Camarilla Edition Preview

FYI: The preview for The Camarilla Edition has begun. See the VTES web page (linked in my .sig below) for more. -- 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 wrote: > FYI: The preview for The Camarilla Edition has begun. See the > VTES web page (linked in my .sig below) for more. > humm big break with the previous product line, but it looks ok to me (the new layout) i already have a q? about Concelaed Weapons: Can lazverinus equip with bastard sword? (as a regular blow will do 4 damages) Can Basilia equipe with a bastard sword? (as a regular blow will do 2 aggro) cheers! -- TzimisceLord http://myvtes.free.fr http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr

The Tzimisce Lord wrote: > Can Basilia equipe with a bastard sword? > (as a regular blow will do 2 aggro) Basillia with a weapon does not inflict aggrivated damage. Basillia does aggrivated hand damage, not aggrivated weapon damage. Weapons do damage based on a minion's strength, but are not hand strikes or hand damage. Basillia does aggrivated hand damage. Weapons are not hand damage. They are weapon damage. 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

> FYI: The preview for The Camarilla Edition has begun. See the > VTES web page (linked in my .sig below) for more. Thanks for the preview!! I like that Concealed Weapon is getting fixed in the CE. Going to have to make a weenie Computer Hack with a .44 deck now. :p As far as the new look goes, I'm going to have to come back here often and see if it grows on me. Maybe it's because I've played since very early on and I'm used to the way the cards look now but my first reaction was that I do not like the new look/layout. Also, it's going to be really funky, diconcerting and possibly confusing when you start to mix library and crypt cards and even the same type of card (combat, for example) doesn't look alike. That said, the new look definitely has style and I'm sure it's going to be flashy enough to attract new players (which, after all, is one of the primary goals of this set). I'm just going to have to come back and see it grows on me Sorrow -who really appreciates that the first preview vamp wasn't drawn by Shy --- I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me. They ask me if I feel remorse and I answer, "Why of course! There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!" So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy

> i already have a q? about Concelaed Weapons: > Can lazverinus equip with bastard sword? > (as a regular blow will do 4 damages) Probably. The restriction is on the weapon itself not what the weapon can ultimately do when used as a strike. > Can Basilia equipe with a bastard sword? > (as a regular blow will do 2 aggro) Actually, it won't do aggro. Her special only augments strikes that she does with hands not with weapons. Sorrow --- I told the priest - don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. He had the balls to come, the gall to die and then forgive us. No, I don't wonder why, I wonder what he thought it would get us

The Tzimisce Lord wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > FYI: The preview for The Camarilla Edition has begun. See the > > VTES web page (linked in my .sig below) for more. > > > > humm big break with the previous product line, > but it looks ok to me (the new layout) > > i already have a q? about Concelaed Weapons: > Can lazverinus equip with bastard sword? > (as a regular blow will do 4 damages) (Note: new card texts don't go into effect until the set is legal for play.) Yes. A regular strike with a bastard sword inflicts 2 damage. (default strength is 1; BS inflicts str+1 damage; the current minion's current strength is not an issue) Likewise, a Bonecraft will not enable a minion to equip a hypothetical weapon that does str+3 damage with Concealed Weapon. > Can Basilia equipe with a bastard sword? > (as a regular blow will do 2 aggro) You are mistaken. Basilia's special only makes her hand damage aggravated. It won't make her melee weapon damage aggravated. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > The Tzimisce Lord wrote: >> >> LSJ wrote: >> > FYI: The preview for The Camarilla Edition has begun. See the >> > VTES web page (linked in my .sig below) for more. >> > >> >> humm big break with the previous product line, >> but it looks ok to me (the new layout) >> >> i already have a q? about Concelaed Weapons: >> Can lazverinus equip with bastard sword? >> (as a regular blow will do 4 damages) > > (Note: new card texts don't go into effect until the set > is legal for play.) > > Yes. > > A regular strike with a bastard sword inflicts 2 damage. > (default strength is 1; BS inflicts str+1 damage; the > current minion's current strength is not an issue) > > Likewise, a Bonecraft will not enable a minion to equip > a hypothetical weapon that does str+3 damage with Concealed > Weapon. ok. > >> Can Basilia equipe with a bastard sword? >> (as a regular blow will do 2 aggro) > > You are mistaken. Basilia's special only makes her hand damage > aggravated. It won't make her melee weapon damage aggravated. > you right, sorry [ quoted text not captured ]

