Exactly What Is Anesthetic Touch?

I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is: Anesthetic Touch Type(s): Combat Discipline(s): Auspex Obeah Rarity: Common Artist(s): Mark Nelson Set(s): *Bloodlines Only usable at close range <aus> Strike: dodge. <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the resolution of this strike. <OBE> As above, with First Strike. From what it looks like, it seems like both a hand strike *and* a S:CE (assuming one of the Obeah versions). I just wanted to confirm that... << From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) Subject: Re: What's a hand strike (exactly)? Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad View this article only Date: 2001-09-19 07:36:23 PST To determine if a strike is a hand strike, as stated above, you need only to verify that it 1) is not ranged. 2) is not a weapon strike. 3) inflicts damage based on the striking minion's strength If it meets these three conditions, it is a hand strike (as explicitly stated in the definition of a hand strike, above). >> Anesthetic Touch is not ranged, not a weapon strike, and it inflicts damage based on the striking minion's strength. Thus it is a hand strike, right? Also, << From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) Subject: Re: Pair of Quick Questions Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad View this article only Date: 2001-01-19 04:00:05 PST "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: > "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> a écrit: > > #1. Is the superior version of Preternatural Evasion considered > > S:CE? It says > > "SUP: Strike: this vampire burns 1 blood to end combat." But it > > doesn't actually say "combat ends" or anything. > Despite the strang wording, the card is effectively -Strike: combat > ends. It is a strike. It ends combat (if the vampire burns a blood). It will end combat as soon as strike resolution begins, just as, say, Majesty would. >> Anesthetic Touch is a strike. And it ends combat (after strike resolution). Although it ends combat after the strike resolution (as opposed to the beginning, like most other S:CE), it would still seem to be a S:CE, right? #1. So if Anesthetic Touch is both a hand strike and a S:CE, then it seems to follow the footsteps of Stutter-Step (which is both a hand strike and a dodge). Would it then have the same restriction: Stutter-Step is both a hand strike and a dodge. It cannot be used if only hand strikes (or only dodges) are allowed. [LSJ 20010919] ? #2. If Anesthetic Touch is not considered a S:CE, would you be able to play it if the opposing minion had a Dog Pack? Thanks! Halcyan 2

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in news:20011210034939...@mb-md.aol.com: > I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is: > > Anesthetic Touch > Type(s): Combat > Discipline(s): Auspex Obeah > Rarity: Common > Artist(s): Mark Nelson > Set(s): *Bloodlines > > Only usable at close range > <aus> Strike: dodge. > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the > resolution of this strike. > <OBE> As above, with First Strike. > > > From what it looks like, it seems like both a hand strike *and* a S:CE > (assuming one of the Obeah versions). I just wanted to confirm that... Right. > << > From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) > Subject: Re: What's a hand strike (exactly)? > Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > View this article only > Date: 2001-09-19 07:36:23 PST > > To determine if a strike is a hand strike, as stated above, you need > only to verify that it > > 1) is not ranged. > 2) is not a weapon strike. > 3) inflicts damage based on the striking minion's strength > > If it meets these three conditions, it is a hand strike (as explicitly > stated in the definition of a hand strike, above). >>> > > Anesthetic Touch is not ranged, not a weapon strike, and it inflicts > damage based on the striking minion's strength. Thus it is a hand > strike, right? Also, > Yes, it is a hand strike. > << From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) > Subject: Re: Pair of Quick Questions > Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > View this article only > Date: 2001-01-19 04:00:05 PST > > "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: >> "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> a écrit: >> > #1. Is the superior version of Preternatural Evasion considered >> > S:CE? It says >> > "SUP: Strike: this vampire burns 1 blood to end combat." But it >> > doesn't actually say "combat ends" or anything. >> Despite the strang wording, the card is effectively -Strike: combat >> ends. > > It is a strike. It ends combat (if the vampire burns a blood). > It will end combat as soon as strike resolution begins, just as, > say, Majesty would. >>> > > Anesthetic Touch is a strike. And it ends combat (after strike > resolution). Although it ends combat after the strike resolution (as > opposed to the beginning, like most other S:CE), it would still seem to > be a S:CE, right? Yes. > #1. So if Anesthetic Touch is both a hand strike and a S:CE, then it > seems to follow the footsteps of Stutter-Step (which is both a hand > strike and a dodge). Would it then have the same restriction: > > Stutter-Step is both a hand strike and a dodge. It cannot be used if > only hand strikes (or only dodges) are allowed. [LSJ 20010919] > > ? No. The restriction on Stutter Step is made due to specific errata (that text is errata to the card text, not a ruling or clarification). So Anesthetic Touch should be usable against IG, which states that only hand strikes can be used - AT is a hand strike and therefore can be used. It is also a S:CE, but IG doesn't restrict the use of those, it just demands that they be hand strikes, which most are not. > #2. If Anesthetic Touch is not considered a S:CE, would you be able to > play it if the opposing minion had a Dog Pack? No. It's still a S:CE card, it's just a hand strike _too_ (and therefore playable with IG). All IMO, of course. :-) Flux

