HI!
Rev. Blackwood inflicts +1 damage with strikes requiring Thaumaturgy.
Questions: (MY GUESS)
____________________________________________________ ___________________
1) With Blood Rage & Blood Fury, is that (yes)
additional point preventable?
2) With Theft of Vitae, does he: (a) steal 1 blood, (c)
(b)steal 2 blood, or (c)steal 1 and inflict 1 dam.
(Opposing minion loses 2, acting minion gains 1)
I am the commissioner for a League, and I had to rule on how his Special would be
implemented. I think I got them right, but I'd like some hard copy to take to the
disputants.
Any help would be appreciated (either a prior RTR or a new "noted for the next RT
meeting.")
Many thanks in advance!
--
"...But when the blast of war blows in our ears, | Rob Bush (Zamboni)
Then imitate the action of the tiger: |
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood." | Aspiring Animator,
Henry V, Act iii. Sc. 1. | Edinboro U. of PA
Rob Bush <Zam...@moose.erie.net> writes:
>HI!
>Rev. Blackwood inflicts +1 damage with strikes requiring Thaumaturgy.
> Questions: (MY GUESS)
>____________________________________________________ ___________________>1) With Blood Rage & Blood Fury, is that (yes)
> additional point preventable?
My guess is "yes" as well, judging by how by how Sengir Dagger
and Kali's Fang are handled. Those two weapons have explicit
card text, however, so the ruling could easily go the other
way (since Blood Ire was printed before such strikes were
modifiable).
>2) With Theft of Vitae, does he: (a) steal 1 blood, (c)
> (b)steal 2 blood, or (c)steal 1 and inflict 1 dam.
> (Opposing minion loses 2, acting minion gains 1)
Adding damage to a strike that doesn't inherently deal damage
has been ruled to have no effect. So 'A' would follow by that
ruling.
From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
Subject: Rules Team Rulings: 2/21/96
Date: 21 Feb 1996 21:48:14 GMT
Message-ID: <4gg3uu$9...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect. For example, Rowan
Ring never deals damage, even if you combine it with Undead Strength or
Lucky Blow.
>Any help would be appreciated (either a prior RTR or a new "noted
>for the next RT meeting.")
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Eschew
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | Obfuscation
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
> Rob Bush wrote:
> HI!> Rev. Blackwood inflicts +1 damage with strikes requiring Thaumaturgy.
> Questions: (MY GUESS)> 1) With Blood Rage & Blood Fury, is that (yes)
> additional point preventable?
I would assume that with any strike augmented by Blackwood's
special, the extra point of damage is the same type of damage as the
original strike. Blackwood's Walk of Flame would be 3R aggs, not 2R
aggs + 1 normal. His special point of damage added to Blood Rage or
Blood Fury would also be unpreventable by Fortitude.
> 2) With Theft of Vitae, does he: (a) steal 1 blood, (c)
> (b)steal 2 blood, or (c)steal 1 and inflict 1 dam.
> (Opposing minion loses 2, acting minion gains 1)
He steals 2 blood-unless someone wants to use Theft of Vitae
at inferior. Strikes which do not deal damage, such as Theft of
Vitae and Rowan Ring, do not benefit from enhanced damage potential.
-Nathan Harada
Hope this helps..
>>2) With Theft of Vitae, does he: (a) steal 1 blood, (c)
>> (b)steal 2 blood, or (c)steal 1 and inflict 1 dam.
>> (Opposing minion loses 2, acting minion gains 1)>Adding damage to a strike that doesn't inherently deal damage>has been ruled to have no effect. So 'A' would follow by that
>ruling.
How hard could it be!?
Theft Of Vitae, steal two blood, do then 1 damage
Walk Of Flame, do two aggrevated, do then 1 damage
Blood Rage, do 3 non preventable damage, then 1 damage
Burst Of Sunlight, do 2 aggrevated damage +1 damage to you and 2 aggrevated +1
damage to the opponent...
I don't under stand the problems with it, would there be a dodge card that
require Thaumathurgy, then you would dodge, and in the same time deal 1 damage
to the opponent...
Not hard at all, just do one damn single >preventable< >not aggrevated damage<
to your opponent each time you use a single damn STRIKE card that have a
Thaumathurgy symbol!?
Just like Twisting The Knife...
staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) writes:
>>>2) With Theft of Vitae, does he: (a) steal 1 blood, (c)
>>> (b)steal 2 blood, or (c)steal 1 and inflict 1 dam.
>>> (Opposing minion loses 2, acting minion gains 1)>>Adding damage to a strike that doesn't inherently deal damage
>>has been ruled to have no effect. So 'A' would follow by that
>>ruling.>How hard could it be!?>I don't under stand the problems with it, would there be a dodge card that>require Thaumathurgy, then you would dodge, and in the same time deal 1 damage
>to the opponent...>Not hard at all, just do one damn single >preventable< >not aggrevated damage<
>to your opponent each time you use a single damn STRIKE card that have a
>Thaumathurgy symbol!?>Just like Twisting The Knife...
