Dam the Heart's River and Catatonic Fear

Is the 1 damage from Catatonic Fear still considered to have been inflicted in this combat? In other words, if I play both at superior, does the opposing vampire take one or two points of damage if he doesn't Dodge (or do something extraordinary)? Catatonic Fear Type: Combat Requires: Presence Cost: 1 blood Strike: combat ends. As above, and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once combat ends if the range is close. Dam the Heart's River Type: Combat Requires: Quietus Frenzy. Only usable before range is determined. A vampire can play only one Dam the Heart's River each combat. [qui] This combat, each strike or damaging effect made against the opposing minion inflicts +1 damage. [QUI] As above, and this combat, strikes cost the opposing minion 1 additional blood or life, and the opposing minion can choose not to strike.

Dam gives +1 damage to the strike. It doesn't have to resolve during the combat Same thing works with Target Vitals. groups.google.com/d/topic/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/plqseTAyBJo/discussion Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Hi Ankha, Can you update and clarify this post? Official ruling is here: www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/68512-dam-the-heart-s-river-and-dagon-s-call?limitstart=0#71260 I have a deck playing Target Vitals, Dam, Outside the Hourglass and Catatonic Fear -- only part I need to clarify is the Dam + Catatonic Fear part. (or for folks who want to do a Loving Agony + Dam the Heart's River deck in the future...) Thanks!

I thought it was clear: Dam gives +1 damage to the Catatonic Fear strike since it was "made against the opposing minion" when Dam was active. (The "in combat" part indicates that the effect lasts for the combat, not just the round which is the default duration). When the Catatonic Fear strike resolves, it ends combats, then inflicts 1+1 damage. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Is there a reason why Catatonic Fear doesn't say "this strike inflicts 1 damage after combat ends if this strike was made at close range"?

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Is there a reason why Catatonic Fear doesn't say "this strike inflicts 1 damage after combat ends if this strike was made at close range"? > What difference would you see? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > Is there a reason why Catatonic Fear doesn't say "this strike inflicts 1 damage after combat ends if this strike was made at close range"? > > > What difference would you see? > That the damage is from the strike. In the current text, it's unclear who or what is inflicting damage. " Strike: combat ends. As above, and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once combat ends if the range is close."

> Ankha wrote: > I thought it was clear: Dam gives +1 damage to the Catatonic Fear strike since it was "made against the opposing minion" when Dam was active. (The "in combat" part indicates that the effect lasts for the combat, not just the round which is the default duration). When the Catatonic Fear strike resolves, it ends combats, then inflicts 1+1 damage. > So just to be extra clear; are you overruling Pascal's ruling below? > Pascal wrote: > Catatonic Fear's damage isn't "boosted" by Dam the Heart's River, as it isn't inflicted "this combat", but "once this combat ends" (== "after combat ends"). So, your math is correct 2 (OtH) + 1 (DtHB) + 1 (CF) = 4 damage - but not 4+1(DtHB). > Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Pascal's would appear to be wrong looking at the rulings of Nephandus and Cataonic Fear [Nephandus reduces Catatonic damage] Nephandus (Mage) Type: Ally Requires: Tremere antitribu Cost: 2 pool Mage with 2 life. 0 strength, 1 bleed. The Nephandus may strike for 1R damage. The Nephandus gets an optional press each combat. Each strike or damaging effect made against the Nephandus by the opposing minion during combat inflicts 1 less damage. The Nephandus may burn a vampire in torpor to gain 1 life as a action.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Is there a reason why Catatonic Fear doesn't say "this strike inflicts 1 damage after combat ends if this strike was made at close range"? > > > > > What difference would you see? > > > That the damage is from the strike. In the current text, it's unclear who or what is inflicting damage. > > " Strike: combat ends. > > As above, and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once combat ends if the range is close." > Superior effect is a strike (you can replace the "As above" part by "Strike: combat ends"), so it's clear the damage is inflicted by the strike. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ke. wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > I thought it was clear: Dam gives +1 damage to the Catatonic Fear strike since it was "made against the opposing minion" when Dam was active. (The "in combat" part indicates that the effect lasts for the combat, not just the round which is the default duration). When the Catatonic Fear strike resolves, it ends combats, then inflicts 1+1 damage. > > > So just to be extra clear; are you overruling Pascal's ruling below? > > > Pascal wrote: > > Catatonic Fear's damage isn't "boosted" by Dam the Heart's River, as it isn't inflicted "this combat", but "once this combat ends" (== "after combat ends"). So, your math is correct 2 (OtH) + 1 (DtHB) + 1 (CF) = 4 damage - but not 4+1(DtHB). > > > Squidalot wrote: > Pascal's would appear to be wrong looking at the rulings of Nephandus and Cataonic Fear [Nephandus reduces Catatonic damage] > > Nephandus (Mage) > Type: Ally > Requires: Tremere antitribu > Cost: 2 pool > Mage with 2 life. 0 strength, 1 bleed. > The Nephandus may strike for 1R damage. The Nephandus gets an optional press each combat. Each strike or damaging effect made against the Nephandus by the opposing minion during combat inflicts 1 less damage. The Nephandus may burn a vampire in torpor to gain 1 life as a action. > Correct. groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/nvuXBpEaKAA/ymiC3yAQVOwJ As LSJ said: > > Pertinent card text: "Each strike". "During combat" modifies strike, not damage, and the strike was indeed made in combat (as all strikes are). > Catatonic Fear was "made" during the combat when Dam was active. The damage the strike inflicts is increased, even if it happens after combat. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > Is there a reason why Catatonic Fear doesn't say "this strike inflicts 1 damage after combat ends if this strike was made at close range"? > > > > > > > What difference would you see? > > > > > > > > That the damage is from the strike. In the current text, it's unclear who or what is inflicting damage. > > > > " Strike: combat ends. > > > > As above, and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once combat ends if the range is close." > > > Superior effect is a strike (you can replace the "As above" part by "Strike: combat ends"), so it's clear the damage is inflicted by the strike. > I hear what you are saying. But I think it's still necessary to clarify that the strike is inflicting the damage. Making a strike in combat and then inflicting the damage after combat is a really unique situation, and having as much clarity as possible is not a bad thing in this case.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > > Is there a reason why Catatonic Fear doesn't say "this strike inflicts 1 damage after combat ends if this strike was made at close range"? > > > > > > > > > What difference would you see? > > > > > > > > > > > That the damage is from the strike. In the current text, it's unclear who or what is inflicting damage. > > > > > > " Strike: combat ends. > > > > > > As above, and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once combat ends if the range is close." > > > > > > > > Superior effect is a strike (you can replace the "As above" part by "Strike: combat ends"), so it's clear the damage is inflicted by the strike. > > > I hear what you are saying. But I think it's still necessary to clarify that the strike is inflicting the damage. Making a strike in combat and then inflicting the damage after combat is a really unique situation, and having as much clarity as possible is not a bad thing in this case. > It is clear. It says Strike: Combat ends, and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once combat ends if the range is close Don't know why you would need the word strike repeated before the damage bit as the strike is obviously what is causing the damage

