Ghoul Retainer. Retainer. 2 pool.
Ghoul with 2 life. 1 strength.
Each round of combat during strike resolution, the Ghoul Retainer
inflicts 1 damage or may use a weapon that is not being used by the
employing minion (or another retainer) during that round. This is not
a strike, although it does count as "using" the weapon.
I've been reviewing such rulings as I could find on the above card,
and I am not sure I fully understand, and want to make sure I get
things right.
Most weapons have languages that do "x as a strike", or "strike: x",
or "x each strike". If such language were read as restricting the
Ghoul Retainer ("GR") from "using" the weapon to do x as a non-strike,
there would be few, if any, weapons that GR could use. Hence, it
makes sense that the text of GR has been read as over-ruling such
strike-related language.
In response to a question specifically about 'how much damage' GR
inflicts, LSJ explained that GR "inflicts the amount of damage he
would inflict if he were striking with it as a minion." But this was
evidently not meant to restrict GR's ability to damage dealing
effects, since GR has been ruled capable of using Rowan Ring to
(undodgably) send a vampire to torpor as a non-strike.
However, some other effects of weapons, that make reference to
strikes, are not ignored. Hence, it has been ruled that while GR may
use a Garrotte to inflict strength damage (normally "as a strike"), he
may not gain the benefit of the Garrotte's secondary power, which
applies when certain conditions are met "during the strike resolution
step of this strike," cannot be "used" by GR. Similarly GR does not
gain a press from Meat Hook, since GR does not ignore the "if this
weapon is used to strike at close range" requirement for said press.
This seems reasonable enough. But I am not sure I can identify the
principle that determines which strike related text should be ignored,
and which should not. Examples follow:
POKER: GR can use it to inflict 2 damage. If this damage is
prevented by Fortitude, does the minion get to keep the poker, because
the condition for burning it ("if all the damage done BY THIS STRIKE
is prevented ...") is not met.
WEIGHTED WALKING STICK: GR can use it to inflict 2 damage. Does the
walking stick keep its counters, because the condition for buring them
("for each point of damage inflicted BY THIS STRIKE ...") is not met.
SPIKE THROWER: GR can use to inflict 1R damage. Does the target
avoid the "does not untap" effect for failing to meet the condition
("if any damage FROM THIS STRIKE is successfully inflicted ... (etc.)".
SWORD OF NULN: GR can use to inflict 1 damage. Does a vampire target
avoid having to burn 2 blood to heal because this only applies to the
"damage from this weapon's strikes".
FLASH GRENADE / SMOKE GRENADE: I am guessing that GR can use these,
and that the effect resolves before other "strike resolution" effects,
as per the default rule for "strike: combat ends." "Combat ends" is
the first effect to take place during strike resolution, but it still
takes place during strike resolution. Hence, the GR can use it.
Correct?
AMMO CARDS: All have the text "only usable before resolution of a
gun's strike," which limits use by GR. But it might not absolutely
prevent it, because the card, once played, effects the gun for the
duration of combat.
CASELESS ROUNDS, per its terms, only gains its benefit when the
"bearer" strikes with an affected gun.
SCATTERSHOT has no "each strike" text, but merely modifies the damage
inflicted by the gun. Presumably, therefore, the GR will gain the
benefit (or penalty) of the gun if he uses the gun on the round after
the ammo card is played..
MANSTOPPER RNDS, GLASER RNDS, DRAGONBREATH RNDS: All have text that
say the bonus applies "each strike". This is identical, however, to
the normal language for guns, so I think that GR should benefit from
the modified gun here just as he does with SCATTERSHOT. Right?
MAGAZINE: Puts an ammo card in play, and permits use of its effect,
"as if played from your hand". Does this language prevent GR from
using Scattershot (for instance) until the round after the bearer
strikes with the affected gun?
NIGHTSTICK: Presumably, GR can use Nightstick's alternate, prevent
damage effect. But whose damage is prevented? Is it the bearer or
the user?
