First Strike vs Blood Fury

Will Blood Fury affect a weapon strike made at First Strike? > Name: Blood Fury > [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, CE:PTr4, BH:PTr2, KMW:PB3] > Cardtype: Combat > Cost: 1 blood > Discipline: Thaumaturgy > Only usable at close range. > [tha] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage. This damage cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude [for]. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage. > [THA] As above, but for strength+2 damage. > Suaku Inceptor Asian Continental Championship 興っ www.youtube.com/SuakuOz

> the1andonlime wrote: > Will Blood Fury affect a weapon strike made at First Strike? > > > Name: Blood Fury > > [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, CE:PTr4, BH:PTr2, KMW:PB3] > > Cardtype: Combat > > Cost: 1 blood > > Discipline: Thaumaturgy > > Only usable at close range. > > [tha] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage. This damage cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude [for]. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage. > > [THA] As above, but for strength+2 damage. > > No, unless the Blood Fury / Blood Rage strike is done with first strike. [LSJ 20040128]

I see a problem with this ruling by LSJ. Blood Fury's text creates a standing effect with its "if"-clause: "If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage." Normally such a stated effect is not retroactive. For instance, a minion who blocks and then equips with a Sniper Rifle using Concealed Weapon or Disguised Weapon can't use the Sniper Rifle's ability to set range to long because the Sniper Rifle was not in existence when the block occurred, and thus its text was not in effect. Sniper Rifle (relevant text extracted) ...If the bearer blocks an action, he or she may, before range is determined, set the range for the first round of the resulting combat to long... Like Sniper Rifle, Blood Fury has an "if"-clause. If Blood Fury's "if"-clause takes effect when Blood Fury resolves, then Blood Fury retroactively "looks at" the opposing minion's strike declaration. Normally the result of an effect with an "if"- or "when"-clause does not occur unless the effect was in play when the "if"- or "when" condition occurs. Blood Fury is an exception to this. Since Blood Fury retroactively looks at the opposing vampire's strike declaration to determine whether the vampire does damage during the damage resolution phase, logically it should not matter when that strike resolves. It should affect strikes made with First Strike. Illustration: Strike declaration: Vampire A declares a strike with a Baseball Bat for 2 damage. (He attempts to strike with a weapon.) Vampire B declares a strike with superior Blood Fury for 3 hand damage. Strike resolution: Non-damage effects of Blood Fury resolve. Although the "if the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon..." clause only now takes effect, as currently played it looks back at strike declaration. Damage resolution: Vampire A does no damage. Vampire B does 3 damage that cannot be prevented with cards that require Fortitude. What I'm really saying is that the text of Blood Fury, Blood Rage, and Soul Burn are not correctly written. They should say something to the effect of: "Damage from a weapon inflicted by an opposing vampire this round is reduced to 0." The effect from the strike should only affect the future game state (damage to resolve), not the past game state (strikes already declared).

