These questions came up in our game last night:
1. Melee weapons that give a +1 hand damage mofifier, to get the +1 hand
damage from the weapon, do you strike with your hands, or with the weapon? If
the strike is still a hand strike, then the + damage modifer is still usable
with Immortal Grapple, right? And Torn Signpost can be used as well, correct?
2. The definition of successfully inflicting damage. The discussion was that
if damage was dealt, then healed by burning the blood, and then that blood
restored with Taste of Vitae, then in essence there was no damage inflicted
because the vampire ended the round of combat with the same amount or more
blood than at the beginning of combat. They argued that the situation was
similar to a successful bleed, in that a bleed is only successful if the bleed
results in at least 1 pool lost. I said that successfully inflicting damage
has nothing to do with anything that happens after the damage resolution phase
of the combat round - that as soon as the damage inflicted is not prevented
(flak jacket, leather jacket, any of the for cards), then damage has
successfully been inflicted that then must be healed by burning the blood. Am
I correct with my argument?
3. This one's pretty funny, and I can't see it happening in a terribly
serious gaming environment, but it was 2:30am, and we were on our 3rd game of
the evening. Here's the setup:
3 players in the game
Player A has 5 blood with 5 controlled minions
Player B has 3 blood with 3 controlled minions
Player C has 3 blood with 4 controlled minions
Player A calls an Ancillae Empowerment referendum which passes. Who gets what
victory points, as all three players are ousted simultaneously? We assumed
that each player got the 1 point for their prey, resulting in the game being a
tie.
Thanks,
Mark
Mark Lamutt wrote:
>
> These questions came up in our game last night:
>
> 1. Melee weapons that give a +1 hand damage mofifier, to get the +1 hand
> damage from the weapon, do you strike with your hands, or with the weapon? If
> the strike is still a hand strike, then the + damage modifer is still usable
> with Immortal Grapple, right? And Torn Signpost can be used as well, correct?
>
It is not a hand strike or hand damage. It is a melee weapon strike and
melee weapon damage. To make things more clear, melee weapons *should*
say, "Strike: deal hand damage +1" or perhaps "Strike: Strength +1
damage." Where 'strength' has been defined as a vampire's base hand
damage.
> 2. The definition of successfully inflicting damage. The discussion was that
> if damage was dealt, then healed by burning the blood, and then that blood
> restored with Taste of Vitae, then in essence there was no damage inflicted
> because the vampire ended the round of combat with the same amount or more
> blood than at the beginning of combat. They argued that the situation was
> similar to a successful bleed, in that a bleed is only successful if the bleed
> results in at least 1 pool lost. I said that successfully inflicting damage
> has nothing to do with anything that happens after the damage resolution phase
> of the combat round - that as soon as the damage inflicted is not prevented
> (flak jacket, leather jacket, any of the for cards), then damage has
> successfully been inflicted that then must be healed by burning the blood. Am
> I correct with my argument?
>
Any damage that is not prevented is successfully inflicted. Gaining
back the blood later doesn't change the fact that damage was inflicted.
You were correct.
> 3. This one's pretty funny, and I can't see it happening in a terribly
> serious gaming environment, but it was 2:30am, and we were on our 3rd game of
> the evening. Here's the setup:
>
> 3 players in the game
> Player A has 5 blood with 5 controlled minions
> Player B has 3 blood with 3 controlled minions
> Player C has 3 blood with 4 controlled minions
>
> Player A calls an Ancillae Empowerment referendum which passes. Who gets what
> victory points, as all three players are ousted simultaneously? We assumed
> that each player got the 1 point for their prey, resulting in the game being a
> tie.
>
You were correct. You each get 1 VP. If you wanted to declare a
winner, Player A would get a "moral victory" for being the one
responsible for ending the game, but as far as the rules go, there is no
winner in that game.
-Chris
On 22 Nov 1998, Mark Lamutt wrote:
> These questions came up in our game last night:
>
> 1. Melee weapons that give a +1 hand damage mofifier, to get the +1 hand
> damage from the weapon, do you strike with your hands, or with the weapon?
With the weapon. When you do a weapon strike with the weapon you do
damage that is based on your hand damage plus whatever modifiers.