It's not hard - that's not the argument.
It's simply been ruled that only damage-dealing strike deal damage, no
matter what modifiers are applied. What's so hard about that?
[ quoted text not captured ]
>> 1) With Blood Rage & Blood Fury, is that (yes)
>> additional point preventable?> I would assume that with any strike augmented by Blackwood's
>special, the extra point of damage is the same type of damage as the
>original strike. Blackwood's Walk of Flame would be 3R aggs, not 2R
>aggs + 1 normal. His special point of damage added to Blood Rage or
>Blood Fury would also be unpreventable by Fortitude.
The extra damage is 1 damage, like you had a wolf companion.
It's not even ranged.
>> 2) With Theft of Vitae, does he: (a) steal 1 blood, (c)
>> (b)steal 2 blood, or (c)steal 1 and inflict 1 dam.
>> (Opposing minion loses 2, acting minion gains 1)> He steals 2 blood-unless someone wants to use Theft of Vitae>at inferior. Strikes which do not deal damage, such as Theft of
>Vitae and Rowan Ring, do not benefit from enhanced damage potential.
Nothing on Reverend say's that the card must be a damage dealing card.
theft Of Vitae steals two blood and do one normally-preventable damage.
>It's not hard - that's not the argument.>It's simply been ruled that only damage-dealing strike deal damage, no
>matter what modifiers are applied. What's so hard about that?
Where do I found this Sabbat Errata?
The card is just said that "Reverend blackwood inflict's,+1 damage with any
strike card that use thaumathurgy"
No "damage dealing" text here...
staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) writes:
>>> 1) With Blood Rage & Blood Fury, is that (yes)
>>> additional point preventable?>> I would assume that with any strike augmented by Blackwood's
>>special, the extra point of damage is the same type of damage as the
>>original strike. Blackwood's Walk of Flame would be 3R aggs, not 2R
>>aggs + 1 normal. His special point of damage added to Blood Rage or
>>Blood Fury would also be unpreventable by Fortitude.>The extra damage is 1 damage, like you had a wolf companion.
>It's not even ranged.
It is nothing like the wolf companion.
Wolf does undodgeable damage during strike resolution.
Blackwwod increases the damage (if any) done by a strike, regardless
of range.
>>> 2) With Theft of Vitae, does he: (a) steal 1 blood, (c)
>>> (b)steal 2 blood, or (c)steal 1 and inflict 1 dam.
>>> (Opposing minion loses 2, acting minion gains 1)>> He steals 2 blood-unless someone wants to use Theft of Vitae
>>at inferior. Strikes which do not deal damage, such as Theft of
>>Vitae and Rowan Ring, do not benefit from enhanced damage potential.>Nothing on Reverend say's that the card must be a damage dealing card.
>theft Of Vitae steals two blood and do one normally-preventable damage.
Nothing on Reverend's text says anything about overriding the
restriction that only damage-dealing strikes deal damage, so
theft of vitae won't get the +1 damage bonus.
[ quoted text not captured ]
staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) writes:
>>It's not hard - that's not the argument.>>It's simply been ruled that only damage-dealing strike deal damage, no
>>matter what modifiers are applied. What's so hard about that?>Where do I found this Sabbat Errata?
From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
Subject: Rules Team Rulings: 2/21/96
Date: 21 Feb 1996 21:48:14 GMT
Message-ID: <4gg3uu$9...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect. For example, Rowan
Ring never deals damage, even if you combine it with Undead Strength or
Lucky Blow.
>The card is just said that "Reverend blackwood inflict's,+1 damage with any>strike card that use thaumathurgy">No "damage dealing" text here...
And if the strike doesn't normally deal damage, there won't be any damage
dealing there, either.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <329723...@moose.erie.net>, Rob Bush
<Zam...@moose.erie.net> wrote:
> HI!
>
> Rev. Blackwood inflicts +1 damage with strikes requiring Thaumaturgy.
>
> Questions: (MY GUESS)
Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Wilkie Wot...@aol.com
a.k.a."Scalpel" Customer Service, Wizards of the Coast
"This isn't going to have a happy ending"
-Detective Somerset, Se7en
-------------------------------------------------------------
On 26 Nov 96 23:19:36 -500, staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se
(staffan.bengtsson) wrote:
>>> 1) With Blood Rage & Blood Fury, is that (yes)
>>> additional point preventable?>>> I would assume that with any strike augmented by Blackwood's
>>special, the extra point of damage is the same type of damage as the
>>original strike. Blackwood's Walk of Flame would be 3R aggs, not 2R
>>aggs + 1 normal. His special point of damage added to Blood Rage or
>>Blood Fury would also be unpreventable by Fortitude.>
>The extra damage is 1 damage, like you had a wolf companion.
