Erratas (LSJ)...

"Anesthetic Touch Doesn't end combat as a strike; it ends combat after strike resolution. Dog Pack doesn't restrict this effect. [LSJ 20011210] " Does this mean that, even in superior, the opponent still gets to strike ? Like, if you play AT and he strikes you for 5, you still take the 5 or not ? I've been told also that Perfect Clarity has been errated but can't find it anywhere ; why would it not counter deflections ? And if so, what is its use outside of anti-CE (which Thoughts Betrayed already does for the same cost...) ? Last but not least : I thought the Allies errata had been delayed, and see that is not the case ; so, is it a temporary ruling or the definitive one ? In which case, where is the ruling concerning allies entering torpor ? Yours, -- Orfeo Giovanni, the Traitor 8 Cap, Sabbat DOM / OBT / NEC / Obf Orfeo gets -1 intercept against Lasombra ; + 1 bleed against the controller of any ready Giovanni. ------------ VTES french forum : news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone http://no.exit.free.fr (onlive novel) http://cypheranima.free.fr (goth band)

Orpheus wrote: > "Anesthetic Touch > Doesn't end combat as a strike; it ends combat after strike resolution. Dog > Pack doesn't restrict this effect. [LSJ 20011210] " > > Does this mean that, even in superior, the opponent still gets to strike ? No. It means that it doesn't end combat as a strike. It ends combat after the strike resolves, by explicit card text (which, BTW, is not errata). Contrast Majesty et al. > Like, if you play AT and he strikes you for 5, you still take the 5 or not ? If combat ends before his strike resolve, then the damage from his strike isn't applied. > I've been told also that Perfect Clarity has been errated but can't find it > anywhere ; why would it not counter deflections ? And if so, what is its use > outside of anti-CE (which Thoughts Betrayed already does for the same > cost...) ? It prevents (not "counters") deflections. > Last but not least : I thought the Allies errata had been delayed, and see > that is not the case ; so, is it a temporary ruling or the definitive one ? > In which case, where is the ruling concerning allies entering torpor ? The current rulings on the web page are current. They are all definitive. The ruling about allies entering torpor is under the "Allies" heading. It doesn't mention torpor explicitly, however. Allies An ally that plays a card "as a vampire" is treated "as a vampire" for all puposes of the resolution of the play of that card (but not for purposes of any continuing effects that that card later generates for being in play). [RTR 20020501] -- 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/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CFBA088...@white-wolf.com... > Orpheus wrote: > > "Anesthetic Touch > > Doesn't end combat as a strike; it ends combat after strike resolution. Dog > > Pack doesn't restrict this effect. [LSJ 20011210] " > > > > Does this mean that, even in superior, the opponent still gets to strike ? > > No. It means that it doesn't end combat as a strike. It ends combat after the > strike resolves, by explicit card text (which, BTW, is not errata). > It's not "strike: combat ends", but does it end combat? Is it a strike?

Chris Berger wrote: > It's not "strike: combat ends", but does it end combat? Is it a strike? Yup, it is a hand strike with first strike. After the hand strike resolves, combat immediately ends. Not Strike: Combat Ends. Strike with hand, but with special effects. Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "I am the autumn in the scarlet I am the make-up on your eyes" -Kim Deal

> Orpheus wrote: > > "Anesthetic Touch > > Doesn't end combat as a strike; it ends combat after strike resolution. Dog > > Pack doesn't restrict this effect. [LSJ 20011210] " > > > > Does this mean that, even in superior, the opponent still gets to strike ? > > No. It means that it doesn't end combat as a strike. It ends combat after the > strike resolves, by explicit card text (which, BTW, is not errata). > > Contrast Majesty et al. OK, but are there real consequences of this ? I don't understand the subtle nuances... > > I've been told also that Perfect Clarity has been errated but can't find it > > anywhere ; why would it not counter deflections ? And if so, what is its use > > outside of anti-CE (which Thoughts Betrayed already does for the same > > cost...) ? > > It prevents (not "counters") Sorry, as U know I'm not english... > deflections. Ok, I've been tols since then that the errata wasn't official and that you already rectified it. The culprit will be whipped (he likes it anyway, right TL ? > > Last but not least : I thought the Allies errata had been delayed, and see > > that is not the case ; so, is it a temporary ruling or the definitive one ? > > In which case, where is the ruling concerning allies entering torpor ? > > The current rulings on the web page are current. They are all definitive. Too bad. I thought the fact that nearly all the players were against it has flexed your inflexible arm. Well, it can also be "definitively changed" again... > The ruling about allies entering torpor is under the "Allies" heading. > It doesn't mention torpor explicitly, however. Right. So, what happens in that case ? What you suggested, they are put in the torpor area forever ?