Halcyan 2 wrote: > I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is: > > Anesthetic Touch > Only usable at close range > <aus> Strike: dodge. > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the resolution > of this strike. > <OBE> As above, with First Strike. > > > From what it looks like, it seems like both a hand strike *and* a S:CE > (assuming one of the Obeah versions). I just wanted to confirm that... No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat before any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5]. AT doesn't qualify. > #1. So if Anesthetic Touch is both a hand strike and a S:CE, then it seems to > follow the footsteps of Stutter-Step (which is both a hand strike and a dodge). > Would it then have the same restriction: > > Stutter-Step is both a hand strike and a dodge. It cannot be used if only hand > strikes (or only dodges) are allowed. [LSJ 20010919] > > ? Moot, but no. That restriction is errata to S-S, not a general ruling. > #2. If Anesthetic Touch is not considered a S:CE, would you be able to play it > if the opposing minion had a Dog Pack? Yes. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C149F1A...@white-wolf.com: > Halcyan 2 wrote: >> I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is: >> >> Anesthetic Touch >> Only usable at close range >> <aus> Strike: dodge. >> <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the >> resolution of this strike. >> <OBE> As above, with First Strike. >> >> >> From what it looks like, it seems like both a hand strike *and* a S:CE >> (assuming one of the Obeah versions). I just wanted to confirm that... > > No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat > before any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5]. > AT doesn't qualify. Ok, if you say so... >> #1. So if Anesthetic Touch is both a hand strike and a S:CE, then it >> seems to follow the footsteps of Stutter-Step (which is both a hand >> strike and a dodge). Would it then have the same restriction: >> >> Stutter-Step is both a hand strike and a dodge. It cannot be used if >> only hand strikes (or only dodges) are allowed. [LSJ 20010919] >> >> ? > > Moot, but no. That restriction is errata to S-S, not a general ruling. Agreed... >> #2. If Anesthetic Touch is not considered a S:CE, would you be able to >> play it if the opposing minion had a Dog Pack? > > Yes. This I don't get/agree. Dog Pack says that the opposing minion cannot play 'combat ends' as a strike. Guess what? AT is a strike and says that 'combat ends'... Why should it be playable against a Dog Pack?? Flux

Flux wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > > Halcyan 2 wrote: > >> #2. If Anesthetic Touch is not considered a S:CE, would you be able to > >> play it if the opposing minion had a Dog Pack? > > > > Yes. > > This I don't get/agree. Dog Pack says that the opposing minion cannot play > 'combat ends' as a strike. Guess what? AT is a strike and says that > 'combat ends'... Why should it be playable against a Dog Pack?? It is not "combat ends as a strike". [ quoted text not captured ]

> > This I don't get/agree. Dog Pack says that the opposing minion cannot play > > 'combat ends' as a strike. Guess what? AT is a strike and says that > > 'combat ends'... Why should it be playable against a Dog Pack?? > It is not "combat ends as a strike". It's an effect. Like that one card that allows you to do 1 damage and steal a M:Discipline card. You can prevent the damage but the Discipline card would still get stolen. However, if you Dodged, nothing would happen. LSJ, is that true for AT as well? If you Dodge the strike (thus cancelling it), would the Combat Ends effect still occur? Sorrow --- "I am Jack's wasted life." - Narrator

Sorrow wrote: > LSJ, is that true for AT as well? If you Dodge the strike (thus cancelling it), > would the Combat Ends effect still occur? Yes. Dodge doesn't cancel the strike. AT should be thwarted by a dodge from a backstory POV, but by the rules, dodge only protects the dodging minion. Ending combat isn't an effect applied to the dodging minion, so isn't affected. Note also the the "combat ends after this strike is resolved" only applies at close range, since it doesn't say otherwise (and, as before, it isn't covered by the S:CE rules, so doesn't get the "effective at long range" benefit of those rules). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C14C164...@white-wolf.com... > Sorrow wrote: > > LSJ, is that true for AT as well? If you Dodge the strike (thus cancelling it), > > would the Combat Ends effect still occur? > > Yes. Dodge doesn't cancel the strike. > > AT should be thwarted by a dodge from a backstory POV, but by the rules, dodge > only protects the dodging minion. Ending combat isn't an effect applied to the > dodging minion, so isn't affected. > > Note also the the "combat ends after this strike is resolved" only applies at > close range, since it doesn't say otherwise (and, as before, it isn't covered > by the S:CE rules, so doesn't get the "effective at long range" benefit of > those rules). On a separate note, Does Dodge protect you from the damage during the Press phase from Dagons Call? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

X_Zealot wrote: > On a separate note, Does Dodge protect you from the damage during the Press > phase from Dagons Call? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:683R7.630$Cc1.1...@newshog.newsread.com: > >> > This I don't get/agree. Dog Pack says that the opposing minion >> > cannot play 'combat ends' as a strike. Guess what? AT is a strike >> > and says that 'combat ends'... Why should it be playable against a >> > Dog Pack?? >> It is not "combat ends as a strike". > > It's an effect. That is a strike and ends combat. It also does other things (so do most other S:CE cards, nothing new there), and it doesn't end combat like a 'normal' S:CE does, but it's still a strike and it ends combat. It really sounds like it's 'combat ends as a strike' to me... > Like that one card that allows you to do 1 damage and steal a > M:Discipline card. You can prevent the damage but the Discipline card > would still get stolen. However, if you Dodged, nothing would happen. Ok, I think I know what the problem is. S:CE is treated as a special, specific strike effect (like 'hand strike'). Unfortunately, it also is the description of any effect that ends combat (how else would you describe an effect that ends combat? 'Terminate Combat'? :-). From LSJ's post it seems that Dog Pack should prevent the 'special' S:CE strike, but not general 'end combat' effects from strikes. This seems wrong and confusing to me... then again, it wouldn't be the first time I get confused with VtES. :-) > LSJ, is that true for AT as well? If you Dodge the strike (thus > cancelling it), would the Combat Ends effect still occur? At least this part I understand: dodge only cancels a strike's effect on the Dodging minion... :-) Flux