>It's not even ranged.
Gee, this would be stupid. Unfortunately for that argument, the
damage is increased damage to the strike. I didn't notice anyone
complaining about my Thrown Gate dealing two more damage because of
the increased strength I played before range was chosen....
Basically, here it is. The Damage is added to the Strike. The Strike
defines whether the damage is ranged or not; from precedent of burning
wrath and hand damage, the strike does not determine whether all the
damage is aggravated or not; only the damage which is explicitly
stated to be aggravated is aggravated. All added damage is normal but
still of the type of damage of the strike.
>>> 2) With Theft of Vitae, does he: (a) steal 1 blood, (c)
>>> (b)steal 2 blood, or (c)steal 1 and inflict 1 dam.
>>> (Opposing minion loses 2, acting minion gains 1)>>> He steals 2 blood-unless someone wants to use Theft of Vitae
>>at inferior. Strikes which do not deal damage, such as Theft of
>>Vitae and Rowan Ring, do not benefit from enhanced damage potential.>
>Nothing on Reverend say's that the card must be a damage dealing card.
>theft Of Vitae steals two blood and do one normally-preventable damage.
It's not the Reverend's special ability that is at issue.
By precedent of Rowan Ring and Shattering blow: Strikes which do not
deal damage can never be made to deal damage, even, in the respective
cases of the two strikes listed, with a lucky blow or increased
strength. No damage to begin with, no damage to increase, no damage
dealt by cards which deal additional damage.
Stealing blood is not damage. Thus, no damage to increase, no damage
dealt by cards or abilities which increase damage. Very simple.
Alec Chang
>Gee, this would be stupid. Unfortunately for that argument, the
>damage is increased damage to the strike.
Is it? really? Is there a text changing errata to the card or what?
>I didn't notice anyone
>complaining about my Thrown Gate dealing two more damage because of
>the increased strength I played before range was chosen....
So what, we always use increased strength on ALL potence strikes, regardless
of range.
>Basically, here it is. The Damage is added to the Strike. The Strike
>defines whether the damage is ranged or not; from precedent of burning
>wrath and hand damage, the strike does not determine whether all the
>damage is aggravated or not; only the damage which is explicitly
>stated to be aggravated is aggravated. All added damage is normal but
>still of the type of damage of the strike.
Yeah, sure, right.
>By precedent of Rowan Ring and Shattering blow: Strikes which do not
>deal damage can never be made to deal damage, even, in the respective
>cases of the two strikes listed, with a lucky blow or increased
>strength. No damage to begin with, no damage to increase, no damage
>dealt by cards which deal additional damage.
Why are you guy's speaking about Rowan Ring and Lucky blow? Thoose strikes
are not Thaumathurgy anyway?
Do I have a different version of reverend or what? On mine it says +1 damage
on all thaumathurgy strikes" and thats all.
>Stealing blood is not damage. Thus, no damage to increase, no damage
>dealt by cards or abilities which increase damage. Very simple.
It's a THAUMATHURGY - STRIKE card.
On 28 Nov 96 23:11:31 -500, staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se
(staffan.bengtsson) wrote:
AHEM! It would be nice if you thought and had some idea of what you
were talking about before you posted in this argumentative manner.
First: I'm talking about Blackwood's abilitiy in terms of earlier
rules team rulings as to how effects which increase damage work.
Since this is a game based off of consistency, unless a card states
that it works otherwise, it follows the earlier guidelines for how (in
this case) damage is increased.
>>Gee, this would be stupid. Unfortunately for that argument, the
>>damage is increased damage to the strike.>
>Is it? really? Is there a text changing errata to the card or what?
No. However, as I mentioned above: All cards which increase damage
to specific kinds of strikes work in the same way, unless specified
otherwise. Increased Damage = Increased Damage as part of the strike.
You dodge the strike, you dodge the damage. You take the strike, you
take the damage, and it's either ranged or not ranged along with the
rest of the strike's damage.
>>I didn't notice anyone
>>complaining about my Thrown Gate dealing two more damage because of
>>the increased strength I played before range was chosen....>
>So what, we always use increased strength on ALL potence strikes, regardless
>of range.
Exactly my point.(With one little problem) Reverend Blackwood's
abilitiy affects _all_ Thaumaturgy strikes which deal damage. Note
the _deal damage_ clause here.
>>Basically, here it is. The Damage is added to the Strike. The Strike
>>defines whether the damage is ranged or not; from precedent of burning
>>wrath and hand damage, the strike does not determine whether all the
>>damage is aggravated or not; only the damage which is explicitly
>>stated to be aggravated is aggravated. All added damage is normal but
>>still of the type of damage of the strike.>
>Yeah, sure, right.
And you're countering this with what? Don't get snide without backup,
in terms of intelligent people, or intelligent arguments.