your reasoning is ok, but the fact that the bat strike is done with first strike, means there are a "first strike resolution", and then a "regular strike resolution". Effects that are triggered by the "regular" strike card should not take place before the ones on the "first" strike card. But you are right, there is some kind of problme. For example, If minion A is acting. Blocked by minion B. Minion A plays sup Scorpion sting. Minion B, plays Backstab, then selects a dodge as his strike. Is the scorpion sting dodged ? since it took effect before the text on scorpion sting can kick in, or is there some kind of strange stuff resulting from the " *if* the opposing vampire blablah" on blood fury/blood rage ? That's what I really want to know right now > AaronC wrote: > What I'm really saying is that the text of Blood Fury, Blood Rage, and Soul Burn are not correctly written. > > They should say something to the effect of: > "Damage from a weapon inflicted by an opposing vampire this round is reduced to 0." > > The effect from the strike should only affect the future game state (damage to resolve), not the past game state (strikes already declared). > I kinda agree, but then the card text you propose would change the card. Imagine i am playing cele-stick. If your main combat card is blood fury, there is nothing i can do : as it is worded, even if i dodge your strike, i can never really harm your vampires with blur/stick. Because this card text affects you, not me, i can't use the old "dodge this, not affected by your card text". But i think that overall you have a point. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > your reasoning is ok, but the fact that the bat strike is done with first strike, means there are a "first strike resolution", and then a "regular strike resolution". > Effects that are triggered by the "regular" strike card should not take place before the ones on the "first" strike card. > I agree, but the way Blood Fury is actually played logically allows it. Blood Fury can go back in time before it resolves to check to see if a vampire declared a strike with a weapon. It checks the strike declaration phase of combat. Since a strike made with First Strike is declared at the same time as Combat Ends and normal strikes, there's no logical reason why the retroactive Blood Fury effect shouldn't affect it. Blood Fury doesn't check resolution, it checks declaration. > Reyda wrote: > For example, > If minion A is acting. > Blocked by minion B. > Minion A plays sup Scorpion sting. > Minion B, plays Backstab, then selects a dodge as his strike. > > Is the scorpion sting dodged ? since it took effect before the text on scorpion sting can kick in, or is there some kind of strange stuff resulting from the " *if* the opposing vampire blablah" on blood fury/blood rage ? > > That's what I really want to know right now > Interesting question. It cannot be dodged. Dodges resolve when the opposing strike resolves. It doesn't matter what priority the dodging minion has. > Reyda wrote: > Imagine i am playing cele-stick. > If your main combat card is blood fury, there is nothing i can do : as it is worded, even if i dodge your strike, i can never really harm your vampires with blur/stick. Because this card text affects you, not me, i can't use the old "dodge this, not affected by your card text". > Hmmm. OK, let's change what I wrote so that it explicitly affects the opposing minion, making it dodgeable. My suggestion: "The opposing vampire inflicts 0 damage with weapons this round." ??? I think that would affect currently unresolved damage because the text goes into effect before damage resolution. It would not affect First Strike damage from a weapon. It would be dodgeable.

> AaronC wrote: > Like Sniper Rifle, Blood Fury has an "if"-clause. If Blood Fury's "if"-clause takes effect when Blood Fury resolves, then Blood Fury retroactively "looks at" the opposing minion's strike declaration. > I don't get the part where you involve retroactivity. Is it the "attempts to strike" wording that would cause it? I agree "attempts" is unclear. My understanding of that word is that a minion "attempts to do X" between the moment he declares he's doing / he'll be doing X, and the moment when "doing X" is over. Applied here, that is: any moment from when the strike is declared till the strike is resolved, that minion is attempting to strike.

> Pascal wrote: > I don't get the part where you involve retroactivity. > Is it the "attempts to strike" wording that would cause it? > > I agree "attempts" is unclear. My understanding of that word is that a minion "attempts to do X" between the moment he declares he's doing / he'll be doing X, and the moment when "doing X" is over. Applied here, that is: any moment from when the strike is declared till the strike is resolved, that minion is attempting to strike. > See how you don't say "any moment from when the strike is declared till the strike is resolved, that minion attempts to strike"? "is attempting" and "attempts" are different. The way it sounds to me as a (sorry) native English-speaker is that the attempt is an act that happens at one moment in time. This is important for "if"-clauses as I showed in the example of the Sniper Rifle. A QUESTION OF GRAMMAR "I strike with a Baseball Bat." "I strike with Blood Fury. If you attempt to strike with a weapon, you deal no damage. Do you attempt to strike with a weapon?" "I thought I already had." For the "if"-clause of Blood Fury to relate back to an act that has already happened, the text should use the perfect aspect of the verb. That means the text would say "If the opposing vampire has attempted to strike with a weapon..." This feels the best to me, but it's less succinct than the current version since you would still have to keep text to cover additional strikes with a weapon. If you feel that "to attempt" covers the span of time between declaration and resolution, then you could use the progressive aspect of the verb: "If the opposing vampire is attempting to strike with a weapon this round..." However, I think the use of the word "attempt" to describe the act of striking in VTES combat should be reconsidered. Unlike an action or a block attempt, an "attempted" strike cannot fail, and likewise, it cannot succeed. How can you attempt something that can neither fail nor succeed? Once declared and not cancelled, a strike generates an effect. That effect may change before it resolves. That effect might not happen because it is dodged or because combat ends before it resolves. Regardless of the outcome, we do not speak in terms of the strike's success or failure, simply of its effect and whether or not the effect occurs.