Flux wrote: > > "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in > news:683R7.630$Cc1.1...@newshog.newsread.com: > > > > >> > This I don't get/agree. Dog Pack says that the opposing minion > >> > cannot play 'combat ends' as a strike. Guess what? AT is a strike > >> > and says that 'combat ends'... Why should it be playable against a > >> > Dog Pack?? > >> It is not "combat ends as a strike". > > > > It's an effect. > > That is a strike and ends combat. > It also does other things (so do most other S:CE cards, nothing new > there), and it doesn't end combat like a 'normal' S:CE does, but it's > still a strike and it ends combat. It really sounds like it's 'combat ends > as a strike' to me... See the rules for S:CE [6.4.5] Note that this is not that. > > Like that one card that allows you to do 1 damage and steal a > > M:Discipline card. You can prevent the damage but the Discipline card > > would still get stolen. However, if you Dodged, nothing would happen. > > Ok, I think I know what the problem is. > S:CE is treated as a special, specific strike effect (like 'hand strike'). > Unfortunately, it also is the description of any effect that ends combat > (how else would you describe an effect that ends combat? 'Terminate > Combat'? :-). > From LSJ's post it seems that Dog Pack should prevent the 'special' S:CE > strike, but not general 'end combat' effects from strikes. Right. Dog Pack won't prevent you from using Coma, for instance, even though that strike will end combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C149F1A...@white-wolf.com... > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is: > > > > Anesthetic Touch > > Only usable at close range > > <aus> Strike: dodge. > > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the resolution > > of this strike. > > <OBE> As above, with First Strike. > > > > > > From what it looks like, it seems like both a hand strike *and* a S:CE > > (assuming one of the Obeah versions). I just wanted to confirm that... > > No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat before > any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5]. AT doesn't qualify. I control the acting vampire in combat. The opposing minion hits my vampire with more damage than i can heal. I played inferior Anesthetic touch. Can i assume that combat ends before the damage prevention step ? So i cannot use skin of steel ? Does the opposing minion have the option to burn my vampire with Decapitate or Amaranth or is it prohibited by card text ? I control the defending vampire in a "Dawn operation combat" against Basilia. I play superior Anesthetic touch in response to opponent's strike: combat ends and continue the action at +1 stealth. What happens ? do i hit my opponent with first strike ? Is she sent to torpor ? can i amaranth her ? does she continue the action anyway ? If, in the same combat, Basilia have played, say, lucky blow. could i have inflicted 1 agg with superior Anesthetic touch, then amaranth her ? reyda

Reyda wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3C149F1A...@white-wolf.com... > > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is: > > > > > > Anesthetic Touch > > > Only usable at close range > > > <aus> Strike: dodge. > > > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the > resolution > > > of this strike. > > > <OBE> As above, with First Strike. > > > > > > > > > From what it looks like, it seems like both a hand strike *and* a S:CE > > > (assuming one of the Obeah versions). I just wanted to confirm that... > > > > No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat > before > > any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5]. AT doesn't > qualify. > > I control the acting vampire in combat. The opposing minion hits my vampire > with more damage than i can heal. I played inferior Anesthetic touch. Can i > assume that combat ends before the damage prevention step ? So i cannot use No. Damage prevention is part of strike resolution. > skin of steel ? Does the opposing minion have the option to burn my vampire You may. > with Decapitate or Amaranth or is it prohibited by card text ? The former. > I control the defending vampire in a "Dawn operation combat" against > Basilia. I play superior Anesthetic touch in response to opponent's strike: > combat ends and continue the action at +1 stealth. What happens ? do i hit > my opponent with first strike ? Is she sent to torpor ? can i amaranth her > ? does she continue the action anyway ? The FoM ends combat before your strike gets to resolve [6.4.5] The action continues at +1 stealth. > If, in the same combat, Basilia have played, say, lucky blow. could i have > inflicted 1 agg with superior Anesthetic touch, then amaranth her ? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > Anesthetic Touch > > > > Only usable at close range > > > > <aus> Strike: dodge. > > > > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the > > resolution > > > > of this strike. > > > > <OBE> As above, with First Strike. Since I'm in the business of asking questions today. If the strike is dodged does combat end? Or do dodged strikes, that are directed still resolve? Paul

[ quoted text not captured ] Per <3C14C164...@white-wolf.com> in this thread, the dodge will not stop the AT from ending combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C14CFAF...@white-wolf.com: > Flux wrote: >> >> "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> news:683R7.630$Cc1.1...@newshog.newsread.com: >> >> > >> >> > This I don't get/agree. Dog Pack says that the opposing minion >> >> > cannot play 'combat ends' as a strike. Guess what? AT is a strike >> >> > and says that 'combat ends'... Why should it be playable against >> >> > a Dog Pack?? >> >> It is not "combat ends as a strike". >> > >> > It's an effect. >> >> That is a strike and ends combat. >> It also does other things (so do most other S:CE cards, nothing new >> there), and it doesn't end combat like a 'normal' S:CE does, but it's >> still a strike and it ends combat. It really sounds like it's 'combat >> ends as a strike' to me... > > See the rules for S:CE [6.4.5] > Note that this is not that. Nor am I saying it is (not anymore that is, that was my first impression, but upon hearing your opinion and going through the rulesbook I can agree with your point). I'm just stating the obvious: that this is a strike and that it ends combat by explicit card text. >> Ok, I think I know what the problem is. >> S:CE is treated as a special, specific strike effect (like 'hand >> strike'). Unfortunately, it also is the description of any effect that >> ends combat (how else would you describe an effect that ends combat? >> 'Terminate Combat'? :-). >> From LSJ's post it seems that Dog Pack should prevent the 'special' >> S:CE strike, but not general 'end combat' effects from strikes. > > Right. > Dog Pack won't prevent you from using Coma, for instance, even though > that strike will end combat. Not if it's dodged. :-) AT has explicit text to end combat, Coma does not. The wording on Dog Pack does not seem to specify that it prevents S:CE, it could very well be interpreted to literaly mean that it prevents ending combat as a strike, which AT does. Frankly, I don't care much either way, I just think it's messy. It reminds me of the confusion there used to be with Hand Damage before Strength came along (though obviously not as serious, it's only one card). Flux