MOLOTOV COCKTAIL: Strike card that enters play, and becomes a
"weapon" immediately upon the strike resolving. Card text says "the
bearer may strike" with the weapon on the round after it is brought
into play.
I don't think the "bearer may strike" language restricts a non-bearer
(like GR) from using the MOLOTOV COCKTAIL, especially since GR's use
is not a "strike". Use by bearers only is the unstated norm for
weapons, and the text of GR already over-rules that default
assumption.
Assuming the above is correct, what, if anything prevents GR from
using MOLOTOV COCKTAIL to inflict 2R ag damage on the same round it is
brought into play? Seems a powerful combo. Does it need errata, to
read, for instance "may not be used on the round it enters play"?
Sorry if I missed any previously issued rulings. I did search, but I
may not have found everything.
nys...@cs.com wrote:
> Ghoul Retainer. Retainer. 2 pool.
> Ghoul with 2 life. 1 strength.
> Each round of combat during strike resolution, the Ghoul Retainer
> inflicts 1 damage or may use a weapon that is not being used by the
> employing minion (or another retainer) during that round. This is not
> a strike, although it does count as "using" the weapon.
>
> I've been reviewing such rulings as I could find on the above card,
> and I am not sure I fully understand, and want to make sure I get
> things right.
>
> Most weapons have languages that do "x as a strike", or "strike: x",
> or "x each strike". If such language were read as restricting the
> Ghoul Retainer ("GR") from "using" the weapon to do x as a non-strike,
> there would be few, if any, weapons that GR could use. Hence, it
> makes sense that the text of GR has been read as over-ruling such
> strike-related language.
Correct. He uses it as if making a strike.
> In response to a question specifically about 'how much damage' GR
> inflicts, LSJ explained that GR "inflicts the amount of damage he
> would inflict if he were striking with it as a minion." But this was
> evidently not meant to restrict GR's ability to damage dealing
> effects, since GR has been ruled capable of using Rowan Ring to
> (undodgably) send a vampire to torpor as a non-strike.
Correct.
> However, some other effects of weapons, that make reference to
> strikes, are not ignored. Hence, it has been ruled that while GR may
> use a Garrotte to inflict strength damage (normally "as a strike"), he
> may not gain the benefit of the Garrotte's secondary power, which
> applies when certain conditions are met "during the strike resolution
> step of this strike," cannot be "used" by GR. Similarly GR does not
> gain a press from Meat Hook, since GR does not ignore the "if this
> weapon is used to strike at close range" requirement for said press.
Correct. Garrote says the "bearer may..." and the GR is not the bearer.
The GR also cannot press (for Meat Hook) at all, in addition to not being the
bearer.
> This seems reasonable enough. But I am not sure I can identify the
> principle that determines which strike related text should be ignored,
> and which should not. Examples follow:
>
> POKER: GR can use it to inflict 2 damage. If this damage is
> prevented by Fortitude, does the minion get to keep the poker, because
> the condition for burning it ("if all the damage done BY THIS STRIKE
> is prevented ...") is not met.
No, the Poker would be burned.
> WEIGHTED WALKING STICK: GR can use it to inflict 2 damage. Does the
> walking stick keep its counters, because the condition for buring them
> ("for each point of damage inflicted BY THIS STRIKE ...") is not met.
No, the counters would be burned.
> SPIKE THROWER: GR can use to inflict 1R damage. Does the target
> avoid the "does not untap" effect for failing to meet the condition
> ("if any damage FROM THIS STRIKE is successfully inflicted ... (etc.)".
No.
> SWORD OF NULN: GR can use to inflict 1 damage. Does a vampire target
> avoid having to burn 2 blood to heal because this only applies to the
> "damage from this weapon's strikes".
No.
> FLASH GRENADE / SMOKE GRENADE: I am guessing that GR can use these,
> and that the effect resolves before other "strike resolution" effects,
> as per the default rule for "strike: combat ends." "Combat ends" is
> the first effect to take place during strike resolution, but it still
> takes place during strike resolution. Hence, the GR can use it.