>>By precedent of Rowan Ring and Shattering blow: Strikes which do not
>>deal damage can never be made to deal damage, even, in the respective
>>cases of the two strikes listed, with a lucky blow or increased
>>strength. No damage to begin with, no damage to increase, no damage
>>dealt by cards which deal additional damage.>
>Why are you guy's speaking about Rowan Ring and Lucky blow? Thoose strikes
>are not Thaumathurgy anyway?
Precedents of similar cards, and an example of a ruling.
I don't have access to archives of all the rulings ever done on this
group like some people, but the ruling(in abridged and clarified
form):
Strikes which deal no _damage_ cannot ever be made to deal damage,
regardless of whatever +X damage to certain types of strikes effects
you use.
Examples:
Melee Weapons. Rowan Ring deals no damage, and cannot be made to deal
damage with a lucky blow.
Potence Strikes: Shattering Blow can never deal damage, even if you
played an increased strength before range.
Extension of the logic of this ruling:
Thaumaturgy Strikes: THAU strikes which deal no damage cannot be made
to deal damage even w/ Reverend Blackwood's ability.
>Do I have a different version of reverend or what? On mine it says +1 damage
>on all thaumathurgy strikes" and thats all.
All cards are subject to rulings; cards take precedence over the
rules, rulings take precedence over cards. This was a ruling. Live
w/ it.
>>Stealing blood is not damage. Thus, no damage to increase, no damage
>>dealt by cards or abilities which increase damage. Very simple.>
>It's a THAUMATHURGY - STRIKE card.
It's a _RULING_. And spell Thaumaturgy right.
Alec Chang(Tired of having to explain himself twice...)
staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) writes:
>>Gee, this would be stupid. Unfortunately for that argument, the
>>damage is increased damage to the strike.>Is it? really? Is there a text changing errata to the card or what?
No, it is exactly the text you typed in. +1 damage on the strike.
Not "+1 damage when you strike with a Thau strike card".
>Why are you guy's speaking about Rowan Ring and Lucky blow? Thoose strikes
>are not Thaumathurgy anyway?
Rowan Ring isn't a strike at all. It is a melee weapon.
"Lucky Blow":"Melee Weapon strike"::"Rev. Blackwood":"Thau strike",
that's why we're talking about it. Since the former has been ruled
on, the ruling gives us a precedent for determining what Blackwood's
ability means for a non-damage strike like Theft of Vitae.
>Do I have a different version of reverend or what? On mine it says +1 damage
>on all thaumathurgy strikes" and thats all.>>Stealing blood is not damage. Thus, no damage to increase, no damage>>dealt by cards or abilities which increase damage. Very simple.>It's a THAUMATHURGY - STRIKE card.
And, since it doesn't do damage, Blackwood's ability won't affect it.
From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
Subject: Rules Team Rulings: 2/21/96
Date: 21 Feb 1996 21:48:14 GMT
Message-ID: <4gg3uu$9...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> 4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
> effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect.
Which means that if I reduce Crushers hand damage to 0 with an disease, then
he could add how many damage to his hand's that he like becouse
[ quoted text not captured ]
> No, it is exactly the text you typed in. +1 damage on the strike.
> Not "+1 damage when you strike with a Thau strike card".
[stuff about theft of vitae]
> And, since it doesn't do damage, Blackwood's ability won't affect it.
This one has me and other players in our group going in circles.
The card says: Reverend Blackwood inflicts +1 damage with ANY STRIKE CARD
that requires Thaumaturgy. (emphasis mine).
Theft of Vitae is a strike card which requires thaumaturgy. It deals 0
damage, Rev. Blackwood inflics +1 damage
on any strike card which requires Thaumaturgy 0 damage +1 damage = 1 damage.
This (above) was what 2/3 of us said. The others agreed with L. Scott
that unless it did damage, there was no increase.
Personally, I don't think the card is clear. It would have taken WOTC no
extra space/time to put the card text as
"...deals +1 damage on any thaumaturgy strike which deals damage..."
PjV
staffan.bengtsson (staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote:
> > 4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
> > effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect.
>
> Which means that if I reduce Crushers hand damage to 0 with an disease, then
> he could add how many damage to his hand's that he like becouse
> "Playing a "+X damage effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect."
>
What variant of the Disease card are you playing with? All the ones I've
seen give -1/-2 hand damage. They do not reset hand damage to 0. Nice
try, though.
Mark Langsdorf
http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html
>> Which means that if I reduce Crushers hand damage to 0 with an disease,
>> then he could add how many damage to his hand's that he like becouse
>> "Playing a "+X damage effect on a strike that deals no damage has no
>> effect."
>>>What variant of the Disease card are you playing with? All the ones I've
>seen give -1/-2 hand damage. They do not reset hand damage to 0. Nice
>try, though.