In message <Xns9173B46A87...@130.133.1.4>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes: >AT has explicit text to end combat, Coma does not. However, Dog Pack is not referring to any old strike that will end combat. It is referring to the "Combat Ends" strike as defined in the rules. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D It's been a long road, getting from there to here EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA213D7E It's been a long time, and my time is finally near 668C3695D623D5D I will see my dream come alive at last, I will touch the sky And they're not gonna hold me down no more, no they're not gonna change my mind

>>AT has explicit text to end combat, Coma does not. > >However, Dog Pack is not referring to any old strike that will end >combat. > >It is referring to the "Combat Ends" strike as defined in the rules. But then why is Preternatural Evasion considered a S:CE? Preternatural Evasion [Sabbat, SW] Cardtype: Combat Discipline: Celerity [cel] Strike: dodge. [CEL] Strike: this vampire burns 1 blood to end combat. The ending of combat seems to be as much of an "effect" as the ending of combat in anesthetic touch. Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] It ends combat in the [6.4.5] manner (as a strike). As opposed to AT, which ends combat after the strike. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C1503F2...@white-wolf.com: > Halcyan 2 wrote: >> >> >>AT has explicit text to end combat, Coma does not. >> > >> >However, Dog Pack is not referring to any old strike that will end >> >combat. >> > >> >It is referring to the "Combat Ends" strike as defined in the rules. >> >> But then why is Preternatural Evasion considered a S:CE? >> >> Preternatural Evasion [Sabbat, SW] >> Cardtype: Combat >> Discipline: Celerity >> [cel] Strike: dodge. >> [CEL] Strike: this vampire burns 1 blood to end combat. >> >> The ending of combat seems to be as much of an "effect" as the ending >> of combat in anesthetic touch. > > It ends combat in the [6.4.5] manner (as a strike). Why does it end combat in the the [6.4.5] manner? Why shouldn't I just read this as meaning: 'This vampire burns one blood during strike resolution to end combat' (in which case it would be beaten by First Strike), like all other strike effects implicitly do? Because it 'ends combat as a strike'? > As opposed to AT, which ends combat after the strike. You mean 'after the strike resolution'. Just because it doesn't happen during strike resolution doesn't mean it's not part of the strike (otherwise you couldn't dodge the press damage from Dagon's Call, to use an example in this thread). AT also 'ends combat as a strike', it just does it in a different timing. Why should I not look at AT as a Strike: Combat Ends with a different, explicit timing? Flux

Flux wrote: > Why does it end combat in the the [6.4.5] manner? Because it is a combat ends strike and 6.4.5 lists the manner in which such strikes resolve. > Why shouldn't I just read this as meaning: 'This vampire burns one blood > during strike resolution to end combat' (in which case it would be beaten > by First Strike), like all other strike effects implicitly do? Because it > 'ends combat as a strike'? Yes. As someone else suggested, it would be clearer if "S:CE" was more a distinct term than it is in its current descriptive form. Say, if all S:CE effects said "Strike: flee" instead of "Strike: end combat" and 6.4.5 used "flee" instead of combat ends. Then Preternatural Evasion could say "Strike: this vampire burns 1 blood to flee" while AT could unambiguously be worded as it is. But it isn't. > > As opposed to AT, which ends combat after the strike. > > You mean 'after the strike resolution'. Just because it doesn't happen > during strike resolution doesn't mean it's not part of the strike > (otherwise you couldn't dodge the press damage from Dagon's Call, to use > an example in this thread). ? After the strike resolution *is* after the strike. Dagon's Call: You don't dodge the press damage - you dodge the "get hit with an effect that will damage you during the press step" effect - the effect which is done during the resolution of the strike. If you dodged, then there is no press damage to be concerned about. > AT also 'ends combat as a strike', it just does it in a different timing. > Why should I not look at AT as a Strike: Combat Ends with a different, > explicit timing? If it did, then it would resolve before the damage it did could be inflicted and the "First Strike" designation would be meaninglinesss. [6.4.5] [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C151CAE...@white-wolf.com: > Flux wrote: >> Why does it end combat in the the [6.4.5] manner? > > Because it is a combat ends strike and 6.4.5 lists the manner in which > such strikes resolve. > >> Why shouldn't I just read this as meaning: 'This vampire burns one >> blood during strike resolution to end combat' (in which case it would >> be beaten by First Strike), like all other strike effects implicitly >> do? Because it 'ends combat as a strike'? > > Yes. > > As someone else suggested, it would be clearer if "S:CE" was more a > distinct term than it is in its current descriptive form. Actually, I suggested that myself. :-) > Say, if all > S:CE effects said "Strike: flee" instead of "Strike: end combat" and > 6.4.5 used "flee" instead of combat ends. Then Preternatural Evasion > could say "Strike: this vampire burns 1 blood to flee" while AT could > unambiguously be worded as it is. > > But it isn't. > >> > As opposed to AT, which ends combat after the strike. >> >> You mean 'after the strike resolution'. Just because it doesn't happen >> during strike resolution doesn't mean it's not part of the strike >> (otherwise you couldn't dodge the press damage from Dagon's Call, to >> use an example in this thread). > > ? > After the strike resolution *is* after the strike. There's Strike Declaration and Strike Resolution. For example, most people will say they play Claws of the Dead after the strike, obviously meaning the declaration. I just mentioned it for a question of clarity, I think things are already muddled enough as it is. :-) > Dagon's Call: > You don't dodge the press damage - you dodge the "get hit with an > effect that will damage you during the press step" effect - the effect > which is done during the resolution of the strike. If you dodged, then > there is no press damage to be concerned about. I know, but that's the point: AT sets up an effect that ends combat after strike resolution, but it's still part of the strike, obviously. PE Strike: effect that ends combat ->by burning 1 blood. AT Strike: effect that ends combat ->after strike resolution. They don't seem that different, do they? They're both strikes that end combat explicitly. >> AT also 'ends combat as a strike', it just does it in a different >> timing. Why should I not look at AT as a Strike: Combat Ends with a >> different, explicit timing? > > If it did, then it would resolve before the damage it did could be > inflicted and the "First Strike" designation would be meaninglinesss. > [6.4.5] No, because of explicit card text, which always takes precedence over the rulesbook. If you have a card that says 'Strike: combat ends, all other strike effects for the current pair of strikes still resolve', is it not a S:CE card, despite the weird timing? Or, if you used 'flee': 'Strike: make a hand strike with First Strike. After strike resolution, flee.' It's still a 'flee' strike, despite going against the (supposed) definition in the rulesbook. It's also pretty much the wording on AT, replacing 'Combat ends' with 'Flee'. If we were ever to replace 'combat ends' with 'flee', why should we do so for Preternatural Evasion and not for AT? What if AT was supposed to work as a 'flee' (moot in this case, since you designed the card yourself ;-), how could we distinguish it from 'non-flee' effects? Flux

