strikes. Using the above three guidelines, are there cards that would clearly be handled incorrectly? --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

Shawn F. Carnes (sw...@castle.wizards.com) wrote: : signifies that you play it during the strike phase of combat. I know that's the way the : card was *intended*, but that doesn't mean much if it is not worded that way. This is my That means everything !! If a card was supposed to do X but was worded so it could be interpreted to do Y, then an errata must be issued that it does X, not Y. Intention is all that matters, design flaws must be corrected, not exploited. -- //The Doctor. +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | GCS -d+ H++>+++ s:++>+:+ g+ p2 !au a->+++ w++ v+(---) | | C+++>+ UHL++ P?>+ L+ !3 E N++ K- W(---) !M !V po+ | | Y t(+) 5>+ !j R+ G++@ tv+(++) b+>++ D+ B? e+ u+** | | h+* f? !r--- n---- !y+ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Wallpaper Paste) writes: >>L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: >>: It is also not a melee weapon strike (so would not be boosted by Mass >>: Reality (or Blood Agony - changing it from 1+2agg to 3 agg :-)). >>: It is simply a strike, like Blood Rage, which does damage, but is not >>: modifiable. That it happens to be based on hand damage is inconsequential. >>So, correct me if I'm wrong, but an Immortal Grapple would >>prevent Burning Wrath from being used, yes? Would cards such >Yes. >>as Undead Strength and Growing Fury be similarly affected? I >>seem to recall they have similar wordings as Burning Wrath, >No, the say "use your hand ... for +N damage" not "strike: +N hand damage" >Thus, they are still hand strikes. It seems to me that the intent of this statement: "use your hand or melee weapon at +1 damage" (quoted from mighty grapple) and this statement: "Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated" are identical (with the latter being aggravated of course). How can you do "hand" damage and not be a "hand" strike. If it's not a "hand" strike to begin with, what is burning wrath adding +1 to anyway? I think the question is very important in terms of what can and can not be prevented by immortal grapple. Was there a rules team ruling or other post from WOTC to this effect (burning wrath is not a hand strike and can be prevented with immortal grapple)? regards, Gary

pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) writes: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >[discussion of what constitutes a hand strike] >> >> The smoothest, cleanest solution would be to errata/rule them all back to >> the original template: "Strike: +N hand damage". >> >> Alternatively, to be absolutely clear, the following wording could be used: >> "Minion with this melee weapon may use this weapon as a strike in combat >> at close range, which would inflict Hand +N damage if successful." >Despite all the various wordings on the cards, is it essentially correct >to say that: >Any strike with a weapon is not a hand strike. >Any other strike whose damage is based on hand damage is a hand strike. >Other strikes are not hand strikes. >Using the above three guidelines, are there cards that would clearly be >handled incorrectly? Maybe. Burning Wrath would be a hand strike under these rules. (It is currently not a hand strike, I believe). [ quoted text not captured ]