Yuhah, it's out !! :-) Well, the preview at least... > I like that Concealed Weapon is getting fixed in the CE. Going to > have to make a weenie Computer Hack with a .44 deck now. :p Yeah, it's a good thing that that card got fixed ; nopt sure it is one that everybody can have access to such a power now, even without aggravated it's big ! And who said recently the !Salubri weren't worth shit because they couldn't Disguise ?... :-) > As far as the new look goes, I'm going to have to come back here > often and see if it grows on me. Maybe it's because I've played > since very early on and I'm used to the way the cards look now but > my first reaction was that I do not like the new look/layout. Also, > it's going to be really funky, diconcerting and possibly confusing > when you start to mix library and crypt cards and even the same > type of card (combat, for example) doesn't look alike. I agree. > That said, the new look definitely has style and I'm sure it's going > to be flashy enough to attract new players (which, after all, is one > of the primary goals of this set). I'm just going to have to come back > and see it grows on me Yes ! And we are glad to announce 2 thingd : - some people DO draw better then Ken M. (although I have seen far, far better artwork) - Welcome to Sir Ralph Hamilton, the first infiltrated True Brujah !! That means one thing : although there may not be any BL discipline (who knows...) in Camarilla, the set was also thought out to remedy some of the problems with it (or just make it competitive with Camarilla), if only vampire wise (and Concealed proves that it works also cardwise). Can't wait !!! Orpheus, who reinstalled and has yet to program some funky signature (wonder where Sorrow found his...).

On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 16:12:58 +0200, Orpheus wrote: > Orpheus, who reinstalled and has yet to program some funky signature > (wonder where Sorrow found his...). The Curse Of Millhaven released: 1996 words and music by Nick Cave Francois, with an itty bitty help from google, admitedly.

> > i already have a q? about Concelaed Weapons: > > Can lazverinus equip with bastard sword? > > (as a regular blow will do 4 damages) > > (Note: new card texts don't go into effect until the set > is legal for play.) > > Yes. > > A regular strike with a bastard sword inflicts 2 damage. > (default strength is 1; BS inflicts str+1 damage; the > current minion's current strength is not an issue) > ? Is this a reversal of: A weapon's "current damage" is the amount of damage that the weapon would inflict if used as a strike by bearer against a generic opponent. (This affects Concealed Weapon, Illegal Search and Seizure, and Machine Blitz). [RTR 19980623] Which parts of the new restriction makes it funktion differently than before? Old Concealed weapon: "The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or do more than 4 damage." New Concealed weapon: "The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or inflict (with a regular strike) aggravated damage or more than 3 damage" Does this new ruling mean that Black Cat now cannot conceal out a 3-pool weapon? Can I now play Illegal Search and Seizure on Lazverinus with a bastard sword? ISaS: "You may burn one weapon that costs more than 2 pool or inflicts more than 3 damage" /henrik isaksson off building a harbinger shambling horde deck with concealed meathooks and martyr's resilience...

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<afpo18$sai$1...@wanadoo.fr>... > Yuhah, it's out !! :-) And who said recently the !Salubri weren't worth shit because they couldn't Disguise ?... yeah, with gas powered chainsaw fitting right in the restrictions...