Flux wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > > As someone else suggested, it would be clearer if "S:CE" was more a > > distinct term than it is in its current descriptive form. > > Actually, I suggested that myself. :-) Good job. :-) > > Dagon's Call: > > You don't dodge the press damage - you dodge the "get hit with an > > effect that will damage you during the press step" effect - the effect > > which is done during the resolution of the strike. If you dodged, then > > there is no press damage to be concerned about. > > I know, but that's the point: AT sets up an effect that ends combat after > strike resolution, but it's still part of the strike, obviously. The strike sets up the later effect. The later effect that it sets up isn't the strike. For instance, Dagon's Call's press-step damage isn't strike damage (and cannot be prevented with Skin of Steel, for instance). > PE > Strike: effect that ends combat ->by burning 1 blood. > > AT > Strike: effect that ends combat ->after strike resolution. AT: Strike: effect that sets up an effect which will end combat after strike resolution. > They don't seem that different, do they? They're both strikes that end > combat explicitly. One ends combat as a strike. The other doesn't. > >> AT also 'ends combat as a strike', it just does it in a different > >> timing. Why should I not look at AT as a Strike: Combat Ends with a > >> different, explicit timing? > > > > If it did, then it would resolve before the damage it did could be > > inflicted and the "First Strike" designation would be meaninglinesss. > > [6.4.5] > > No, because of explicit card text, which always takes precedence over the > rulesbook. If you have a card that says 'Strike: combat ends, all other > strike effects for the current pair of strikes still resolve', is it not a > S:CE card, despite the weird timing? > Or, if you used 'flee': 'Strike: make a hand strike with First Strike. > After strike resolution, flee.' > It's still a 'flee' strike, despite going against the (supposed) > definition in the rulesbook. > It's also pretty much the wording on AT, replacing 'Combat ends' with > 'Flee'. Except that "flee" would be a strike and has no meaning after strike resolution. Compare dodge. > If we were ever to replace 'combat ends' with 'flee', why should we do so > for Preternatural Evasion and not for AT? What if AT was supposed to work > as a 'flee' (moot in this case, since you designed the card yourself ;-), > how could we distinguish it from 'non-flee' effects? Because PT's effect is a flee effect (since it is the strike). AT's effect is not (since it happens after the strike). [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Since I'm in the business of asking questions today. If the strike is dodged > > does combat end? Or do dodged strikes, that are directed still resolve? > > Paul > > Per <3C14C164...@white-wolf.com> in this thread, the dodge will not > stop the AT from ending combat. This is what really confuses me and makes no sense. You state: "Most strikes are effective only at close range. Unless the strike is identified as ranged or does "R" damage (or is a defensive strike such as dodge or combat ends), it is only effective at close range. Ranged strikes and strikes that do "R" damage can be used at any range, close or long." You also say AT's CE won't have effect at long range. I assume this is because it's a part of the strike of AT. If not, then why could it not have effect on long range? It's just an effect like the untap effect of Majesty is, which can be used on long range. Now if it's a part of a strike, and thus not ranged, then why can it not be dodged?? You say the CE effect doesn't target the opposing minion so a dodge won't cancel it. But how can Dagon's Call be considered to target the minion then? As I see it, Dagon's Call's effect is environmental so it cannot be dodged, just like CE cannot. The damage from DC is just an effect, just like the CE from AT is! Why is it part of the strike in any different matter? Are you saying DC's press-damage is inflicted from the striking minion and isn't environmental?Because if it's environmental it shouldn't be possible to dodge in the press step. If Majesty was dodgeable for example, the striking minion would still be able to untap wouldn't it? The "targetting" is moot since the damage from DC is environmental IMO... You cannot dodge Carrion Crows... I really don't understand why a) it cannot be used at range (since Majesty's untap can) and b) why DC's damage can be dodged while AT's CE cannot be. Roger