> If
> the strike is still a hand strike,
No. It is a weapon strike doing weapon damage. It is just that your hand
damage is used as part of the formula to determine how much that weapon
damage will be.
> then the + damage modifer is still usable
> with Immortal Grapple, right?
No, because a weapon strike cannot be used with Immortal Grapple. Only
hand strikes can be used.
> And Torn Signpost can be used as well, correct?
Yes. Torn Signpost assigns a new value to your hand damage. When you
strike with a weapon later that combat, this value is then used to
determine what your weapon damage will be. Weapon damage for Bastard
Sword and the like is always based on what your hand damage is currently.
> 2. The definition of successfully inflicting damage.
Dealing damage that resolves, and is not prevented, I believe.
> The discussion was that
> if damage was dealt, then healed by burning the blood, and then that blood
> restored with Taste of Vitae, then in essence there was no damage inflicted
> because the vampire ended the round of combat with the same amount or more
> blood than at the beginning of combat. They argued that the situation was
> similar to a successful bleed, in that a bleed is only successful if the bleed
> results in at least 1 pool lost.
There is no necessary connection between taking damage and losing blood.
If you deal 5 damage to a minion with no blood, that minion still takes 5
damage, even though no blood is lost. If you deal 1 aggravated damage to
a healthy minion, that minion loses no blood (because he cannot burn blood
to heal), but he still takes 1 damage (and heads for torpor because he
has damage he could not heal).
Blood is lost in healing non-aggravated damage, or is sometimes burned by
wounded vampires to prevent destruction from aggravated damage. Blood is
burned to prevent the consequences of the damage (torpor or destruction),
but even if the blood is not burned, the damage is still taken.
> I said that successfully inflicting damage
> has nothing to do with anything that happens after the damage resolution phase
> of the combat round - that as soon as the damage inflicted is not prevented
> (flak jacket, leather jacket, any of the for cards), then damage has
> successfully been inflicted that then must be healed by burning the blood. Am
> I correct with my argument?
Pretty much.
> 3. This one's pretty funny, and I can't see it happening in a terribly
> serious gaming environment, but it was 2:30am, and we were on our 3rd game of
> the evening. Here's the setup:
>
> 3 players in the game
> Player A has 5 blood with 5 controlled minions
> Player B has 3 blood with 3 controlled minions
> Player C has 3 blood with 4 controlled minions
>
> Player A calls an Ancillae Empowerment referendum which passes. Who gets what
> victory points, as all three players are ousted simultaneously? We assumed
> that each player got the 1 point for their prey, resulting in the game being a
> tie.
I think that's right. You all gain a victory point, but none of you gain
6 pool (because you are ousted).
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
Mark Lammut wrote:
"1. Melee weapons that give a +1 hand damage mofifier, to get the +1 hand
damage from the weapon, do you strike with your hands, or with the weapon? If
the strike is still a hand strike, then the + damage modifer is still usable
with Immortal Grapple, right? And Torn Signpost can be used as well, correct?"
No and yes. Strikes with Melee Weapons, while based on hand damage, are, in
fact, Melee Weapon strikes and not hand strikes. If you use a Bastard Sword
(hand damage +1) you will do damage equal to your current hand damage, +1.
This will be a Melee Weapon strike (and as such, won't work under Immortal
Grapple) that does Melee Weapon damage (and as such, isn't affected by Wolf
Claws, et al). However, as the damage from a Melee Weapon is based on your
current hand damage, cards that increase your hand damage also increase your
Melee Weapon damage. If I have POT and Play Torn Signpost (3 hand damage),
Fists of Death (+2 hand damage), and use Undead Strength (+2 hand damage) to
strike with a Bastard Sword (hand damage +1), I will do 8 damage that is not a
hand strike. If I am Immortally Grappled or want to use Wolf Claws, I will
have to leave the Bastard Sword out of the equation (and just hit for 7
instead...)
I'll let LSJ answer the other two (they are a bit to convoluted for me at this
time of night...)
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"Son, you don't have bad luck. The reason bad things
keep happening to you is because you're a dumb ass."