"arden mcbathan" <sonnenk...@aol.com> wrote in message news:aae0be1a.02070...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] New card text : Only usable before range is chosen. Equip the salubri antitribu in combat with a gas powered chainsaw from your hand. (insert some flavor text from texas chainsaw massacre =) )

Henrik Isaksson wrote: > > > > i already have a q? about Concelaed Weapons: > > > Can lazverinus equip with bastard sword? > > > (as a regular blow will do 4 damages) > > > > (Note: new card texts don't go into effect until the set > > is legal for play.) > > > > Yes. > > > > A regular strike with a bastard sword inflicts 2 damage. > > (default strength is 1; BS inflicts str+1 damage; the > > current minion's current strength is not an issue) > > > > ? Is this a reversal of: > > A weapon's "current damage" is the amount of damage that the weapon would > inflict if used as a strike by bearer against a generic opponent. (This > affects Concealed Weapon, Illegal Search and Seizure, and Machine Blitz). > [RTR 19980623] No. > Which parts of the new restriction makes it funktion differently than > before? Card text: "with a regular strike". > Old Concealed weapon: "The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or do more > than 4 damage." > > New Concealed weapon: "The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or inflict > (with a regular strike) aggravated damage or more than 3 damage" > > Does this new ruling mean that Black Cat now cannot conceal out a 3-pool > weapon? Can I now play Illegal Search and Seizure on Lazverinus with a > bastard sword? > ISaS: "You may burn one weapon that costs more than 2 pool or inflicts more > than 3 damage" No, it does not mean that. BC's card text says nothing about "with a regular strike". Likewise ISaS. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D219251...@white-wolf.com... (snip) > No, it does not mean that. BC's card text says nothing about "with a regular > strike". Likewise ISaS. What is a regular strike ? =)

[ quoted text not captured ] A normal strike by a regular minion. A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D219A48...@white-wolf.com... > reyda wrote: > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:3D219251...@white-wolf.com... > > (snip) > > > No, it does not mean that. BC's card text says nothing about "with a > > regular > > > strike". Likewise ISaS. > > > > What is a regular strike ? =) > > A normal strike by a regular minion. > > A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a > non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon > in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions. Will the definition of "regular" strike will be put in the rulebook ? =)

reyda wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3D219A48...@white-wolf.com... > > reyda wrote: > > > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > news:3D219251...@white-wolf.com... > > > (snip) > > > > No, it does not mean that. BC's card text says nothing about "with a > > > regular > > > > strike". Likewise ISaS. > > > > > > What is a regular strike ? =) > > > > A normal strike by a regular minion. > > > > A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a > > non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon > > in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions. > > Will the definition of "regular" strike will be put in the rulebook ? =) Rulebook glossary: Regular: regular ? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Will the definition of "regular" strike will be put in the rulebook ? =) > Rulebook glossary: > Regular: regular You really can be infuriating at times, Scott... This definition, the definition that you just posted: "A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions." appears nowhere in the rulebook. And it is not at all intuitive. Perhaps it is to you because you're the rulemonger but it isn't to us. Since the above definition has great relevance to the game and particularly to Concealed Weapon, it would behoove you to add it into the rulebook lest you actually want to be bombarded by a ton of questions about it after release. This is exactly what I was saying before with that whole Masika issue. It is not at all intuitive and your definition in that case cannot be implied by the card text. It *needs* to be documented somewhere. Sorrow