> I really don't understand why a) it cannot be used at range (since Majesty's > untap can) and b) why DC's damage can be dodged while AT's CE cannot be. Lately I've been getting the feeling that a lot of rulings ( and cards ) are just making the more and more complicated, which is always bad for new players. After reading all the messages in this thread I think I can answer your questions. a) AT is not a ranged strike, nor is it a S:CE. It's a hand strike that sets up a combat ending effect ( after stirke resolution ). b) Current definition of dodge [6.4.5] Dodge: A dodge strike deals no damage, but it protects the dodging minion and his possessions from the effects of the opposing strike. Retainers are not protected, however. A dodge is effective at any range. A dodge protects even from the effects of a strike done with first strike. (A dodge is a strike, even though it is solely defensive. It represents the activity of the minion during that pair of strikes.) DC's damage is something that directly affects you, so you are protected from it. AT's ending combat is not something that you can protect yourself from so dodge doesn't stop it from ending combat.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C1536BA...@white-wolf.com: > For instance, Dagon's Call's press-step damage isn't strike damage (and > cannot be prevented with Skin of Steel, for instance). ..nor any other card, since it's unpreventable anyway. :-) >> >> AT also 'ends combat as a strike', it just does it in a different >> >> timing. Why should I not look at AT as a Strike: Combat Ends with a >> >> different, explicit timing? >> > >> > If it did, then it would resolve before the damage it did could be >> > inflicted and the "First Strike" designation would be >> > meaninglinesss. [6.4.5] >> >> No, because of explicit card text, which always takes precedence over >> the rulesbook. If you have a card that says 'Strike: combat ends, all >> other strike effects for the current pair of strikes still resolve', >> is it not a S:CE card, despite the weird timing? >> Or, if you used 'flee': 'Strike: make a hand strike with First Strike. >> After strike resolution, flee.' >> It's still a 'flee' strike, despite going against the (supposed) >> definition in the rulesbook. >> It's also pretty much the wording on AT, replacing 'Combat ends' with >> 'Flee'. > > Except that "flee" would be a strike and has no meaning after strike > resolution. Compare dodge. It could be easily interpreted as meaning that combat ended right after strike resolution (like having 'Last Strike'), but it wouldn't be usable against 'anti-flee' cards, like Dog Pack. Dodge is different, because it doesn't have a timing by itself, it simply negates whatever the other minion is throwing at you. A non-standard Dodge would possibly look like this: "Strike: Dodge, all aggravated damage from the opposing minion's strike still hit this minion." It doesn't negate the opposing minion's strike, just part of it, so it's not what the rulesbook says a Dodge should be. Though it's still a Dodge because it says so (and so can't be used when Dodge strikes are restricted). What about 'Hand Strike'? If you had a card say: "Strike: 2R damage. This is a hand strike." It would be a hand strike, despite breaking all the usual 'hand strike' properties, because of explicit card text. AT could likewise be a non-standard 'flee' strike. Flux

Flux wrote: > What about 'Hand Strike'? If you had a card say: > > "Strike: 2R damage. This is a hand strike." We've been over this road before. You can't say "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge". Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes. The above is paraphrased as "Strike: 2R damage. This is a non-ranged strike that deals damage based on this minion's strength". It doesn't work. > It would be a hand strike, despite breaking all the usual 'hand strike' > properties, because of explicit card text. > > AT could likewise be a non-standard 'flee' strike. Or, more probably, it would just end combat and not try to hammer a strike effect into a non-strike usage. Dog Pack restricts the S:CE (flee) not other EC effects (AT). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C160A88...@white-wolf.com: > Flux wrote: >> What about 'Hand Strike'? If you had a card say: >> >> "Strike: 2R damage. This is a hand strike." > > We've been over this road before. > You can't say "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge". Well, you could. I would interpret such a card as: "Strike: avoid all effects the opposing minion's strike has on this minion, even if they were done with First Strike. (This is not a Dodge)" (it would also be less confusing to write this on the card to start with) It has the effect of a Dodge, yet it's not a Dodge and could be played in situations where Dodges are restricted. > Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes. Not according to the rulesbook, but any given card may open an exception by explicit card text, which the above does. > The above is paraphrased as "Strike: 2R damage. This is a non-ranged > strike that deals damage based on this minion's strength". It doesn't > work. No, it says it is considered a Hand Strike for purposes of determining what kind of strike it is, overruling the rulesbook's definition of a Hand Strike. Flux