"Peter D Bakija" <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:B9214C7B.3AB0%PD...@bigplanet.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > It's not "strike: combat ends", but does it end combat? Is it a strike? > > Yup, it is a hand strike with first strike. After the hand strike resolves, > combat immediately ends. > > Not Strike: Combat Ends. Strike with hand, but with special effects. > Yes, but it technically does end combat as a strike, but for the ruling ("errata") otherwise. It ends combat and it's a strike. It is a strike that ends combat. Part of the strike's effect is to end combat, thus using it is ending combat as a strike. No real reason that I can see to rule it the other way, but LSJ works in mysterious ways. It's really a lot like Stutter-Step in that it's a strike that does two things, and thus should fall into categories that include either one. Stutter-Step has errata to make it not a hand strike, which is arguably necessary... i.e. I personally don't think it's necessary, but I can see why people would consider it too powerful if it was a hand strike. The ruling/errata to Anesthetic Touch just ends up making an already powerful card ever-so-slightly more powerful.

Orpheus wrote: > OK, but are there real consequences of this ? I don't understand the subtle > nuances... You can't play Majesty (or Earth Meld or whatever S:CE cards) while Immortally Grappled or facing a Dog Pack, as they prevent S:CE effects. Anesthetic Touch is a hand strike with a special effect (which ends combat after the strike resolves and is at first strike). As such, you can use it while Immortally Grappled or facing a Dog Pack, as it is just a hand strike with a special effect. It is not a Strike:Combat Ends strike. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 12:59:52 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Orpheus wrote: >> "Anesthetic Touch >> Doesn't end combat as a strike; it ends combat after strike resolution. Dog >> Pack doesn't restrict this effect. [LSJ 20011210] " >> >> Does this mean that, even in superior, the opponent still gets to strike ? > >No. It means that it doesn't end combat as a strike. It ends combat after the >strike resolves, by explicit card text (which, BTW, is not errata). > >Contrast Majesty et al. LSJ, shouldnt this be considered both a SCE and Shand damage, much like stutterstep is considered both a Shand damage and Sdodge? Or not, because the CE effect ocurrs after the strikes resolve? T

In message <3cfdf33f.276788223@news>, Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com writes: >LSJ, shouldnt this be considered both a SCE and Shand damage, much >like stutterstep is considered both a Shand damage and Sdodge? Stutter Step (having argued this one thoroughly) qualifies as a hand strike: - it does damage at close range - based on the minion's strength (or ally's base close range damage, if not written that way) - not using a weapon That's the definition, and it fits all of them. Doing something else in addition isn't enough. Bear in mind also that Dog Pack isn't referring to strikes that just happen to end combat. It's referring to "combat ends", as a strike. "Combat Ends" is defined in the rulebook, in 6.4.5 Anaesthetic Touch emphatically isn't the "Combat Ends" strike in 6.4.5 (For reference, consider a Dog Pack that said 'cannot play 'Steal Blood' as a strike'. This wouldn't restrict a strike that said "Strike: make a hand strike, and after strike resolution move one blood (or life) from the opposing minion to this minion.") >Or not, because the CE effect ocurrs after the strikes resolve? Sure. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote in message news:<3cfdf33f.276788223@news>... [ quoted text not captured ] Becaus its a hand strike, that, after resolving, ends combat. there's already a previous card like this (or two) such as scorpians touch, or dagon's call. ~SV

"Peter D Bakija" <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:B921649F.3ABC%PD...@bigplanet.com... > Orpheus wrote: > > > OK, but are there real consequences of this ? I don't understand the subtle > > nuances... > > You can't play Majesty (or Earth Meld or whatever S:CE cards) while > Immortally Grappled or facing a Dog Pack, as they prevent S:CE effects. > Just a nitpick... Immortal Grapple does not in any way prohibit S:CE effects, as long as those strikes are hand strikes. ;)

Chris Berger wrote: > > "Peter D Bakija" <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message > news:B9214C7B.3AB0%PD...@bigplanet.com... > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > It's not "strike: combat ends", but does it end combat? Is it a strike? > > > > Yup, it is a hand strike with first strike. After the hand strike resolves, > > combat immediately ends. > > > > Not Strike: Combat Ends. Strike with hand, but with special effects. > > > Yes, but it technically does end combat as a strike, but for the ruling If it ended combat as a strike, then the damage would not be done. [6.4.5] [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > > The ruling about allies entering torpor is under the "Allies" heading. > > It doesn't mention torpor explicitly, however. > > Right. So, what happens in that case ? What you suggested, they are put in > the torpor area forever ? As card text suggests, they can go to torpor. Once in torpor, they will remain there until some effect changes that state. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Stutter Step (having argued this one thoroughly) qualifies as a hand > strike: > > - it does damage at close range > - based on the minion's strength (or ally's base close range damage, if > not written that way) > - not using a weapon > > That's the definition, and it fits all of them. Doing something else in > addition isn't enough. Except that pesky part of card text that states STRIKE: DODGE and ...