Sorrow wrote: > > > > Will the definition of "regular" strike will be put in the rulebook ? =) > > Rulebook glossary: > > Regular: regular > > You really can be infuriating at times, Scott... Note the smilie at the end of his post to get a sense of the tone involved. > This definition, the definition that you just posted: > > "A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a > non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon > in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions." > > appears nowhere in the rulebook. And it is not at all intuitive. Perhaps it Not "at all" intuitive? Regular means non-special, non-modified is not intuitive in any sense? That's difficult to believe. > is to you because you're the rulemonger but it isn't to us. Since the above > definition has great relevance to the game and particularly to Concealed > Weapon, it would behoove you to add it into the rulebook lest you actually > want to be bombarded by a ton of questions about it after release. > > This is exactly what I was saying before with that whole Masika issue. It > is not at all intuitive and your definition in that case cannot be implied by > the card text. It *needs* to be documented somewhere. Well, it's now on google. If more than a handful of players express confusion over the concept, it may be added elsewhere. For now, however, the clutter is kept to a minimum. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > You really can be infuriating at times, Scott... > Note the smilie at the end of his post to get a sense of the tone involved. Yes, my bad. There should have been a smiley there. Here it is. :p heheheh. Though, your answers can be frustrating at times. > > This definition, the definition that you just posted: > > "A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a > > non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon > > in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions." > > appears nowhere in the rulebook. And it is not at all intuitive. Perhaps it > Not "at all" intuitive? No it isn't, otherwise questions wouldn't be asked. > Regular means non-special, non-modified is not intuitive in any sense? No, it isn't. See Lazverinus. His regular strikes hit for 3. They aren't modified by anything other than his special. So, if he strikes with the Bastard Sword w/o Lucky Blow or Dawn Op he is hitting for 4. While Lupo with the same sword only strikes for 2. So, can Lazverinus equip a Bastard Sword with CE? Some would say "Yes, becasue the Sword itself only gives +1" but others would say "No because when he strikes he's doing 4 which is clearly not allowed by CE". So which is it? Because of things like that, it isn't intuitive. > That's difficult to believe. See above. > > This is exactly what I was saying before with that whole Masika issue. It > > is not at all intuitive and your definition in that case cannot be implied by > > the card text. It *needs* to be documented somewhere. > Well, it's now on google. Actually, it's only referenced on Google. In case anyone else is curious, Masika's text doesn't mean what it says. There actually is no "between turns" phase. Because of that, what Masika *really* means is that he untaps at the end of a meth's discard phase. I'd love for someone to tell me _that_ is intuitive. > If more than a handful of players express confusion over the concept, it > may be added elsewhere. For now, however, the clutter is kept to a minimum. Clutter to a minimum? All you need to do is add to the rulebook that there is no "between turns" phase; that it's *always* someone's turn. That will keep players from using cards illegally (tapping Dreams between turns, for instance) and keep the furor of realizing that one of the strategies you've built your deck around doesn't actually work and only because some obscure ruling in cyberspace said so. Sorrow --- "Just once I'd like a childhood memory I don't have to repress." - Malcolm