Check out Erosion... Quitus...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think what he is trying to point out is that Crusher effectively has a hand damage of 2 (1
basic and then +1). Therefore if you play a superior disease then he is reduced to a hand damge
of zero, and therefore is doing an undamaging strike, which means he cannot play any additional
damage cards. The only way around this is if he played a torn signpost, or fists of death first,
and then he would never reach zero hand damage. This order of playing cards is starting to sound
far too like magic for my liking, anybody disagree completely?
Ben.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Fortunately, there's a distinction between "a strike that does no
damage" and "a strike that 0 damage." Let me try this again.
Crusher normally has +1 hand damage, and does 2 points of damage per hand
strike. Now, if he plays Shattering Blow- a strike that does no damage-
his foe loses equipment, but doesn't take any damage, since Crusher's +1
hand damage doesn't apply to strikes that do no damage.
If Crusher gets Diseased at superior, he'll have -2 hand damage. If he
strikes with his hands, he'll do 1+1-2 = 0 damage.
Everyone okay with so far?
If Crusher gets Diseased at superior, and then plays Burning Wrath at
superior, he'll do 1+1-2+2 = 2 points of damage, aggravated. The Burning
Wrath can modify his hand damage because he is doing damage (even if the
damage he'd normally do is 0).
Everyone following this?
For the purposes of abilities or cards that boost damage, "0 damage" is
not equivalent to "no damage" as strange as that sounds.
Mark Langsdorf
http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html
In article <E1u58A.J8B.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>,
[ quoted text not captured ]>Ben.
Glad you could finally join us Ben :-)
Anyway, Crusher can still play torn signpost after he has
been diseased (gives him a hand damage of 3+1-2=2). Also why
can he not use strike cards to increase his hand damage? If
he played undead strength on a hand damage of 0 he would
inflict 2 damage on his opposition.The differance was only
given for Rowan ring which was strike:paralyse, so couldn't
be modifed by undead strenth, even though it is a melee
weapon. Otherwise things like entombment with potence can get
very messy....
LOS
Ben Moss wrote:
>
> In article <432.6910T...@mailbox.swipnet.se>, staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) writes:
> > >> Which means that if I reduce Crushers hand damage to 0 with an disease,
> > >> then he could add how many damage to his hand's that he like becouse
> > >> "Playing a "+X damage effect on a strike that deals no damage has no
> > >> effect."
> > >>
> > >What variant of the Disease card are you playing with? All the ones I've
> > >seen give -1/-2 hand damage. They do not reset hand damage to 0. Nice
> > >try, though.
> >
> > Check out Erosion... Quitus...
> >
> >
> I think what he is trying to point out is that Crusher effectively has a hand damage of 2 (1
> basic and then +1). Therefore if you play a superior disease then he is reduced to a hand damge
> of zero, and therefore is doing an undamaging strike, which means he cannot play any additional
> damage cards. The only way around this is if he played a torn signpost, or fists of death first,
> and then he would never reach zero hand damage. This order of playing cards is starting to sound
> far too like magic for my liking, anybody disagree completely?
>
> Ben.
Vamps dealing 0 damage are in fact still using damage dealing
strikes. ( mathmatically 0 blongs to the set of real numbers, hence it
is just as viable as an amount of damage dealt as 1,2,3,4 etc. is.) The
term "non-damage dealing strike" refers to strikes that don't deal any
damage whatsoever. (theft, steal weapon, dodge, etc) Regardless of
whether a vampires hand damage is modified to 0 or not, it is still a
"Damage dealing strike".
Cheers, Karl
b...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Ben Moss) writes:
>I think what he is trying to point out is that Crusher effectively has a hand damage of 2 (1
>basic and then +1). Therefore if you play a superior disease then he is reduced to a hand damge
>of zero, and therefore is doing an undamaging strike, which means he cannot play any additional
>damage cards. The only way around this is if he played a torn signpost, or fists of death first,
>and then he would never reach zero hand damage. This order of playing cards is starting to sound
>far too like magic for my liking, anybody disagree completely?
Hand strikes are by nature damage-dealing strikes.
Dealing damage (of zero or any other amount) is different than producing
a non-damage effect (like stealing blood).
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | It's not the same when I'm
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | not in the holodeck
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | - Riker
In article <57sn72$s...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
> staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) writes:
> >> 4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"> >> effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect.
>
> >Which means that if I reduce Crushers hand damage to 0 with an disease, then
> >he could add how many damage to his hand's that he like becouse
> >"Playing a "+X damage effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect."
>> Crusher deals damage (amount: zero),
> so you can increase it, as normal.
>
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but surely if he is inflicting zero damage, i.e. no damage, then
you can't increase it, as you said before. Or is there some subtle difference that I'm missing
between zero damage and no damage.
> --
> L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Eschew
> http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | Obfuscation> Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
Ben.
