[Preview] Kerrie

Kerrie Melee weapon. Requires a Laibon Strength +1 damage each strike. Alternatively, inflict strength ranged damage as a strike and, after strike resolution, turn this weapon face down (out of play) until the end of the action. 1 Pool regards pallando --------------- pallando(at)gmx(dot)at

pallando wrote: > Kerrie > Melee weapon. Requires a Laibon > Strength +1 damage each strike. Alternatively, inflict strength ranged > damage as a strike and, after strike resolution, turn this weapon face down > (out of play) until the end of the action. > 1 Pool OMG that's a cool card! NVM the power/balance, I love the flavour! ('Kerrie' is basically a cane/walking stick with a big bulge at the end to inflict damage, as the picture shows.)

pallando wrote: > Kerrie > Melee weapon. Requires a Laibon > Strength +1 damage each strike. Alternatively, inflict strength ranged > damage as a strike and, after strike resolution, turn this weapon face down > (out of play) until the end of the action. > 1 Pool LSJ, if a vampire uses the ranged/out-of-play strike of the Kerrie in combination with Baal's Bloody Talons, does the Kerrie avoid the burn effect from BBT, or is it burned when it comes back into play? I believe it avoids the burn effect, but I wanted to check.

Emmit Svenson wrote: > LSJ, if a vampire uses the ranged/out-of-play strike of the Kerrie in > combination with Baal's Bloody Talons, does the Kerrie avoid the burn > effect from BBT, or is it burned when it comes back into play? I > believe it avoids the burn effect, but I wanted to check. It's my opinion that using Baal's Bloody Talons with Kerrie as a Str + 1 melee weapon is certainly fine, however, using the alternative Ranged Strike no longer qualifies Kerrie as a melee weapon strike (as in Kraken's Kiss, Shadow Strike, etc.) and BBT can't be used. But, LSJ, please correct me if I'm wrong... I have 10 BBT! :)

[ quoted text not captured ] Even if using it at range no longer counts as a melee weapon strike, the following could happen: Combat at long range. Initial strike: as a melee weapon. BBT played on the strike even though it fails to damage the foe. Pursuit for an additional strike. The additional is declared at range - BBT has already been played, and the effect of the card is 'The damage from this weapon's strikes is aggravated' not 'this melee weapon's strikes' - in theory this ranged strike would _also_ be aggravated. And then would still follow Emmit's question of 'does flipping the card during strike resolution absolve it from burning at the end of the round.' -John Flournoy

> It's my opinion that using Baal's Bloody Talons with Kerrie as a Str + > 1 melee weapon is certainly fine, however, using the alternative Ranged > Strike no longer qualifies Kerrie as a melee weapon strike (as in > Kraken's Kiss, Shadow Strike, etc.) and BBT can't be used. But, LSJ, > please correct me if I'm wrong... I have 10 BBT! :) As far as I'm aware, and a text search for "melee" in the online rules confirms this, there is no in-game defintion of the term "melee weapon". A melee weapon is simply a weapon that is noted as such by card text. In other words, a long range strike with a melee weapon is still a strike with a melee weapon, and nothing in the text for Kerrie suggests that the strike would be otherwise. So it looks to me like any effects that work for melee weapons, including potence strikes, BBT, etc. should work with this. As far as burning from BBT, I would say no. Kerrie goes out of play after strike resolution and remains out of play until the end of the action. BBT's burn effect triggers at the end of the round, at which point Kerrie is still out of play, and does not retrigger for any reason at a later point.

CthuluKitty <vtana...@riseup.net> wrote: > > It's my opinion that using Baal's Bloody Talons with Kerrie as a Str + > > 1 melee weapon is certainly fine, however, using the alternative Ranged > > Strike no longer qualifies Kerrie as a melee weapon strike (as in > > Kraken's Kiss, Shadow Strike, etc.) and BBT can't be used. But, LSJ, > > please correct me if I'm wrong... I have 10 BBT! :) > As far as I'm aware, and a text search for "melee" in the online rules > confirms this, there is no in-game defintion of the term "melee > weapon". A melee weapon is simply a weapon that is noted as such by > card text. In other words, a long range strike with a melee weapon is > still a strike with a melee weapon, and nothing in the text for Kerrie > suggests that the strike would be otherwise. So it looks to me like > any effects that work for melee weapons, including potence strikes, > BBT, etc. should work with this. What CthuluKitty says has been confirmed on the WW Forums by LSJ: http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=27140 I'm not sure why Scott hasn't said this himself on the newsgroup... But this definitely puts Kerrie up there on the "goodness" scale.

[ quoted text not captured ] ... way above the "another bastard sword" category the most pessimistic rushed to point out ;) best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

[ quoted text not captured ] He's boycotting this bastard information source and fully supporting www.white-wolf.com. Maybe... ~SV

To my knowladge there is no restriction for melee weapons not to do ranged damage. Its just that is it is wery unlikely in common knowlegde. The Kerrie is a melee weapon so its alternative strike will also count as a melee strike unless the card says otherwise. Correct me if im wrong, Greetz, Oort

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct, by card and rule text. -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Jozxyqk wrote: > What CthuluKitty says has been confirmed on the WW Forums by LSJ: > > http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=27140 > > I'm not sure why Scott hasn't said this himself on the newsgroup... "Yeah, yeah, yeah. Patience. How long will that take?" -- Ed Gruberman I avoid posting via Google. So, for things where the answer is "yes, card text applies", I won't be jumping through Google to say so, and it will thus wait until I can access the NG through a friendlier interface (with the added bonus that perhaps someone else will give a more elaborate answer in the meantime to which I can just respond "correct"). [ quoted text not captured ]