> Correct?
Yes.
> AMMO CARDS: All have the text "only usable before resolution of a
> gun's strike," which limits use by GR. But it might not absolutely
> prevent it, because the card, once played, effects the gun for the
> duration of combat.
Correct.
> CASELESS ROUNDS, per its terms, only gains its benefit when the
> "bearer" strikes with an affected gun.
Correct.
> SCATTERSHOT has no "each strike" text, but merely modifies the damage
> inflicted by the gun. Presumably, therefore, the GR will gain the
> benefit (or penalty) of the gun if he uses the gun on the round after
> the ammo card is played..
Correct.
> MANSTOPPER RNDS, GLASER RNDS, DRAGONBREATH RNDS: All have text that
> say the bonus applies "each strike". This is identical, however, to
> the normal language for guns, so I think that GR should benefit from
> the modified gun here just as he does with SCATTERSHOT. Right?
Correct.
> MAGAZINE: Puts an ammo card in play, and permits use of its effect,
> "as if played from your hand". Does this language prevent GR from
> using Scattershot (for instance) until the round after the bearer
> strikes with the affected gun?
Yes, since, as you've already noted, you couldn't play it from hand.
> NIGHTSTICK: Presumably, GR can use Nightstick's alternate, prevent
> damage effect. But whose damage is prevented? Is it the bearer or
> the user?
User. I'll update the online card text to that effect.
> MOLOTOV COCKTAIL: Strike card that enters play, and becomes a
> "weapon" immediately upon the strike resolving. Card text says "the
> bearer may strike" with the weapon on the round after it is brought
> into play.
"on this minion", so it would go on the striking GR, not the vampire employing
the GR. Once there, it would be unusable, given the ability of the GR.
> I don't think the "bearer may strike" language restricts a non-bearer
> (like GR) from using the MOLOTOV COCKTAIL, especially since GR's use
> is not a "strike". Use by bearers only is the unstated norm for
> weapons, and the text of GR already over-rules that default
> assumption.
Well, if the minion has a Molotov Cocktail from his own strike on an earlier
round, then the GR can use it like any other weapon, sure.
> Assuming the above is correct, what, if anything prevents GR from
> using MOLOTOV COCKTAIL to inflict 2R ag damage on the same round it is
> brought into play? Seems a powerful combo. Does it need errata, to
> read, for instance "may not be used on the round it enters play"?
No. Card text on MC prevents that use. Card text: "Beginning with the next round
of this combat..."
> Sorry if I missed any previously issued rulings. I did search, but I
> may not have found everything.
It seems you were quite thorough.
LSJ wrote:
> nys...@cs.com wrote:>> MOLOTOV COCKTAIL: Strike card that enters play, and becomes a
>> "weapon" immediately upon the strike resolving. Card text says "the
>> bearer may strike" with the weapon on the round after it is brought
>> into play.>
> "on this minion", so it would go on the striking GR, not the vampire
> employing the GR. Once there, it would be unusable, given the ability of
> the GR.
Well, assuming the GR could play combat cards, which he can't. So ignore the
above tangent. Sorry.
On Feb 10, 8:19 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> nyst...@cs.com wrote:
> > However, some other effects of weapons, that make reference to
> > strikes, are not ignored. Hence, it has been ruled that while GR may
> > use a Garrotte to inflict strength damage (normally "as a strike"), he
> > may not gain the benefit of the Garrotte's secondary power, which
> > applies when certain conditions are met "during the strike resolution
> > step of this strike," cannot be "used" by GR. Similarly GR does not
> > gain a press from Meat Hook, since GR does not ignore the "if this
> > weapon is used to strike at close range" requirement for said press.
>
> Correct. Garrote says the "bearer may..." and the GR is not the bearer.
> The GR also cannot press (for Meat Hook) at all, in addition to not being the
> bearer.
Thanks for your answers. I am still not sure I am not sure I follow
the logic here.