-Red Foreman
mar...@dnvr.uswest.net (Mark Lamutt) wrote:
> 2. The definition of successfully inflicting damage. The discussion was that> if damage was dealt, then healed by burning the blood, and then that blood
> restored with Taste of Vitae, then in essence there was no damage inflicted
> because the vampire ended the round of combat with the same amount or more
> blood than at the beginning of combat. They argued that the situation was
> similar to a successful bleed, in that a bleed is only successful if the bleed> results in at least 1 pool lost. I said that successfully inflicting damage> has nothing to do with anything that happens after the damage resolution phase
> of the combat round - that as soon as the damage inflicted is not prevented
> (flak jacket, leather jacket, any of the for cards), then damage has
> successfully been inflicted that then must be healed by burning the blood. Am
> I correct with my argument?
Yes, Mark. You are correct. Damage is successfully inflicted, whether healed
or
not, unless it is prevented.
Noal
--
"DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors."
-Ambrose Bierce.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Mark Lamutt wrote:
> > 1. Melee weapons that give a +1 hand damage mofifier, to get the +1 hand
> > damage from the weapon, do you strike with your hands, or with the weapon?
If
> > the strike is still a hand strike, then the + damage modifer is still usable
> > with Immortal Grapple, right? And Torn Signpost can be used as well,
correct?
> >> It is not a hand strike or hand damage. It is a melee weapon strike and
> melee weapon damage. To make things more clear, melee weapons *should*
> say, "Strike: deal hand damage +1" or perhaps "Strike: Strength +1
> damage." Where 'strength' has been defined as a vampire's base hand
> damage.
Correct. And Torn Signpost resets the vampire's "Strength", so would increase
the damage done when striking with the melee weapon in question.
> > 2. The definition of successfully inflicting damage. The discussion was
that
> > if damage was dealt, then healed by burning the blood, and then that blood
> > restored with Taste of Vitae, then in essence there was no damage inflicted
> > because the vampire ended the round of combat with the same amount or more
> > blood than at the beginning of combat. They argued that the situation was
> > similar to a successful bleed, in that a bleed is only successful if the
bleed
> > results in at least 1 pool lost. I said that successfully inflicting damage
> > has nothing to do with anything that happens after the damage resolution
phase
> > of the combat round - that as soon as the damage inflicted is not prevented
> > (flak jacket, leather jacket, any of the for cards), then damage has
> > successfully been inflicted that then must be healed by burning the blood.
Am
> > I correct with my argument?
> >> Any damage that is not prevented is successfully inflicted. Gaining
> back the blood later doesn't change the fact that damage was inflicted.
> You were correct.
Correct.
> > 3. This one's pretty funny, and I can't see it happening in a terribly
> > serious gaming environment, but it was 2:30am, and we were on our 3rd game
of
> > the evening. Here's the setup:
> >
> > 3 players in the game
> > Player A has 5 blood with 5 controlled minions
> > Player B has 3 blood with 3 controlled minions
> > Player C has 3 blood with 4 controlled minions
> >
> > Player A calls an Ancillae Empowerment referendum which passes. Who gets
what
> > victory points, as all three players are ousted simultaneously? We assumed
> > that each player got the 1 point for their prey, resulting in the game being
a
> > tie.
> >> You were correct. You each get 1 VP. If you wanted to declare a
> winner, Player A would get a "moral victory" for being the one
> responsible for ending the game, but as far as the rules go, there is no
> winner in that game.
Correct.
--
L. Scott Johnson (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 ]
LSJ wrote in message <73c33k$r7m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Correct. And Torn Signpost resets the vampire's "Strength", so would
increase
>the damage done when striking with the melee weapon in question.
Does anybody see the problem here? Why would a mellee weapon add damage
torn signpost? I think the original intent of the card is that it is a
melee weapon that is usable only for one combat. I don't see why it isn't
ruled that way.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Because rulings are made to avoid insanity (on the part of the ruler),
and so go foremost off of card text, and use the amorphous, ephemeral
original intent only when the card text needs errata or clarification.
If then.
:-)
Hunter
--
Hunter Johnson /\ http://www.io.com/~jhunterj/
SJG Errata Guy /()\ http://www.sjgames.com/errata/
Knightmare Chess Guru /____\ http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/
Rachel and/or Chris wrote:
"Does anybody see the problem here? Why would a mellee weapon add damage torn
signpost? I think the original intent of the card is that it is a melee weapon
that is usable only for one combat. I don't see why it isn't ruled that way."