Ben Moss wrote:
>
> Perhaps I'm missing the point, but surely if he is inflicting zero
> damage, i.e. no damage, then you can't increase it, as you said
> before. Or is there some subtle difference that I'm missing
> between zero damage and no damage.
Right. Hand damage is by its nature a damaging strike. In the case of
the Diseased Crusher, the current damage is zero. But that can be
increased by cards which increase hand damage (Undead Strength).
Compare this to Theft of Vitae. It is _not_ a damaging strike. If
something (now look at this closely) increases the damage it does (did
you catch that?), then it increases nothing (not "zero", but "nothing")
and the strike is unchanged.
James
--
James Hamblin je...@cornell.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only one human captain has ever survived battle with the Minbari fleet.
He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be
somewhere else." -- Ambassador Delenn, "Babylon 5: Severed Dreams"
In article <E1vzow.5Cv.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>,
b...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Ben Moss) wrote:
> Perhaps I'm missing the point, but surely if he is inflicting zero damage,
i.e. no damage, then
> you can't increase it, as you said before. Or is there some subtle difference
that I'm missing
> between zero damage and no damage.
Subtle difference.
Try this rule, instead of the one from the RTR:
"Only damage-dealing strikes deal damage"
"Increasing the damage dealt by a non-damage-dealing strike
will have no effect"
All hand strikes (even ones for zero) are damage-dealing strikes.
Other strikes that say that they deal damage (in regards to what is inflicted
on the struck minion by a strike) are damage-dealing strikes.
All other strikes (steal/burn blood, steal/destroy equipment/weapon, send
to torpor, S:CE, dodge, remove skill card, etc.) are *not* damage-dealing
strikes.
Clearer?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
In article <E1vzow.5Cv.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>,
b...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Ben Moss) wrote:
> In article <57sn72$s...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu
(L. Scott Johnson) writes:
> > staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) writes:
> > >> 4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
> > >> effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect.
> >
> > >Which means that if I reduce Crushers hand damage to 0 with an
disease, then
> > >he could add how many damage to his hand's that he like becouse
> > >"Playing a "+X damage effect on a strike that deals no damage has no
effect."
> >
> > Crusher deals damage (amount: zero),
> > so you can increase it, as normal.
> >
>> Perhaps I'm missing the point, but surely if he is inflicting zero
damage, i.e. no damage, then
> you can't increase it, as you said before. Or is there some subtle
difference that I'm missing
> between zero damage and no damage.
There is. A strike card that does not deal damage (Theft of Vitae, Rowan
Ring, weapons against Blood Rage, etc.) does not deal damage no matter how
it has been modified. A hand strike or any other strike that normally
deals damage but has had it reduced to 0 (Nosferatu Putrescence, Blythe
Candeleria v. a Malkavian, etc.) can still have it increased.
J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com>
PGP keys by request
>I think what he is trying to point out is that Crusher effectively has a hand
>damage of 2 (1 basic and then +1). Therefore if you play a superior disease
>then he is reduced to a hand damge of zero, and therefore is doing an
>undamaging strike, which means he cannot play any additional damage cards.
>The only way around this is if he played a torn signpost, or fists of death
>first, and then he would never reach zero hand damage. This order of playing
>cards is starting to sound far too like magic for my liking, anybody disagree
>completely?
I dont... =) There are beginning to be far to many sub rules to the game...
The "I cant strike you +X becouse my strike damage is 0" is a such rule.
"Melee Weapon +2 hand Damage is no hand damage" is another...
and so on..
OK, I was just looking at a very peculiar situation, and I started
wondering:
1> Can Beast, Leatherface of Detroit, use Disguised Weapons? He can't Equip,
and DW says to equip. OTOH, Bloodhunt and Blood Hunt are different, and Equip
is a type of action listed in the rulebook, so...?
2> Wooden Stake (not to be confused with the Stake) says that if more than 1
damage is inflicted, damage is aggravated. When does it become aggravated?
Example:
Bianca has a Wooden Stake, and attempts to viciously stab Badger with
it combined with Undead Strength, for a total of 3 damage.
Fortuneately indeed for Badger, she not only has Superior Fortitude,
but she also has a Flak Jacket. Unfortuneately, her only damage
prevention card is a Resiliance. She plays Resiliance, now what?
A> She prevents all 3 non-aggravated damage, no agg damage was
inflicted, she is saved.
B> She must play it at inferior, and prevents 1 damage, then
prevents another with the Flak Jacket, and takes 1 non-agg.
C> As <B> above, but the single point is aggravated.
3> The Portrait. How does this combine with No Repeat Actions? No really, I'm
serious.
4> Why is there a vote to make someone lose 1 lousy pool?
Ritaxis
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996 rit...@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:
>
> OK, I was just looking at a very peculiar situation, and I started
> wondering:
>
> 1> Can Beast, Leatherface of Detroit, use Disguised Weapons? He can't Equip,
> and DW says to equip. OTOH, Bloodhunt and Blood Hunt are different, and Equip
> is a type of action listed in the rulebook, so...?