Why not repeat it for clarity? It's an unusual situation, no? Why wouldn't it follow the same template as other cards? Mercy for Seth [nec] Strike: put this card on the opposing minion. If this minion is a mortal, he or she is burned. During his or her untap phase, the minion with this card takes 1 unpreventable damage. The minion with this card may burn it as a +1 stealth action. [NEC] As above, and this strike inflicts 1 damage as well.

Because mercy for seth would not make grammatical sense if it did not have the word 'strike' in there. pre: Strike: combat ends. PRE: As above, and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once combat ends if the range is close. At PRE, you read that as:Strike: combat ends and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once combat ends if the range is close. What else could possibly be causing that damage? Compare that to Strike: put this card on the opposing minion. If this minion is a mortal, he or she is burned. During his or her untap phase, the minion with this card takes 1 unpreventable damage. The minion with this card may burn it as a +1 stealth action and this strike inflicts 1 damage as well. leaving out the word strike changes it to stating: Strike: put this card on the opposing minion. If this minion is a mortal, he or she is burned. During his or her untap phase, the minion with this card takes 1 unpreventable damage. The minion with this card may burn it as a +1 stealth action and inflicts 1 damage as well. See the difference now?

I wasn't suggesting to remove language from Mercy of Seth. Way to prove something nobody was arguing. Also, you're kind of proving my argument. > Blooded wrote: > Because mercy for seth would not make grammatical sense if it did not have the word 'strike' in there. > Catatonic Fear has the exact same grammar issue you allude to. "Strike: Combat Ends, and inflict one damage on the opposing minion..." The inferior and superior effect, when combined, are two independent clauses, and the subject is not stated in the second (superior) independent clause. Is the vampire inflicting the damage? Is it environmental damage that is inflicted? Is it the strike inflicting the damage? Mercy of Seth states the subject in both the inferior and superior clauses. and you're correct that removing the subject from the superior clause would make it not make sense. I'm arguing that not including the subject in the superior clause of Catatonic Fear makes it not make sense. You may disagree with my argument, but the fact remains there is a grammar issue on Catatonic Fear.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I wasn't suggesting to remove language from Mercy of Seth. Way to prove something nobody was arguing. Also, you're kind of proving my argument. > > > Blooded wrote: > > Because mercy for seth would not make grammatical sense if it did not have the word 'strike' in there. > > > Catatonic Fear has the exact same grammar issue you allude to. "Strike: Combat Ends, and inflict one damage on the opposing minion..." The inferior and superior effect, when combined, are two independent clauses, and the subject is not stated in the second (superior) independent clause. Is the vampire inflicting the damage? Is it environmental damage that is inflicted? Is it the strike inflicting the damage? Mercy of Seth states the subject in both the inferior and superior clauses. and you're correct that removing the subject from the superior clause would make it not make sense. I'm arguing that not including the subject in the superior clause of Catatonic Fear makes it not make sense. You may disagree with my argument, but the fact remains there is a grammar issue on Catatonic Fear. > Sorry mate, but I am becoming unsure as to whether you are just trolling or actually trying to understand the issue. CF does not have the same grammatical issue, as it states Strike, effects a,b and c. The subject is right there, and has no other syntactical elements between the subject and what is happening due to said subject. Lastly, I was trying to show you WHY the word strike is necessary in MfS, as removing it makes it have a completely different meaning, which is patently not the case for CF. MfS has Strike, other actions ad interactions, strike effect c. This is in no way the same.