This has been hashed out here more times than I can shake a stick at (and I
shake quite a few sticks...), and the end result is this:
The original (Jyhad) Torn Signpost was (arguably) pretty clear about doing
nothing other than increasing your hand damage for a combat. It said nothing
about being a "one shot melee weapon" or being a strike in and of itself. It
simply reset your hand damage to 2 or 3. The only confusion about the card was
caused by the fact that it was called "Torn Signpost" and had a picture of a
signpost on it. If the card had been called, say, "Fists of Might", and had
the exact same wording but a different picture, there would have been no
confusion at all.
Then, when the VTES version of TS came out, the wording was inexplicably
different from the Jyhad version, and was pretty confusing, so the rules team
at the time ruled that VTES TS worked just like Jyhad TS--it simply set your
hand damage to 2 or 3. Nothing else. This then ended the confusion.
Recently, LSJ mentioned that he might have the rules team review this ruling,
but the end result of that might be turning TS into some sort of strike
granting effect, which would end all the "can you use it with a melee weapon"
questions, but not all the "can you use it with Wolf Claws" questions, and
might or might not have a negative effect on Potence combat decks as a whole.
In the end, as it stands, TS does nothing other than give a vampire a base of 2
or 3 hand damage which increases melee weapon damage, can be modified by Wolf
Claws, and can be augmented by Fists of Death and/or Undead Strength so as to
hit someone for 9. Just ignore the fact that it is called "Torn Signpost" and
has a picture of a signpost on it, and you're set.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Rachel & Chris wrote:
>
> LSJ wrote in message <73c33k$r7m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >Correct. And Torn Signpost resets the vampire's "Strength", so would
> increase
> >the damage done when striking with the melee weapon in question.
>> Does anybody see the problem here? Why would a mellee weapon add damage
> torn signpost? I think the original intent of the card is that it is a
> melee weapon that is usable only for one combat. I don't see why it isn't
> ruled that way.
I don't know why it was ruled the way it was. I have always had a
problem with it. It is basically a better version of undead strength.
It doesn't take up your only strike, it lasts the whole combat (at
enhanced I believe) and has all effects that undead strength has. I
always felt (before I read the ruling) that it provided an optional
strike for the combat that would be at 2/3 damage. Its advantage was
that is lasted the whole combat and not just one strike. Its
disadvantage was that it couldn't be used with a melee weapon (undead
strenth specifically says it can). This ruling also makes enhanced
strength somewhat worthless, although the ruling was out before enhanced
strength and ES does has some advantages.
Anyway I just thought I would let you know you are not alone, although
this will never be changed at this point.
Kevin
Rachel & Chris wrote:
> LSJ wrote in message <73c33k$r7m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >Correct. And Torn Signpost resets the vampire's "Strength", so would
> increase
> >the damage done when striking with the melee weapon in question.
>
> Does anybody see the problem here? Why would a mellee weapon add damage
> torn signpost? I think the original intent of the card is that it is a
> melee weapon that is usable only for one combat. I don't see why it isn't
> ruled that way.
I look at it this way, Undead Strength should have been named Torn Signpost
and
Torn Signpost should have been named Undead Strength. Must have been a screw
up during printing :)
J. Hunter Johnson <jhun...@schultz.io.com> wrote:
> Rachel & Chris <reei...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:>>
>> LSJ wrote in message <73c33k$r7m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...>>> Correct. And Torn Signpost resets the vampire's "Strength", so would
>>> increase
>>> the damage done when striking with the melee weapon in question.>> Does anybody see the problem here? Why would a mellee weapon add
>> damage torn signpost? I think the original intent of the card is
>> that it is a melee weapon that is usable only for one combat. I
>> don't see why it isn't ruled that way.> Because rulings are made to avoid insanity (on the part of the ruler),> and so go foremost off of card text, and use the amorphous, ephemeral
> original intent only when the card text needs errata or clarification.
> If then.
Well, uh, (puts thinking cap on) I guess if you had superhuman strength
you could probably use one in each hand: sword in the right, sign in the
left, right? :)
Yeah, that's it! Yeah!
