Reconfirm - Heroic Might (the 2R) and Increased Strength

Always find these gems that blow my mind (because I thought it was the opposite). So increased strength affects the 2R strike from Heroic Might? groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/e2PNDpg-l_c/wqEDxGHKJQgJ Its not the Rulings section so just wanted to make sure...

> erewego wrote: > Always find these gems that blow my mind (because I thought it was the opposite). > > So increased strength affects the 2R strike from Heroic Might? > > groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/e2PNDpg-l_c/wqEDxGHKJQgJ > > Its not the Rulings section so just wanted to make sure... > Seriously? That makes no sense. Well, kinda it does, if you think about it in a weird and twisted way, but my reasoning would be that playing Heroic Might requires Potence, but the strike comes from the table; you don't have to have potence to use Heroic Might (in case you magically got it some other way, like temporarily having Hand of Conrad). So, basically, I'd argue the strike doesn't require potence. Then again, no one cares for my opinion on official rulings, so there... I'd really like to hear what's official on this. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

i think it makes perfect sense Prince of Dallas Toreador Grand Ball: Dallas August 13, 2022

> Kraus wrote: > Then again, no one cares for my opinion on official rulings, so there... > Join the club, kiddo. You can certainly argue it both ways. However, I agree with you, Kraus. The strike does not require . It requires that the minion have the Heroic Might card. As you said, it is possible for a minion to make that strike without having . Vampires with the Eye of Hazimel or Sword of Troile could also gain the Heroic Might card (superior version) and subsequently lose the equipment that gives them . In a fluffy, not strictly-hewing-to-the-logic-of-the-language kind of way, sure, Increased Strength works with the 2R strike from Heroic Might.

> Kraus wrote: > [I'd really like to hear what's official on this. > You mean that LSJ's rulings aren't official any more? Pascal hasn't gone stampeding all over LSJ rulings previously, so why should he do it with this card? Usage of Increased Strength with Heroic Might could be argued for both sides but the guy who designed Heroic Might though it would work with Increased Strength. Does anyone think this combo has been widely and abusively misused? Finnish Politics!

> Does anyone think this combo has been widely and abusively misused? > Is this relevant? I just remember this gem of a thread where Scott made this nonsensical ruling and nobody -including himself- could explain why this specific card works different than basically every other card in the game.

I think it require potence therefore deal 4 when combined with increased strength even if the vampire does not have potence anymore. It's strike granted by card that require potence which deal damage. The strike does not come from the table, it comes from card requiring potence, Klaus. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

If you can use the strike without having potence, then it's clearly not a strike requiring potence. Because, ya know, if it was, then you would need to have potence to use it. It's not rocket science.

For the sake of argument, I agree with Izaak that it shouldn't be the case but I guess if LSJ ruled it, and Pascal doesnt want to change it. Then thats it, I guess we all have to deal with the fact that heroic might's 2R damage would be enhanced by increased strength.

And if you don't have potence anymore... how are you playing increased strength in the first place?

Nobody said about him not having potence. That was in the old discussion, if a weenie had superior potence from say a hand of conrad or something and lost it. Izaak and I are not referring to that specific scenario. It is a vamp with superior potence having heroic might already, and playing increased strength to augment his 2R damage.

> Izaak wrote: > > > Does anyone think this combo has been widely and abusively misused? > > > Is this relevant? > > I just remember this gem of a thread where Scott made this nonsensical ruling and nobody -including himself- could explain why this specific card works different than basically every other card in the game. > You are madly mistaken. LSJ's explanation at the link is absoluteley clear and consistent. Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.

You are madly mistaken yourself. The ruling is clear, sure. Nobody said it wasn't. It is however, as inconsistent and nonsensical as it gets. Which can clearly be seen if one would read the entire thread, where vincent (Ankha here) repeatedly provides examples of similar cards that, under this silly ruling, would have to function the same and yet Scott keeps saying no to all of them. It shouldn't be hard to understand, really, but I'll try again: If you can do X without having potence, then X is NOT something that requires potence. Unless you want to argue that wearing shoes is a requirement for walking, in which case you are as lost as LSJ was when he made that ruling. Is it *really* that hard to understand?