> AaronC wrote: > A QUESTION OF GRAMMAR > "I strike with a Baseball Bat." > "I strike with Blood Fury. If you attempt to strike with a weapon, you deal no damage. Do you attempt to strike with a weapon?" > "I thought I already had." > I don't know what inspired you this, but it seem to not be how it is actually resolved. The correct order is : "I declare my strike is a baseball bat hit" "I declare my strike is a blood fury" Then, both attempt to strike at the same time. So no retroactivity, or at least not in the sense you say.

Uhh. No. I know my post was long, but you obviously did not read the whole thing and I feel a little insulted. The point I brought up that you failed to explicitly address is that it is not logically possible to attempt something that can neither fail nor succeed. You are presuming that the text of Blood Fury, Blood Rage, et al. means that strike resolution is the same thing as "attempting to strike". Please think it over. I was taking some creative license, so I'll do it technically correctly. Strike declaration "My strike is 2 damage with the Baseball Bat". "My strike is 3 hand damage with superior Blood Fury for one blood. This damage cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude. If you, an opposing vampire, attempt to strike with a weapon this round, you do no damage." Strike resolution "Damage from Blood Fury cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude. If you, an opposing vampire, attempt to strike with a weapon this round, you do no damage." "Luckily I already have!" Damage resolution "I take 3"/"I take 0". "Huh?"/"Yeah."

> AaronC wrote: > Uhh. No. I know my post was long, but you obviously did not read the whole thing and I feel a little insulted. > I did read it, but everything fall apart once thing are done simultaneously and not sequentially, so I just take the important part. I do not say that in a bad way, but more in a "if everything is resolved at the same time, there no reason to use a different time" > AaronC wrote: > The point I brought up that you failed to explicitly address is that it is not logically possible to attempt something that can neither fail nor succeed. You are presuming that the text of Blood Fury, Blood Rage, et al. means that strike resolution is the same thing as "attempting to strike". Please think it over. > What would be the problem with that ? It's a serious question. I don't see in the rule a gap between attempting a strike and resolving it, and I don't see card that work on the assumption of such a gap. The only thing I see is that resolution is simultaneous.

> AaronC wrote: > me as a (sorry) native English-speaker > Ah! Now they feel guilty about speaking English... my evil schemes work perfectly. > AaronC wrote: > The way it sounds to me as a (sorry) native English-speaker is that the attempt is an act that happens at one moment in time. This is important for "if"-clauses as I showed in the example of the Sniper Rifle. > The "if" clause of Sniper Rifle applies to a vampire successfully blocking, not to a vampire who successfully blocked - that is, the "bonus" of being able to set the range in the pre-range step is awarded on successful block, rather than during the pre-range step, checking if the minion has successfully blocked. Hence the ruling about Concealed Weapon not allowing you to disguise a range-setting Sniper Rfile. > AaronC wrote: > A QUESTION OF GRAMMAR > "I strike with a Baseball Bat." > "I strike with Blood Fury. If you attempt to strike with a weapon, you deal no damage. Do you attempt to strike with a weapon?" > "I thought I already had." > > For the "if"-clause of Blood Fury to relate back to an act that has already happened, the text should use the perfect aspect of the verb. That means the text would say "If the opposing vampire has attempted to strike with a weapon..." This feels the best to me, but it's less succinct than the current version since you would still have to keep text to cover additional strikes with a weapon. > Two things: First, you do realise that, if put the other way around (Carna is acting, Lazverinus is reacting) Carna - "I strike with Blood Fury, do you attempt to strike with a weapon" Lazverinus - "Well, then, I won't choose that Basebal Bat of mine" would have, per your reading, a different effect than Lazverinus , acting - "I strike with Baseball Bat" Carna, reacting - "Well, I strike with Blood Fury, do you attempt to strike with a weapon?" Lazverinus - "I kindly decline playing Primal Instincts on that Brute Force in my hand." You are making Blood Fury / Blood Rage work differently whether the minion playing it *declares* their strike first or second (acting / reacting). (You're also making it extremely weak, but that's irrelevent). Also, but as far as I know, English grammar is quite flexible on that one, if we're using present tense with "attempts", we can't be referring to a future-world event (strike declaration of the reacting minion, which, as we know, is NOT simultaneous with the strike declaration of the acting minion), but should be using some future tense form ("will attempt") or some time indicators ("later"). I'll mark this topic red, and add for myself a reminder: change the "attempts" word on Blood Fury / Blood Rage / ... as it could be misleading.