>
He could also get equipment from other minions. I believe this
can be used, for if they wanted Beast not to use equipment they would
have worded him like the Hellhound.
> 2> Wooden Stake (not to be confused with the Stake) says that if more than 1
> damage is inflicted, damage is aggravated. When does it become aggravated?
> Example:
>
> Bianca has a Wooden Stake, and attempts to viciously stab Badger with
> it combined with Undead Strength, for a total of 3 damage.
>
> Fortuneately indeed for Badger, she not only has Superior Fortitude,
> but she also has a Flak Jacket. Unfortuneately, her only damage
> prevention card is a Resiliance. She plays Resiliance, now what?
>
> A> She prevents all 3 non-aggravated damage, no agg damage was
> inflicted, she is saved.
Because of the WS wording I'd say it's this one.
>
> 3> The Portrait. How does this combine with No Repeat Actions? No really, I'm
> serious.
>
"Whenever card text overrides the rules, card text is used." (or
something like that)
> 4> Why is there a vote to make someone lose 1 lousy pool?
>
Because Sabbat political structure is as lousy as the card, and
Sabbat is a stand alone set, and they made it as if VtES/Jyhad didn't
exist -- bad move.
David Pontes
8[
rit...@bbs.cruzio.com writes:
>1> Can Beast, Leatherface of Detroit, use Disguised Weapons? He can't Equip,
>and DW says to equip. OTOH, Bloodhunt and Blood Hunt are different, and Equip
>is a type of action listed in the rulebook, so...?
I'd say "yes", given the fact that he can use a Zip Gun (that fact
stemming from the fact that a HellHound can use a Zip Gun).
>2> Wooden Stake (not to be confused with the Stake) says that if more than 1
>damage is inflicted, damage is aggravated. When does it become aggravated?
It should be read as "Successfully Inflicted" - that is - if it inflicts
more than one damage that is not prevented.
> Example:
> Bianca has a Wooden Stake, and attempts to viciously stab Badger with
> it combined with Undead Strength, for a total of 3 damage.> Fortuneately indeed for Badger, she not only has Superior Fortitude,
> but she also has a Flak Jacket. Unfortuneately, her only damage
> prevention card is a Resiliance. She plays Resiliance, now what?> A> She prevents all 3 non-aggravated damage, no agg damage was
> inflicted, she is saved.
<A> is correct. The damage isn't aggravated until it is clear that it
has been successfully inflicted.
>3> The Portrait. How does this combine with No Repeat Actions? No really, I'm
>serious.
A minion may not attempt more than one portrait each turn.
(It is a carded action of a type not represented by a cardless
action, therefore it is an action type by card name).
>4> Why is there a vote to make someone lose 1 lousy pool?
Under the old (vote-pushing) rules, votes like KRC and ConservAgitation
were seen as too powerful. So, they've been "replaced" by effectively
wallpaper cards - even though the rules themsleves have been changed to
remove the unbalancing nature.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | It's not the same when I'm
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | not in the holodeck
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | - Riker
David Pontes <l41...@alfa.ist.utl.pt> writes:
>> 3> The Portrait. How does this combine with No Repeat Actions?> "Whenever card text overrides the rules, card text is used." (or
>something like that)
Ah. The "Untap and <take an immediate> bleed" part - is that the
target of the question?
While card text should always be taken as overriding the rules,
there is nothing on this card's text to indicate that it does so.
If the minion was not allowed to bleed in the first place
(via Repeat Actions rule, Minor Boon, etc.), then that's that.
Just as a minion who must hunt but is prohibited from doing so,
a Portrait-painter who must bleed but cannot is simply stuck -
and remains untapped.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | * <-- Tribble
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | o <-- Jean-Luc Tribble
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> rit...@bbs.cruzio.com writes:
> >1> Can Beast, Leatherface of Detroit, use Disguised Weapons? He can't Equip,
> >and DW says to equip. OTOH, Bloodhunt and Blood Hunt are different, and Equip
> >is a type of action listed in the rulebook, so...?
>
> I'd say "yes", given the fact that he can use a Zip Gun (that fact
> stemming from the fact that a HellHound can use a Zip Gun).
>
I don't follow your reasoning here. The text on Zip gun says "May only
be brought into play before range is chosen." The word "equip" is not
found anywhere on the Zip Gun, yet is right there on DW. Beast text says
he cannot "Equip". Hell Hound says "Can only Block", which is
significantly different from Beast's text. What does the relationship
between Beast, Hell Hound and the Zip Gun have to do with Beast and DW?
In fact what is the rules relationship between Beast and Hell Hound (any
other relationships should probably be relegated to alt.sex.bestiality).
Their texts are markedly different, one is a vamp the other is an ally,
one can use skill cards, the other can't. Please explain the reasoning
here.
