Increased Strength and Shattering Blow

From the card texts this seems to work, but I just want to make sure. If I play Increased Strength at the start of a round and then use Shattering Blow to destroy equipment does that strike, which requires potence, also do the additional damage warranted by the IS? Just wondered.... Thanks.

[ quoted text not captured ] No. Only damage-dealing strikes benefit from adding damage. -- 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 assume that Fractured Armament damage (at superior) will be affected by increased strength however? (as although the major effect is destroy equipment, damage is dealt also) -JTP

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3DC81A5C...@white-wolf.com... > mugwump242 wrote: > > > > From the card texts this seems to work, but I just want to make sure. > > If I play Increased Strength at the start of a round and then use > > Shattering Blow to destroy equipment does that strike, which requires > > potence, also do the additional damage warranted by the IS? Just > > wondered.... > > No. Only damage-dealing strikes benefit from adding damage. > IS *will*, however, increase the damage dealt by superior Fractured Armament, but I suspect you already knew that (mugwump242, that is. I'm sure LSJ did).

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. Adding damage to a damage-dealing strike has the natural effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > No. Only damage-dealing strikes benefit from adding damage. Is that in the rules somewhere? Or an errata judgement? Just wondered as I couldn't find it under Combat any where, perhaps i'm not looking hard enough.

LSJ a écrit: > > mugwump242 wrote: > > > > From the card texts this seems to work, but I just want to make sure. > > If I play Increased Strength at the start of a round and then use > > Shattering Blow to destroy equipment does that strike, which requires > > potence, also do the additional damage warranted by the IS? Just > > wondered.... > > No. Only damage-dealing strikes benefit from adding damage. > What about superior Fractured Armament? GP41

> What about superior Fractured Armament? > > GP41 Oups, forget that... GP41

[ quoted text not captured ] It's parallel to the idea that playing Threats on a Bum's Rush won't result in the loss of a pool to the target's controller. Additional bleed only affects bleeds. Additional damage only affects damage-dealers. Additional blood-for-hunting only affects hunts. etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

As a follow on I had a thought coming in to work this morning, given this rule of 'If effect does no damage, additional damage cannot be added' is this also true for other similarly worded situations such as Superior Terror Frenzy. Would a Fake Out still cost 0 blood given that it had no cost originally and 'additional' effects only occur in situations where there is a value above 0? Or is this just a rule, still can't find it in the rule book, specific to combat and strike effects? Thanks again.

> It's parallel to the idea that playing Threats on a Bum's Rush won't > result in the loss of a pool to the target's controller. > > Additional bleed only affects bleeds. > Additional damage only affects damage-dealers. > Additional blood-for-hunting only affects hunts. Hmmmm, i'd agree with this if Increased Strength didn't say 'All strikes that require potence'. I completely understand the above examples, in this one case it seems like something that could use better clarification somewhere.

In message <1ae7b31c.02110...@posting.google.com>, mugwump242 <hawaii_...@hotmail.com> writes: >Hmmmm, i'd agree with this if Increased Strength didn't say 'All >strikes that require potence'. I completely understand the above >examples, in this one case it seems like something that could use >better clarification somewhere. "# Adding damage to strikes which are not damage dealing strikes will not deal damage (e.g., using Lucky Blow and choosing your Rowan Ring melee weapon won't deal damage) [RTR 19960221]" http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F She twirled a lock of hair around her forefinger and smiled B457CA213D7E6 faintly. "Actually, I'd settle for a small Greek." 68C3695D623D5D

"mugwump242" <hawaii_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1ae7b31c.02110...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] As James says above, the damage thing is the result of a Rules Team Ruling from 1996. Your point of view on the subject is certainly reasonable, which is why a ruling needed to be made to clarify the point. Although, truth be told, if it were my ruling to make, I'd have to side with you on this one. IMHO, by card wording alone, IS + Shattering Blow should deal damage. However, it's an old ruling and has worked well. There's little chance of it changing, and it doesn't really hurt the game. Just ruins a few minor combos. But to answer your other question, increasing a 0 blood cost by 1 will still result in a blood cost of 1. The rationale behind the damage ruling is that a strike must be dealing damage to have that damage increased. The original damage can be 0. You can be dealing 0 damage with a normal hand strike (frex. if you have Bonecraft played on you), and you can increase that 0 damage to something higher. But something like Theft of Vitae is not doing damage, not even 0 damage. So Reverand Blackwood would not deal 1 damage with it. And similarly with Shattering Blow. Essentially, you cannot deal damage with a non-damage dealing strike. Consider that as a ruling contained unto itself with no other real parallels in any other rules/rulings and you'll be fine. 8)

hawaii_...@hotmail.com (mugwump242) wrote in message news:<1ae7b31c.02110...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] It is specific to "not damage dealing strikes" why this is, i don't know. To me it doesn't seen like terribly overpowered in any way, but ianlsj. could you clarify this LSJ?

In message <93148a54.0211...@posting.google.com>, Darky <jja....@hccnet.nl> writes: >It is specific to "not damage dealing strikes" >why this is, i don't know. To me it doesn't seen like terribly >overpowered in any way, but ianlsj. >could you clarify this LSJ? It's consistent with "If this doesn't do something, you can't add to it." For instance, you can't add bleed to a political action. A political action doesn't have *zero* bleed, the bleed doesn't exist. If something doesn't exist, you can't add to it. If something is zero, you can. On strikes which don't deal damage, the damage doesn't exist. [ quoted text not captured ]