"Jon Stahler" <sta...@ilir.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:5V4L8.11924$U7.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] Umm.... don't start this argument again. Trust me, Stutter Step fits the definition of a hand strike. It would *be* a hand strike but for errata stating that it is not. If you want to know why, look it up on Google.

[ quoted text not captured ] That "pesky" card text does nothing to violate the definition of a hand strike. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <t85L8.107626$ux5.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >> > That's the definition, and it fits all of them. Doing something else in >> > addition isn't enough. >> >> Except that pesky part of card text that states STRIKE: DODGE and ... It qualifies under all three points - strength based, not ranged, not weapon. Doing something else in addition is still not enough. >Umm.... don't start this argument again. Trust me, Stutter Step fits the >definition of a hand strike. It would *be* a hand strike but for errata >stating that it is not. If you want to know why, look it up on Google. Stutter Step is a hand strike. The official card text says so. (It *also* qualifies as a dodge.) However, it does have a piece of errata that qualifies when it can be used - specifically relevant to Immortal Grapple, of course. This does not stop it being a hand-strike. If it had errata stating it wasn't a hand strike, it wouldn't deal hand damage. (Since hand damage is dealt by hand strikes.) This would, for instance, stop Claws of the Dead working on it in City Gangrel decks - which is not the case. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jon Stahler" <sta...@ilir.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:5V4L8.11924$U7.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] It makes no difference what else it does, it fits the 3 criteria to qualify it as a hand strike. It may as well say Strike: Dodge, end combat, seal 2 blood, burn 2 of your prey's pool, win a new car, do the hokey pokey and inflict stength damage, after resolution of this strike raise your middle finger in an ungentlemanly fashion. It would still be a hand strike.

"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:ufqibcc...@news.supernews.com... > "Jon Stahler" <sta...@ilir.uiuc.edu> wrote in message > news:5V4L8.11924$U7.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu... > > Except that pesky part of card text that states STRIKE: DODGE and ... > > It makes no difference what else it does, it fits the 3 criteria to qualify > it as a hand strike. It makes a difference,sir ;) Immortal grapple : "Only hand strikes can be used by or against the minion..." bla bla Stutter step is a hand strike but also a dodge. Dodges can't be used under IG. Only hand strikes can be played. Stutter step also being a dodge, it fails to qualify. Consider This : Skin Trap - opposing minion cannot dodge this round. Stutter step being a hand strike and a dodge, cannot be used once Skin Trap has been played. Do you agree ? Was it so complicated ? Reyda (rulemonger apprentice ? =p )

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3cfd71b4$0$15525$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net... > > > Stutter step is a hand strike but also a dodge. > Dodges can't be used under IG. Only hand strikes can be played. > Are you slow, or just trying to be irritating? Dodges *can* be played under IG, as long as they are hand strikes. Any strike can be played. It just has to be a hand strike. This isn't rocket science. Stutter-Step has errata not allowing it to be played under IG. For the last time, IG does not prohibit any type of strike. It simply restricts your options to hand strikes. > Consider This : > Skin Trap - opposing minion cannot dodge this round. > > Stutter step being a hand strike and a dodge, cannot be used once Skin Trap > has been played. > IG doesn't say that you can't dodge. Skin Trap does. Any questions?

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:79hL8.63561$0A2.52698@rwcrnsc54... > > "reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:3cfd71b4$0$15525$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net... > > > > > > Stutter step is a hand strike but also a dodge. > > Dodges can't be used under IG. Only hand strikes can be played. > > > Are you slow, or just trying to be irritating? maybe both ? =) > Dodges *can* be played under > IG, as long as they are hand strikes. Any strike can be played. It just has > to be a hand strike. This isn't rocket science. maybe, maybe not =) it depends if you consider "only hand strike" as exclusive or inclusive. > Stutter-Step has errata not > allowing it to be played under IG. For the last time, IG does not prohibit any > type of strike. It simply restricts your options to hand strikes. (snip) > IG doesn't say that you can't dodge. Skin Trap does. Any questions? You know that the original wording of the card is in fault =) IG says only hand strikes. Stutter Step is a dodge + a hand strike. hence doesn't qualify. Of course some twisted mind can still do some card lawyering... hence the so called errata. If there's an errata,it's because the design team intended stutter step to work the way they errated it.