>
> --> L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | It's not the same when I'm
> http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | not in the holodeck> Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | - Riker
Thanks,
Chris
Chris Shorb <ino...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>L. Scott Johnson wrote:>> rit...@bbs.cruzio.com writes:
>> >1> Can Beast, Leatherface of Detroit, use Disguised Weapons? He can't Equip,
>> >and DW says to equip. OTOH, Bloodhunt and Blood Hunt are different, and Equip
>> >is a type of action listed in the rulebook, so...?
>>
>> I'd say "yes", given the fact that he can use a Zip Gun (that fact
>> stemming from the fact that a HellHound can use a Zip Gun).>I don't follow your reasoning here. The text on Zip gun says "May only
>be brought into play before range is chosen." The word "equip" is not
>found anywhere on the Zip Gun, yet is right there on DW. Beast text says
Yes - my reasoning was flawed in the extrapolation from Zip Gun to DW.
>he cannot "Equip". Hell Hound says "Can only Block", which is
>significantly different from Beast's text. What does the relationship
>between Beast, Hell Hound and the Zip Gun have to do with Beast and DW?
Nothing, sorry for the confusion.
>In fact what is the rules relationship between Beast and Hell Hound (any
>other relationships should probably be relegated to alt.sex.bestiality).
> Their texts are markedly different, one is a vamp the other is an ally,
>one can use skill cards, the other can't. Please explain the reasoning
>here.
None - I drew no lines from HH to Beast. Only from Zip Gun to DW.
I applied the way HH could use the Zip as a basis for my belief that
Beast's restriction on equipping wouldn't prevent him from using a
Zip Gun. My line from Zip Gun to DW was wrong, however.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | * <-- Tribble
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | o <-- Jean-Luc Tribble
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <58h5aa$2...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
> rit...@bbs.cruzio.com writes:
>
> >3> The Portrait. How does this combine with No Repeat Actions? No really, I'm
> >serious.
>
> A minion may not attempt more than one portrait each turn.
> (It is a carded action of a type not represented by a cardless
> action, therefore it is an action type by card name).
OK, I got that. But what about the bleed action made possable by the
Portrait? If a minion has already bled this turn, then succesfully finds the
portrait, and is caused by card text to bleed at +1 with +1 Stealth....
Which takes precedence? NRA or Card Text? Cards always go over the
head of the rules, but in this case it isn't at all clear.
> >4> Why is there a vote to make someone lose 1 lousy pool?
>
> Under the old (vote-pushing) rules, votes like KRC and ConservAgitation
> were seen as too powerful. So, they've been "replaced" by effectively
> wallpaper cards - even though the rules themsleves have been changed to
> remove the unbalancing nature.
OK, but since I can just raid my other set cards for ConAgg or
Kentucky Fried Dispute, why bother to stick in the new cards at all?
(In all fairness, there is nothing wrong with Transfer of Power,
although it should be looked at as a Blood Gain vote rather than as an
offensive vote).
> L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | It's not the same when I'm
> http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | not in the holodeck> Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | - Riker
Ritaxis
rit...@bbs.cruzio.com writes:
>In article <58h5aa$2...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:>> rit...@bbs.cruzio.com writes:
>>
>> >3> The Portrait. How does this combine with No Repeat Actions?
>>>> A minion may not attempt more than one portrait each turn.
>> (It is a carded action of a type not represented by a cardless
>> action, therefore it is an action type by card name).> OK, I got that. But what about the bleed action made possable by the
>Portrait? If a minion has already bled this turn, then succesfully finds the
>portrait, and is caused by card text to bleed at +1 with +1 Stealth....
> Which takes precedence? NRA or Card Text? Cards always go over the
>head of the rules, but in this case it isn't at all clear.
Card text (in this case) offers nothing to override any restrictions on
bleeding that the acting minion may have (NRA, Minor Boon, etc.)
If the minion's bleed is prohibited, and Portrait causes him to untap and
bleed (at +1 bleed and +1 stealth), then the minion simply untaps and
does nothing. (Exactly as if he had been forced to hunt while hunting
was prohibited).
>> >4> Why is there a vote to make someone lose 1 lousy pool?
>>
>> Under the old (vote-pushing) rules, votes like KRC and ConservAgitation
>> were seen as too powerful. So, they've been "replaced" by effectively
>> wallpaper cards - even though the rules themsleves have been changed to
>> remove the unbalancing nature.> OK, but since I can just raid my other set cards for ConAgg or
>Kentucky Fried Dispute, why bother to stick in the new cards at all?
That's what I meant by "effectively wallpaper".
The new offensive votes cards are mostly wallpaper unless you are
really playing Sabbat as a stand-alone (with rules from a prior
release - like VtES or Jyhad :-).
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | * <-- Tribble
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | o <-- Jean-Luc Tribble
[ quoted text not captured ]