Flux wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > > You can't say "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge". > > Well, you could. I would interpret such a card as: > > "Strike: avoid all effects the opposing minion's strike has on this > minion, even if they were done with First Strike. (This is not a Dodge)" Yes, but no one else would. Try to imagine the questions such a self-contradictory thing would cause. > (it would also be less confusing to write this on the card to start with) Exactly the point with AT. > It has the effect of a Dodge, yet it's not a Dodge and could be played in > situations where Dodges are restricted. Then it isn't a dodge. > > Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes. > > Not according to the rulesbook, but any given card may open an exception > by explicit card text, which the above does. No. See Kraken's Kiss. > > The above is paraphrased as "Strike: 2R damage. This is a non-ranged > > strike that deals damage based on this minion's strength". It doesn't > > work. > > No, it says it is considered a Hand Strike for purposes of determining > what kind of strike it is, overruling the rulesbook's definition of a Hand > Strike. That way lies madness. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > Flux wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >> > You can't say "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge". >> >> Well, you could. I would interpret such a card as: >> >> "Strike: avoid all effects the opposing minion's strike has on this >> minion, even if they were done with First Strike. (This is not a >> Dodge)" > > Yes, but no one else would. > Try to imagine the questions such a self-contradictory thing would > cause. What, like a strike that ends combat but isn't a 'Strike: Combat Ends'? :-P >> (it would also be less confusing to write this on the card to start >> with) > > Exactly the point with AT. Yes, though AT's case is muddled due to the descriptive nature of 'S:CE'. But we've been through that. >> It has the effect of a Dodge, yet it's not a Dodge and could be played >> in situations where Dodges are restricted. > > Then it isn't a dodge. Right. It says so on the card: 'This is not a Dodge'. The way I see it, it's like taking a certain strike, defined in the rulesbook, and adding or removing certain properties to it. In this case, you remove it's identity as a Dodge. >> > Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes. >> >> Not according to the rulesbook, but any given card may open an >> exception by explicit card text, which the above does. > > No. See Kraken's Kiss. Kaken's Kiss says 'strength+1 ranged damage', it does not say explicitly that it is a Hand Strike, therefore it isn't (because it is ranged). It's not what I'm talking about. >> > The above is paraphrased as "Strike: 2R damage. This is a non-ranged >> > strike that deals damage based on this minion's strength". It >> > doesn't work. >> >> No, it says it is considered a Hand Strike for purposes of determining >> what kind of strike it is, overruling the rulesbook's definition of a >> Hand Strike. > > That way lies madness. Why should the rulesbook have the final say on what is or isn't a Hand Strike (or Dodge, or S:CE), when it claims that cardtext will always overrule it? Isn't _that_ a major contradiction? "The cards take precedence, except when they don't" What if you did want to have a strike that was to be considered a Hand Strike and yet be ranged ('Puppet Hands', or something like that)? You're saying it's not possible, I say it should be. The rulesbook should ease the reading of the card's effect (so you don't have to play with A4 cards), not determine it. Flux

Flux wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > > Flux wrote: > >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > >> > You can't say "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge". > >> > >> Well, you could. I would interpret such a card as: > >> > >> "Strike: avoid all effects the opposing minion's strike has on this > >> minion, even if they were done with First Strike. (This is not a > >> Dodge)" > > > > Yes, but no one else would. > > Try to imagine the questions such a self-contradictory thing would > > cause. > > What, like a strike that ends combat but isn't a 'Strike: Combat Ends'? > :-P Something like that, yeah. Good thing we don't have any of those. Just look at the questions something like AT generates, though, when it approaches that sort of self-contradiction (with a combat ends effect that isn't a strike). > >> > Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes. > >> > >> Not according to the rulesbook, but any given card may open an > >> exception by explicit card text, which the above does. > > > > No. See Kraken's Kiss. > > Kaken's Kiss says 'strength+1 ranged damage', it does not say explicitly > that it is a Hand Strike, therefore it isn't (because it is ranged). It's > not what I'm talking about. Yes, it is. Ranged strikes are not hand strikes. Period. Try this: "(D) enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat." [ quoted text not captured ]

> > >> > Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes. > > >> > > >> Not according to the rulesbook, but any given card may open an > > >> exception by explicit card text, which the above does. > > > > > > No. See Kraken's Kiss. > > > > Kaken's Kiss says 'strength+1 ranged damage', it does not say explicitly > > that it is a Hand Strike, therefore it isn't (because it is ranged). It's > > not what I'm talking about. > > Yes, it is. Ranged strikes are not hand strikes. Period. > > Try this: "(D) enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat." Not that I want to drag this on, god knows it's long enough. I agree with Flux that you could do the kind of thing that he's talking about since card text can always override rules but to do things like. Strike: Dodge, this is not considered a dodge. or (D) Enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat Would just be asking for trouble. I think we're better off using the AT-style template. For example, a dodge that isn't a Strike: Dodge "Strike: This minion and it's possessions are protected from the effects of the opposing minion's strike." It does the same thing as dodge but isn't actually Strike: Dodge and so could be used when dodges are restricted.

GreySeer wrote: > I agree with Flux that you could do the kind of thing that he's talking > about since card text can always override rules but to do things like. It's not a rule. It's a definition. > Strike: Dodge, this is not considered a dodge. > or > (D) Enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat > > Would just be asking for trouble. Exactly. Definitions shouldn't be transmutable. > I think we're better off using the AT-style template. For example, a dodge > that isn't a Strike: Dodge > "Strike: This minion and it's possessions are protected from the effects of > the opposing minion's strike." > It does the same thing as dodge but isn't actually Strike: Dodge and so > could be used when dodges are restricted. Um. Right. That's what I've been saying. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C174FA9...@white-wolf.com... > GreySeer wrote: > > I agree with Flux that you could do the kind of thing that he's talking > > about since card text can always override rules but to do things like. > > It's not a rule. It's a definition. > > > Strike: Dodge, this is not considered a dodge. > > or > > (D) Enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat > > > > Would just be asking for trouble. > > Exactly. Definitions shouldn't be transmutable. > > > I think we're better off using the AT-style template. For example, a dodge > > that isn't a Strike: Dodge > > "Strike: This minion and it's possessions are protected from the effects of > > the opposing minion's strike." > > It does the same thing as dodge but isn't actually Strike: Dodge and so > > could be used when dodges are restricted. > > Um. Right. That's what I've been saying. And I'm agreeing with you :P

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C149F1A...@white-wolf.com>... > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is: > > > > Anesthetic Touch > > Only usable at close range > > <aus> Strike: dodge. > > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the resolution > > of this strike. > > <OBE> As above, with First Strike. > No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat before > any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5]. AT doesn't qualify. > If I play AT at obe level, and my opponent strikes hands for 1, do I take the 1 damage?