. . . or something . . .
--
Timothy "As a wise scotsman once said,
Dedeaux 'if we all liked the same things
tdedeaux there wouldn't be enough haggis to go around.'"
@mc.edu - Mary K. Kuhner, on r.g.f.a
J. Hunter Johnson wrote in message <73cgle$reb$1...@hiram.io.com>...
>Because rulings are made to avoid insanity (on the part of the ruler),
>and so go foremost off of card text, and use the amorphous, ephemeral
>original intent only when the card text needs errata or clarification.
>If then.
I can understand not wanting to change card text. It's obnoxious to have to
remember what a card "really" says. In this case, though, the V:tES text
tries to make the card what it was, and V:tES text is supposed to over rule
Jyhad text anyway. But it's no big deal, the usefulness of the card doesn't
change much either way.
Tim Dedeaux <tded...@csc.mc.edu> writes:
> > Because rulings are made to avoid insanity (on the part of the ruler),
> > and so go foremost off of card text, and use the amorphous, ephemeral
> > original intent only when the card text needs errata or clarification.
> > If then.
>> Well, uh, (puts thinking cap on) I guess if you had superhuman strength
> you could probably use one in each hand: sword in the right, sign in the
> left, right? :)
...but why so literal? I've always understood the Torn Signpost card
to mean that the vampire becomes so strong that he/she can rip
singposts up for fun, *not* that the vampire is actually using a
singpost to beat someone up.
Look at the card that way and there's no conflict with melee weapons.
//Petri
Kevin Kelly wrote:
"I don't know why it was ruled the way it was. I have always had a
problem with it. It is basically a better version of undead strength.
It doesn't take up your only strike, it lasts the whole combat (at
enhanced I believe) and has all effects that undead strength has. I
always felt (before I read the ruling) that it provided an optional
strike for the combat that would be at 2/3 damage. Its advantage was that is
lasted the whole combat and not just one strike. Its
disadvantage was that it couldn't be used with a melee weapon (undead strenth
specifically says it can). This ruling also makes enhanced strength somewhat
worthless, although the ruling was out before enhanced strength and ES does has
some advantages. "
You seem to be missing the point of Potence combat as a whole here. Torn
Signpost, Fists of Death, and Undead Strength are not competeing cards, they
are interlocking aspects of a single strategy. Torn Signpost exists to be
played with Undead Strength. Fists of Death exists to to be played with Torn
Signpost. Between the three of them, you have a Potence combat deck. With
just one of them, you have very little. The three of them are similar to, say,
Govern and Conditioning. When compared to each other, Conditioning might come
across as a bit better for bleeding (as it is an action modifier as well as
getting up to +3), but you are much better off (generally) having 8 of each
instead of 16 of one. The same goes for TS and Undead Strength. If you have
the option of using 10 Torn Signpost and 10 Undead Strength instead of 20 Torn
Signpost, you'd be a fool to do otherwise.
Increased Strength is a completely different card than Torn Signpost, as Undead
Strength is completely stackable (like FoD), costs nothing (unlike FoD), and
most importantly, works with _non_ hand strikes, like Sewer Lid and Thrown
Gate. In long range potence decks is where Increased Strength shines, and yet
it is still prefectly effective in a close range Potence deck, as long as you
have Undead Strength (and not just TS...)
[ quoted text not captured ]
PDB6 wrote in message <19981124185953...@ng122.aol.com>...:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Right. Ruling Torn Signost as a melee weapon that does +1 or +2 hand damage
still allows it to be used with Undead Strength and Increased Strength or
Fists of Death. It also eliminates the issues with Claws.
Rachel and/or Chris wrote:
"Right. Ruling Torn Signost as a melee weapon that does +1 or +2 hand damage
still allows it to be used with Undead Strength and Increased Strength or Fists
of Death. It also eliminates the issues with Claws."
But it does not allow it to be used with Immortal Grapple (which is very bad
for a Potence deck), and the issue with Claws is a complete non issue. It
makes far more sense (IMO) to errata the card to be named "Fists of Might" than
to change the card into some sort of melee weapon one shot or some sort of
strike granting effect.
[ quoted text not captured ]