Requiring "potence" does not define the timing by itself. As Heroic might has required potence when using it, the strike it provides "is requiring potence" at the point of playing Heroic might. I do not tell that is the most logical way to interpret this, but the first thing to be established in discusions like these should be the sense behind the status quo. Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> Klaital wrote: > And if you don't have potence anymore... how are you playing increased strength in the first place? > simple example : I have gwen brand (no native potence), anarch, with the eye of hazimel. I rush a vampire. Before range, i play increased strength, then improvised tactics. my opponent plays drawing out the beast (or terror frenzy, who cares) thus preventing the further use of equipment -and depriving me of potence. As the acting vampire, i don't have access to potence anymore. But the cards i played are requiring potence -And i already played them. I can strike for 4R damage. The same logic can be applied to heroic might. This card provides a 2R strike that, indisputably, comes from a card that *is* a potence card. One logic is of the same value as the other one. The same way one can claim you cannot tap what is already tapped. But the rulings decided that one way works, not the others, that from the many possible explanations, one was chosen. You can find a lot of reasoning in refuting a ruling, sure, but instead let's be the bigger man and accept that choice, because at some point a choice had to be made. I was a nit picker for a long time before realizing that, sometime, there is a choice, you live with it even if by *your* logic, it's not the one you would have prefered. does it all make sense now ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

The logic is that LSJ wanted it to work that way, but he was unwilling to issue an errata to the card text to make the language of the card match his intention. If you are both the head designer and rules authority, it is easy to retroactively make cards do what you want them to do if you missed something in design. Just say in a post someplace that the text of the card means X. Voilà! Since you're the authority, that's what it means. We happened to cover legislative history today in a legal research class I'm taking. Legislation could be compared to card design and judicial review to rules authority. The question arises as to whether courts should consider legislative intent when interpreting statute or whether they should only read what the text of the statute says. Justice Scalia was quoted from a SCOTUS opinion: "The only thing that was authoritatively adopted for sure was the text of the enactment; the rest is necessarily speculation." Since LSJ was both the legislator (designer) and judge (rules authority), he was in no means limited to the "text of the enactment". The text could mean whatever he wanted it to mean after it was printed. The problem with the management of this game is that players can never trust what the card says because of cases like this - we have to know how to do Google searches for obscure rulings. Cards usually mean exactly what they say, but sometimes they don't.

> Izaak wrote: > You are madly mistaken yourself. The ruling is clear, sure. Nobody said it wasn't. It is however, as inconsistent and nonsensical as it gets. > > Which can clearly be seen if one would read the entire thread, where vincent (Ankha here) repeatedly provides examples of similar cards that, under this silly ruling, would have to function the same and yet Scott keeps saying no to all of them. > > It shouldn't be hard to understand, really, but I'll try again: > > If you can do X without having potence, then X is NOT something that requires potence. > > Unless you want to argue that wearing shoes is a requirement for walking, in which case you are as lost as LSJ was when he made that ruling. > > Is it *really* that hard to understand? > It's not at all hard to understand, which is why it's weird that you don't understand. Inapt analogies (what you call "similar cards", which are not very similar at all) are irrelevant. As is being pointed out by other folks, justifications for a contrary ruling do not constitute evidence of your claim that the ruling is illogical or inconsistent. It is logical and it is consistent. Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.

Just to be clear, though, I think LSJ's ruling is unfortunate and I would welcome its reversal, as long as the reversal was precise and logical. Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.

> Molloy wrote: > Just to be clear, though, I think LSJ's ruling is unfortunate and I would welcome its reversal, as long as the reversal was precise and logical. > I'd like to know what you believe would be "precise and logical", given that you want the ruling reversed. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> It's not at all hard to understand, which is why it's weird that you don't understand. Inapt analogies (what you call "similar cards", which are not very similar at all) are irrelevant. As is being pointed out by other folks, justifications for a contrary ruling do not constitute evidence of your claim that the ruling is illogical or inconsistent. It is logical and it is consistent. > It is logical in the same way that it's logical that shoes are a requirement for for walking and it's consistent in the sense that it's the only card that follows this abomination of a ruling and is thus consistent with itself. Sure. (Also, Vincent's Echo of Harmonies example was in fact spot on).

> KevinM wrote: > > > Molloy wrote: > > Just to be clear, though, I think LSJ's ruling is unfortunate and I would welcome its reversal, as long as the reversal was precise and logical. > > > I'd like to know what you believe would be "precise and logical", given that you want the ruling reversed. > Maybe something like this: If a card in play (as opposed to a card being played) provides an effect that can be used by a minion not having the discipline or trait that was required to put the card into play, then that effect is not considered to require that discipline or trait. Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.

Q: Why should Increased Strength work on Heroic Might's ranged strike? A: Because it is awesome.

Q: Why should Increased Strength work on Heroic Might's ranged strike? A: Are you gonna tell someone with superior potence that it doesn't?

> erewego wrote: > Always find these gems that blow my mind (because I thought it was the opposite). > > So increased strength affects the 2R strike from Heroic Might? > > groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/e2PNDpg-l_c/wqEDxGHKJQgJ > > Its not the Rulings section so just wanted to make sure... > Reconfirmed, so far. If anything should happen to this one, I'll post a reply to this message.

> Klaital wrote: > And if you don't have potence anymore... how are you playing increased strength in the first place? > Increased Str, enemy canine horde your hand of conrad, additional strike with heroic might. Easy. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.