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C173EDE...@white-wolf.com: > Flux wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >> > Flux wrote: >> >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >> >> > Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes. >> >> >> >> Not according to the rulesbook, but any given card may open an >> >> exception by explicit card text, which the above does. >> > >> > No. See Kraken's Kiss. >> >> Kaken's Kiss says 'strength+1 ranged damage', it does not say >> explicitly that it is a Hand Strike, therefore it isn't (because it is >> ranged). It's not what I'm talking about. > > Yes, it is. Ranged strikes are not hand strikes. Period. No, it isn't. It doesn't say 'This is a hand strike', which is what I was talking about. Kraken's Kiss is not a hand strike just like Theft of Vitae is not a Hand Strike: it doesn't fit the definition of a Hand Strike, _and_ it doesn't have any explicit text to override that definition either. > Try this: "(D) enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat." That would be asking for trouble, since it would be hard to judge what you can or can't do based on the definition of 'combat', but I could still make a guess. It would be rather pointless though, because there are too many effects dependent on the definition of combat (combat cards, etc). However, there are situations where you might want to use a 'Strike: X ranged. This is a Hand Strike', yet that is impossible because you say the rulesbook definitions are unbreakable. Flux

"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> GreySeer wrote: >> > I agree with Flux <snip> > And I'm agreeing with you :P According to the rulebook definition of 'agreeing', you're in contradiction to yourself. Please present yourself to the Elimination Chamber RU-1337 as soon as possible. The Computer wishes you a nice day, Citizen. ;-) Flux

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3C174FA9...@white-wolf.com: > GreySeer wrote: >> Strike: Dodge, this is not considered a dodge. >> or >> (D) Enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat >> >> Would just be asking for trouble. > > Exactly. Definitions shouldn't be transmutable. I think they should be, but I agree that we should avoid those situations if possible. Flux

In message <Xns9175DB7EDA...@130.133.1.4>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes: >>Definitions shouldn't be transmutable. > >I think they should be Erm, if you want something that violates the definition, just set up something else entirely instead. Don't shoe-horn it into something it very clearly isn't. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:ZV9iedCT...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <Xns9175DB7EDA...@130.133.1.4>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> > writes: >>>Definitions shouldn't be transmutable. >> >>I think they should be > > Erm, if you want something that violates the definition, just set up > something else entirely instead. Don't shoe-horn it into something it > very clearly isn't. Ah, but some effects depend on those definitions (Dog Pack, IG, Skin Trap, etc). If, for example, you want a ranged strike that is usable under IG and affected by Claws, the simplest and obvious way to do it would be to make it a Hand Strike. The same thing happens with Stutter-Step, but in reverse: it was written as if it wasn't a Hand Strike, but since it fit the definition it had to be changed to work as intended. I think you could achieve a similar effect by simply adding 'This is not considered a Hand Strike', for example. Flux

Flux wrote: > > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in > news:ZV9iedCT...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > > > In message <Xns9175DB7EDA...@130.133.1.4>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> > > writes: > >>>Definitions shouldn't be transmutable. > >> > >>I think they should be > > > > Erm, if you want something that violates the definition, just set up > > something else entirely instead. Don't shoe-horn it into something it > > very clearly isn't. > > Ah, but some effects depend on those definitions (Dog Pack, IG, Skin Trap, > etc). If, for example, you want a ranged strike that is usable under IG > and affected by Claws, the simplest and obvious way to do it would be to > make it a Hand Strike. Or make it "playable if you can play a hand strike and this damage can be modified by effects that modify hand damage". And avoid all the unecessary contradictions. > The same thing happens with Stutter-Step, but in reverse: it was written > as if it wasn't a Hand Strike, but since it fit the definition it had to It was written as if it were a hand strike. The problem was that it was written as if IG restricted dodges, which is not true. > be changed to work as intended. I think you could achieve a similar effect > by simply adding 'This is not considered a Hand Strike', for example. No. That would lose the Claws modification ability. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Xns91766D59AA...@130.133.1.4>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes: >> Erm, if you want something that violates the definition, just set up >> something else entirely instead. Don't shoe-horn it into something it >> very clearly isn't. > >Ah, but some effects depend on those definitions (Dog Pack, IG, Skin Trap, >etc). Then include text akin to the errata on Stutter Step, as one example. (That is, apply similar restrictions or whatever.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <8f507d2e.01121...@posting.google.com>, Shaun McIsaac <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> writes: >> > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the resolution >> > of this strike. >> > <OBE> As above, with First Strike. >> No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat before >> any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5]. AT doesn't qualify. >> > >If I play AT at obe level, and my opponent strikes hands for 1, do I >take the 1 damage? Yes. Strike Resolution includes the whole damage preventing bit. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:70R6WyAY...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <8f507d2e.01121...@posting.google.com>, Shaun > McIsaac <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> writes: > >> > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the resolution > >> > of this strike. > >> > <OBE> As above, with First Strike. > >> No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat before > >> any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5]. AT doesn't qualify. > >> > > > >If I play AT at obe level, and my opponent strikes hands for 1, do I > >take the 1 damage? > > Yes. Strike Resolution includes the whole damage preventing bit. But not if the AT is done with First Strike since your strike resolves first and combat then ends before your opponent's strike resolves. It's the ultimate end combat strike since you can play it even if IGed and you won't take damage ( unless your opponent also has First Strike )

(snip all the fuss) answer : anesthetic touch is a somewhat cool card created by the design team to confuse player, thus justifying and maintaining the job of our rulemonger =) it's imho also the best defense against crazy grapplers =) reyda