Definitely not trolling. You think the language on catatonic fear doesn't lend itself to confusion, and that by using the logic you outline, the card text is clear. I disagree and believe there is a grammar issue that lends itself to confusion. I am not convinced by your argument, but I found our discussion to be fun. Sorry you think differently.

> Ankha wrote: > Superior effect is a strike (you can replace the "As above" part by "Strike: combat ends"), so it's clear the damage is inflicted by the strike. > Catatonic fear breaks from the usual template then. Almost all "as above, and..." templates repeat the subject. With Catatonic Fear, the subject ("this strike") needs to be included not only to follow the usual template, but also because not stating the subject could lead to confusion (are "you" inflicting the damage? Is the damage being inflicted environmental? Is the minion inflicting the damage? Is the strike inflicting the damage?)

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Catatonic fear breaks from the usual template then. Almost all "as above, and..." templates repeat the subject. > If you make such assertions, please back them up with card text. Catatonic fear breaks from the usual template then. With Catatonic Fear, the subject ("this strike") needs to be included not only to follow the usual template, but also because not stating the subject could lead to confusion (are "you" inflicting the damage? Is the damage being inflicted environmental? Is the minion inflicting the damage? Is the strike inflicting the damage?)[/quote] If i have a card that says: Strike: Combat ends, and inflict 1 damage on the opposing minion. What does the damage?

> Blooded wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > Catatonic fear breaks from the usual template then. Almost all "as above, and..." templates repeat the subject. > > > If you make such assertions, please back them up with card text. > Mercy of Seth. Perhaps I should pick a better example. HERE IS THE CARD TEXT Alacrity As above, and if this action is blocked... If this changed to "As above, and if blocked...", there's no syntax issues, but it becomes unclear what is being blocked (the action? The vampire? The minion?). There's a reason why "this action is" was included. The same template should be used on Catatonic Fear. > If i have a card that says: Strike: Combat ends, and inflict 1 damage on the opposing minion. > What does the damage? > Okay, i'll use your logic here: If I have a card that says +1 stealth, what is getting the stealth? Should we remove "this action is" from Alacrity?

The problem you are having is with card text. If you then name a card, the standard protocol is to quote the card. I am not copying texts for you every time because you are too lazy to do it yourself. Copy the text, then we can discuss.

> Blooded wrote: > The problem you are having is with card text. If you then name a card, the standard protocol is to quote the card. I am not copying texts for you every time because you are too lazy to do it yourself. Copy the text, then we can discuss. > Geez, settle down. Why so hostile? Because you realize your argument is wrong?

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Geez, settle down. Why so hostile? Because you realize your argument is wrong? > You are reading hostility where there is none. Remember, any emotion you read in text is most supplied by yourself. The standard protocol for queries regarding card text is to quote the card in question so as to avoid any unnecessary confusion. As the discussion is regarding confusion regarding card text, it seems meet to avoid any further confusion by being explicit regarding text in question. Make sense now?

> Blooded wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > Geez, settle down. Why so hostile? Because you realize your argument is wrong? > > > You are reading hostility where there is none. Remember, any emotion you read in text is most supplied by yourself. > > The standard protocol for queries regarding card text is to quote the card in question so as to avoid any unnecessary confusion. > > As the discussion is regarding confusion regarding card text, it seems meet to avoid any further confusion by being explicit regarding text in question. Make sense now? > The relevant part of the card text was included when I first posted it. I have since clarified where in bold text. Not sure why you are demanding card text instead of continuing the argument. It seems like you're mad/hostile/annoyed because you know I have a valid argument and you have no comeback other than to call me lazy. Consider just not replying next time if you have an issue with another poster's post.