ga...@wwnet.com (garou) writes: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >>dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Wallpaper Paste) writes: >>>L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: >>>: It is also not a melee weapon strike (so would not be boosted by Mass >>>: Reality (or Blood Agony - changing it from 1+2agg to 3 agg :-)). >>>: It is simply a strike, like Blood Rage, which does damage, but is not >>>: modifiable. That it happens to be based on hand damage is inconsequential. >>>So, correct me if I'm wrong, but an Immortal Grapple would >>>prevent Burning Wrath from being used, yes? Would cards such >>Yes. >>>as Undead Strength and Growing Fury be similarly affected? I >>>seem to recall they have similar wordings as Burning Wrath, >>No, the say "use your hand ... for +N damage" not "strike: +N hand damage" >>Thus, they are still hand strikes. >It seems to me that the intent of this statement: >"use your hand or melee weapon at +1 damage" (quoted from mighty >grapple) >and this statement: >"Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated" >are identical (with the latter being aggravated of course). How can >you do "hand" damage and not be a "hand" strike. If it's not a "hand" >strike to begin with, what is burning wrath adding +1 to anyway? I The same thing that the Bastard sword is adding to - a minion's hand damage amount. If you make "Strike: +N hand" imply a hand strike, then you have made the Bastard Sword a hand strike. Luckily, it isn't so. Think of 'hand' as a variable that represent the number of damage points a minion would do with a hand strike. Some strikes deal an amount of damage based on this number, that's all. >think the question is very important in terms of what can and can not >be prevented by immortal grapple. Was there a rules team ruling or >other post from WOTC to this effect (burning wrath is not a hand >strike and can be prevented with immortal grapple)? Not directly. But There was are rulings saying that "Strike: +N hand" isn't a hand strike, but a strike dealing damage based on hand damage: ------------------ Subject: Re: Bastard Sword = hand strike question From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Date: 1995/12/02 Message-Id: <49og3s$o...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> References: <49kqpn$9...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> <hippo-30119...@gill.hrc.utexas.edu> Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-Cards.jyhad When you strike with your bastard sword, you are not actually hitting the opposing minion with your hands, and applying a +1 modifier to them. You are hitting them with a weapon that does damage equal to your hand damage + 1. Therefore you can't stack Wolf Claws with the sword, either. Obviously this all extends to other weapons. ------------------ Subject: Re: Bastard Sword = hand strike question From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Date: 1995/12/07 Message-Id: <4a5v88$6...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> References: <49kqpn$9...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> <hippo-30119...@gill.hrc.utexas.edu> <49og3s$o...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <49sg77$p...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-Cards.jyhad L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >So it isn't: > >Bastard Sword - Weapon (1) > +1 hand damage > >But rather: > >Bastard Sword - Weapon (1) > Strike: hand +1 damage. > >Correct? >(Therefore not usable under Immortal Grapple, nor with Claws). Right. ------------------ Subject: Re: Hector Sosa, card erratta? From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Date: 1995/11/24 Message-Id: <495crq$g...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> Bastard Sword now adds +1 damage to a minion's hand damage. ------------------ [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Pettersen thoughtfully stated: : Any strike with a weapon is not a hand strike. : Any other strike whose damage is based on hand damage is a hand strike. : Other strikes are not hand strikes. Yes, I think these guidelines make card interpretation straight forward. And therefore Burning Wrath should be a hand strike, and usable during immortal grapple. And this still rules out Bang Nakh and Bastard Sword, as they explicitly say, 'Melee Weapon'. Where's the problem? -Ewok -- ___ /^\/\ ,, Juan Burwell | __| || ( {=@=====[=] Amherst College | _| \\/\// /^\ ||// \_/\/ '' jmbu...@unix.amherst.edu |___| \/\/ \_/ ||\\

On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, garou wrote: > How can > you do "hand" damage and not be a "hand" strike. Bastard Sword or Bang Nakh both do damage based on hands, yet they are not hand strikes. > If it's not a "hand" > strike to begin with, what is burning wrath adding +1 to anyway? What is bastard sword adding +1 to? The text of the cards implies that burning wrath should not be treated as a hand strike. > I > think the question is very important in terms of what can and can not > be prevented by immortal grapple. It is important in other ways too. Do Fists of Death affect it? > Was there a rules team ruling or > other post from WOTC to this effect (burning wrath is not a hand > strike and can be prevented with immortal grapple)? Unsure... Hope to find out soon though. [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) writes: > >Despite all the various wordings on the cards, is it essentially correct > >to say that: > > >Any strike with a weapon is not a hand strike. > >Any other strike whose damage is based on hand damage is a hand strike. > >Other strikes are not hand strikes. > > >Using the above three guidelines, are there cards that would clearly > >be handled incorrectly? > > Maybe. Burning Wrath would be a hand strike under these rules. > (It is currently not a hand strike, I believe). It would be nice if the guidelines offered above were valid, because they're pretty simple. Does the Burning-Wrath-not-a-hand-strike come from interpreting the card's wording, or was there an official ruling that it wasn't a hand strike? If there's been no official ruling, perhaps Shawn could give one. --Eric