Sorrow wrote: > > > > You really can be infuriating at times, Scott... > > Note the smilie at the end of his post to get a sense of the tone involved. > > Yes, my bad. There should have been a smiley there. Here it is. :p > heheheh. Though, your answers can be frustrating at times. > > > > This definition, the definition that you just posted: > > > "A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a > > > non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon > > > in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions." > > > appears nowhere in the rulebook. And it is not at all intuitive. Perhaps it > > Not "at all" intuitive? > > No it isn't, otherwise questions wouldn't be asked. I've seen enough questions about other things to know that that "otherwise" is not true. :-) > > > Regular means non-special, non-modified is not intuitive in any sense? > > No, it isn't. See Lazverinus. His regular strikes hit for 3. They aren't modified > by anything other than his special. So, if he strikes with the Bastard Sword > w/o Lucky Blow or Dawn Op he is hitting for 4. While Lupo with the same sword > only strikes for 2. So, can Lazverinus equip a Bastard Sword with CE? Some > would say "Yes, becasue the Sword itself only gives +1" but others would say > "No because when he strikes he's doing 4 which is clearly not allowed by CE". > So which is it? Because of things like that, it isn't intuitive. > > > That's difficult to believe. > > See above. How much damage does a Bastard Sword do with a regular strike? (You'll note that this is the phraseology used on CW - not something that would involve questions about the minion using it or the target of the strike or the relation between the two or strike modifiers or combat modifiers in effect). > > > This is exactly what I was saying before with that whole Masika issue. It > > > is not at all intuitive and your definition in that case cannot be implied by > > > the card text. It *needs* to be documented somewhere. > > Well, it's now on google. > > Actually, it's only referenced on Google. > In case anyone else is curious, Masika's text doesn't mean what it says. There > actually is no "between turns" phase. Because of that, what Masika *really* means > is that he untaps at the end of a meth's discard phase. > I'd love for someone to tell me _that_ is intuitive. No need. Players who treat the effect as happening in some non-existent "between turns" phase end up with the same result. It was badly worded. Not the same as intuive, by any means. But the effect is so inconsequential as to warrant no text in the ERC list. > > If more than a handful of players express confusion over the concept, it > > may be added elsewhere. For now, however, the clutter is kept to a minimum. > > Clutter to a minimum? All you need to do is add to the rulebook that there is no > "between turns" phase; that it's *always* someone's turn. That will keep players > from using cards illegally (tapping Dreams between turns, for instance) and keep > the furor of realizing that one of the strategies you've built your deck around doesn't > actually work and only because some obscure ruling in cyberspace said so. Or add nothing. Note on tapping DotS "between turns": It only grants +2 hand size until the end of the "current turn". Therefore there must be a current turn. Card text is all that's necessary to clear that one case up - not some obscure ruling in cyberspace. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3D219251...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >Henrik Isaksson wrote: >> >> ? Is this a reversal of: >> >> A weapon's "current damage" is the amount of damage that the weapon would >> inflict if used as a strike by bearer against a generic opponent. (This >> affects Concealed Weapon, Illegal Search and Seizure, and Machine Blitz). >> [RTR 19980623] > >No. > >> Which parts of the new restriction makes it funktion differently than >> before? > >Card text: "with a regular strike". Lazverinus' regular strike is hands, though, for 3 damage. It seems more than just a bit inconsistent, having gone to all the trouble to set up the concepts of "base strength", "strength+x" damage, the definition of "hand strike", etc., and having had a Rules Team ruling on a highly similar issue in the past, to now overturn that precedent based on...? -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

[ quoted text not captured ] Card text. Here's a question: How much damage does a Bastard Sword do with a regular strike? (Pretend a newbie asked you about that having heard you mention the card but without reference to any minion, combat, game, or deck). Card text on CW: "The *weapon* cannot ... inflict (with a regular strike) ... more than 3 damage." Lazvernius's special ability doesn't come into play when determining what a weapon will inflict with a regular strike. The default strength is 1. A minion with a strength of other than 1 is the exception, not the norm. When evaluating a "regular strike", use the regular, not the abnormal. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3D21BC61...@white-wolf.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, I would probably have answered: That depends on who's holding it, but it will do strength+1 damage. > (Pretend a newbie asked you about that having heard you mention > the card but without reference to any minion, combat, game, or > deck). > > Card text on CW: "The *weapon* cannot ... inflict (with a regular > strike) ... more than 3 damage." > > Lazvernius's special ability doesn't come into play when determining > what a weapon will inflict with a regular strike. The default strength > is 1. A minion with a strength of other than 1 is the exception, not > the norm. When evaluating a "regular strike", use the regular, not the > abnormal. If I would, without the help of a rulemonger, try to make a ruling on the "regular strike" part of CW, I would say that it means the damage the holder of the weapon would do with a regular strike against a regular opponent, i.e. Lazverinus would do 4 damage with a bastard sword, and Fidus, the shrunken beast would do 1 damage with the same sword. Don't you think that this pretended newbie will have trouble gripping the, IMO, counter-intentuive explaination that Lazverinus can conceal a bastard sword, but you cannoy play ISaS on him if he has it? /Henrik Isaksson

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D21B307...@white-wolf.com... > > How much damage does a Bastard Sword do with a regular strike? > How much damage does Lazverinus using a Bastard Sword do with a regular strike? I assume you can see where the confusion lies. One could almost make an argument that a Bastard Sword only does 1 damage and the rest of the damage comes from the strength of the minion. Meaning, without some sort of ruling on what a "regular strike" is, one could reasonably guess that a Bastard Sword, for purposes of Concealed Weapon, dealt 1 damage, 2 damage, or damage based on the minion it is put on.

Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3D21B307...@white-wolf.com... > > > > How much damage does a Bastard Sword do with a regular strike? > > > How much damage does Lazverinus using a Bastard Sword do with a regular strike? > I assume you can see where the confusion lies. Of course. Fortunately, CW only refers to the former. Card text. > One could almost make an argument that a Bastard Sword only does 1 damage and > the rest of the damage comes from the strength of the minion. Meaning, without > some sort of ruling on what a "regular strike" is, one could reasonably guess > that a Bastard Sword, for purposes of Concealed Weapon, dealt 1 damage, 2 > damage, or damage based on the minion it is put on. One could, if the default strength were 0 instead of 1, sure. [ quoted text not captured ]

Henrik Isaksson wrote: > If I would, without the help of a rulemonger, try to make a ruling on the > "regular strike" part of CW, I would say that it means the damage the holder > of the weapon would do with a regular strike against a regular opponent, > i.e. Lazverinus would do 4 damage with a bastard sword, and Fidus, the > shrunken beast would do 1 damage with the same sword. Why make a special case for the holder and not his opponent or the current combat modifiers? CW is a combat card, after all. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3D21DCD7...@white-wolf.com... > Henrik Isaksson wrote: > > If I would, without the help of a rulemonger, try to make a ruling on the > > "regular strike" part of CW, I would say that it means the damage the holder > > of the weapon would do with a regular strike against a regular opponent, > > i.e. Lazverinus would do 4 damage with a bastard sword, and Fidus, the > > shrunken beast would do 1 damage with the same sword. > > Why make a special case for the holder and not his opponent or the current > combat modifiers? CW is a combat card, after all. > Why make a special case out of CW, and not ISaS? /henrik isaksson

[ quoted text not captured ] You've seen the Camarilla Edition ISaS? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3D21BC61...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> Lazverinus' regular strike is hands, though, for 3 damage. >> >> It seems more than just a bit inconsistent, having gone to all the >> trouble to set up the concepts of "base strength", "strength+x" damage, >> the definition of "hand strike", etc., and having had a Rules Team >> ruling on a highly similar issue in the past, to now overturn that >> precedent based on...? > >Card text. > >Here's a question: > >How much damage does a Bastard Sword do with a regular strike? The correct response is "Whose regular strike"? The default strike, as stated in the rulebook and in a number of other places, is "hands". Default is sufficiently similar to regular so that people can follow the connection. Hand strike damage amount is different depending on the strength of the striking minion; therefore unless you know something else about the regular strike, you don't know what a regular strike does even WITHOUT the bastard sword. >(Pretend a newbie asked you about that having heard you mention >the card but without reference to any minion, combat, game, or >deck). Just did. There is no "regular" strike as defined; the default strike (the only logical choice for finding something to match "regular") is hands-for-strength. The reason this matters is because allies have 0 default strength, and vampires have 1 default strength. >Lazvernius's special ability doesn't come into play when determining >what a weapon will inflict with a regular strike. The default strength >is 1. A minion with a strength of other than 1 is the exception, not >the norm. When evaluating a "regular strike", use the regular, not the >abnormal. Right. I'm using the default. I think the problem is that "strength" has been set up over the course of several rulings to be similar to an "attribute" of vampires, as opposed to just a "special" of +2. The special text is still there for Seeds of Corruption, etc., but the "base strength" concept has been poked around for some time. This seems to directly turn it around and shove it the other direction. [ quoted text not captured ]