reyda wrote: > > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:79hL8.63561$0A2.52698@rwcrnsc54... > > > > "reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3cfd71b4$0$15525$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net... > > > > > > > > > Stutter step is a hand strike but also a dodge. > > > Dodges can't be used under IG. Only hand strikes can be played. > > > > > Are you slow, or just trying to be irritating? > > maybe both ? =) > > > Dodges *can* be played under > > IG, as long as they are hand strikes. Any strike can be played. It just > has > > to be a hand strike. This isn't rocket science. > > maybe, maybe not =) > it depends if you consider "only hand strike" as exclusive or inclusive. Immaterial. The card text is "strikes that are not hand strikes ..." Q: Is Stutter-Step a hand strike? If you answer "yes", then it may be played under IG (since only strikes that are *not* hand strikes are disallowed). (Except for the errata, of course, which says that it cannot be played.) If you answer "no", then you need to re-read the card and the definition of a hand strike. > > Stutter-Step has errata not > > allowing it to be played under IG. For the last time, IG does not > prohibit any > > type of strike. It simply restricts your options to hand strikes. > (snip) > > IG doesn't say that you can't dodge. Skin Trap does. Any questions? > > You know that the original wording of the card is in fault =) > IG says only hand strikes. Stutter Step is a dodge + a hand strike. hence > doesn't qualify. Of course some twisted mind can still do some card > lawyering... hence the so called errata. If there's an errata,it's because > the design team intended stutter step to work the way they errated it. IG says strikes that are not hand strikes are not allowed. Stutter step is a hand strike. Hence it is not restricted. Hence the errata restricting it (to match designer intent in the face of the failure of card text to achieve that intent). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CFDF8DA...@white-wolf.com... (snip it, okay) > Immaterial. The card text is "strikes that are not hand strikes ..." okay,my mistake. I was sticking with the old wording, i didin't even realized that the wording of I.G has changed since SW. so i guess the rest of my post is moot. > Q: Is Stutter-Step a hand strike? > > If you answer "yes", then it may be played under IG (since only strikes > that are *not* hand strikes are disallowed). (Except for the errata, of > course, which says that it cannot be played.) > > If you answer "no", then you need to re-read the card and the definition > of a hand strike. thanks for the tip =) > > > Stutter-Step has errata not > > > allowing it to be played under IG. For the last time, IG does not > > prohibit any > > > type of strike. It simply restricts your options to hand strikes. > > (snip) mmm... at this point, quoting most recent card text could have been more productive than talking abour rocket science =) > > > IG doesn't say that you can't dodge. Skin Trap does. Any questions? > > > > You know that the original wording of the card is in fault =) > > IG says only hand strikes. Stutter Step is a dodge + a hand strike. hence > > doesn't qualify. Of course some twisted mind can still do some card > > lawyering... hence the so called errata. If there's an errata,it's because > > the design team intended stutter step to work the way they errated it. > > IG says strikes that are not hand strikes are not allowed. Now i know. > Stutter step is a hand strike. > Hence it is not restricted. > Hence the errata restricting it (to match designer intent in the face of > the failure of card text to achieve that intent). Did the designers play with old card texts too ? =)

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:8kSK8.188430$Po6.3...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... [re Anesthetic Touch] > Yes, but it technically does end combat as a strike, but for the ruling > ("errata") otherwise. It ends combat and it's a strike. It is a strike that > ends combat. Part of the strike's effect is to end combat, thus using it is > ending combat as a strike. No real reason that I can see to rule it the other > way, but LSJ works in mysterious ways. Well, as LSJ said, if it were "Strike: strength damage and combat ends", it would end combat before inflicting any damage. Since that's not what they were going for, that's not what they wrote, and it is therefore not a strike: combat ends. Since Dog Pack says "cannot play "combat ends" as a strike" (at least under current cardtext), it only cares about strike: combat ends effects, not combat-ending side- effects. You could say that Catatonic Fear is a strike that does damage, too, but it's still not preventable by Skin of Steel. (For a different reason, sure, but they're similar situations in that they're "because that's how the cards work since they were written this way.") > It's really a lot like Stutter-Step in that it's a strike that does two things, > and thus should fall into categories that include either one. It is a lot like that, except that if it did the combat-ending thing in "the usual way" it wouldn't be able to do strength damage at all. (Other than the Catatonic Fear way.) So it doesn't do the combat-ending thing the usual way, so it's not a strike: combat ends, so it doesn't end combat "as a strike". Josh a day late and a dollar short