Seems that, judging from the precedent of Zip Gun, the bearer-specific
language in Garrote & Meat Hook (as distinct from the different bearer
specific language of Caseless Rounds) would not itself restrict the
effects of these cards when used by GR. Bearer receives a point of
damage when GR uses Zip Gun. So why should not bearer receive an
optional press when GR uses Meat Hook? And why should not bearer
receive the stated burn option when GR uses Garrote?
Then it occurred to me that the answer might lie in the text of GR
requiring that the weapon in question "is not being used by the
employing minion ... during that round." Taking damage does not count
as "use" of the weapon, but I suppose the other effects do. This
could be construed as preventing both minion and GR from using the
same weapon in the same round, even if the minion's use is subsequent
to that of the GR. (It is crystal clear from text that GR cannot use
a weapon currently or previously used that round by the minion, but
less clear that the minion is restricted from using a weapon that was
used EARLIER that round by GR).
Then it occurred to me that I did not know whether a minion could
additional-strike with a weapon used by GR earlier that round. I did
a brief search on this, but could find no rulings. This used to be
possible, when GR's text forbad use of a weapon being used by the
minion "presently" rather than "during that round". I think most
players assume it is still possible. Has this changed with the new
card text?
If such (subsequent) additional strikes by the minion are no longer
possible, then the rulings on Meat Hook and Garrote make perfect sense
on the same logic. Otherwise ....
I had thought that the prior rulings on Meat Hook and Garrote were in
fact based on the strike-specific wording. But your most recent
answers relating to POKER and others seem to call this into doubt.
Like with "Poker" et al, it is possible to mentally edit Garrote and
Meat Hook so that all references to the instant "strike" are replaced
with the instant "GR-use or strike":
Poker. Equipment. 1 pool.
Melee Weapon. [GR-use or strike]: strength damage, only usable at
close range. If the opposing vampire goes into torpor during the
strike resolution step of this [GR-use or strike] and the bearer
remains ready, the bearer may burn this card to burn the opposing
vampire. This is not considered diablerie.
Meat Hook. Equipment.
Melee Weapon. Strength +1 damage each [GR-use or strike], only usable
once each round. Once each combat, if this weapon is used to [GR-use
or strike] at close range and the opponent does not dodge the [GR-use
or strike], the bearer gets an optional press this round, only usable
to continue combat. [...]
On Feb 10, 4:52 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote:
> Poker. Equipment. 1 pool.
> Melee Weapon. [GR-use or strike]: strength damage, only usable at
> close range. If the opposing vampire goes into torpor during the
> strike resolution step of this [GR-use or strike] and the bearer
> remains ready, the bearer may burn this card to burn the opposing
> vampire. This is not considered diablerie.
This is meant to be the text for "Garrote", not "Poker". Sorry.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Very nice analysis. Better than the excuses I was about to cobble together, I'm
sure. :-)
> Then it occurred to me that I did not know whether a minion could
> additional-strike with a weapon used by GR earlier that round. I did
> a brief search on this, but could find no rulings. This used to be
> possible, when GR's text forbad use of a weapon being used by the
> minion "presently" rather than "during that round". I think most
> players assume it is still possible. Has this changed with the new
> card text?
I've probably been assuming it, too.
But the "not being used this round" has been there since the 1995 printing. (The
1994 printing used "presently" instead, as you note).
I hadn't noticed the change, but it seems to offer the path to the current rulings.
> If such (subsequent) additional strikes by the minion are no longer
> possible, then the rulings on Meat Hook and Garrote make perfect sense
> on the same logic. Otherwise ....
Well, then. Let's go with that.
> I had thought that the prior rulings on Meat Hook and Garrote were in
> fact based on the strike-specific wording. But your most recent
> answers relating to POKER and others seem to call this into doubt.
> Like with "Poker" et al, it is possible to mentally edit Garrote and
> Meat Hook so that all references to the instant "strike" are replaced
> with the instant "GR-use or strike":
Thanks for the thoughts. I think this is shaky enough to warrant some extra
review by the rules team to see if it can be firmed up.