Ghoul retainer

Has anybody read the text for Ghoul Retainer lately? It's a real mess: Ghoul Retainer Ghoul with 2 life. 1 strength. During the initial strike resolution each round, the Ghoul Retainer inflicts 1 damage or may use a weapon not used by the employing minion (or another retainer) that round (either before or after). This is not a strike, although it does count as "using" the weapon. Wouldn't it just be easier if the bolded text above said "or may inflict an amount of damage that a weapon on the employing minion would inflict" and call it a day? The current text has the same issues with implementation that Seeds of Corruption had, which was recently banned because of those issues. Ghoul Retainer just brings up way too many convoluted interactions. I realize the rewrite above isn't quite the same as what the card was designed to do, but how else would one fix this mess of card text?

Are you sure it's a pressing problem? Obviously you can't go with your solution because it'll allow retainer to use one shot weapons like bomb multiple times. I think the first step, if it's really needed, will be to remove "not a strike" clause. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Are you sure it's a pressing problem? > > Obviously you can't go with your solution because it'll allow retainer to use one shot weapons like bomb multiple times. > > I think the first step, if it's really needed, will be to remove "not a strike" clause. > Well, it's sloppy text that leads to problems with implementation. I consider this to be a problem. So, for the ghoul retainer to do 5 environmental damage during strike resolution, you have to employ the ghoul retainer, equip the bomb, and play anti-s:ce to make sure the damage lands. And there's still fortitude to deal with. Not sure I buy that this would be too powerful. Isn't potence combat still more effective than the above scenario?

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > Are you sure it's a pressing problem? > > > > Obviously you can't go with your solution because it'll allow retainer to use one shot weapons like bomb multiple times. > > > > I think the first step, if it's really needed, will be to remove "not a strike" clause. > > > Well, it's sloppy text that leads to problems with implementation. I consider this to be a problem. > > So, for the ghoul retainer to do 5 environmental damage during strike resolution, you have to employ the ghoul retainer, equip the bomb, and play anti-s:ce to make sure the damage lands. And there's still fortitude to deal with. Not sure I buy that this would be too powerful. Isn't potence combat still more effective than the above scenario? > Don't know will it be too powerful or not, but it totally will be stupid. NC Russia

Probably. But the text will make sense. That's important.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Probably. But the text will make sense. That's important. > By changing effect to stupid one you are not adding much sense to the card. NC Russia

I'd argue that Ghoul Retainer already has a stupid effect. And I concede that the rewrite introduces an equally stupid effect. Please look past whether the effect is stupid or not; there's a deeper issue here than replacing one stupid effect for another. The current text on Ghoul Retainer makes it very difficult to understand all of its interactions. There was a card that was recently banned because of issues with implementation (Seeds of Corruption). I'm arguing that Ghoul Retainer has those same issues with implementation. Having a card that is difficult to implement is a bad idea. That is my reason for the suggested change. I am not suggesting this change to introduce a hot new effect, it's to make the card understandable.

Ghoul retainer has nothing to do with Seeds of Corruption and his current effect is not stupid. NC Russia

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Ghoul Retainer > Ghoul with 2 life. 1 strength. > During the initial strike resolution each round, the Ghoul Retainer inflicts 1 damage or may use a weapon not used by the employing minion (or another retainer) that round (either before or after). This is not a strike, although it does count as "using" the weapon. > > Wouldn't it just be easier if the bolded text above said "or may inflict an amount of damage that a weapon on the employing minion would inflict" and call it a day? > It doesn't work for Rowan Ring for instance. > TwoRazorReign wrote: > The current text has the same issues with implementation that Seeds of Corruption had, which was recently banned because of those issues. > Not quite. Seeds of Corruption refered to "special abilities" that are not defined in the rules and can't be easily defined. I don't see the problem here with Ghoul Retainer, there's no ambiguity. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Rowan Ring doesn't inflict damage, so 0 damage. As to your second point: "using"a weapon is not defined in the rulebook either. If you can't point to a section in the rulebook that clearly explains what "using" a weapon is, then ambiguity exists. Just as it did for Seeds of Corruption.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Rowan Ring doesn't inflict damage, so 0 damage. > > As to your second point: "using"a weapon is not defined in the rulebook either. If you can't point to a section in the rulebook that clearly explains what "using" a weapon is, then ambiguity exists. Just as it did for Seeds of Corruption. > Can you point out a real example in which the card is ambiguous? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

The counters on Weighted Walking Stick would be burned if used by Ghoul Retainer. Therefore, "using" a weapon is considered a strike in certain situations. This is ambiguous. Weighted Walking Stick Only usable before range is determined on the first round. Put this card on this minion and put 5 counters on this card. While in play, this card represents a melee weapon (equipment) that does strength +1 damage each strike. For each point of damage inflicted by this strike (even if prevented), remove a counter from this card. Burn this card when it has no counters. A minion can have only one Weighted Walking Stick. Ghoul Retainer Ghoul with 2 life. 1 strength. During the initial strike resolution each round, the Ghoul Retainer inflicts 1 damage or may use a weapon not used by the employing minion (or another retainer) that round (either before or after). This is not a strike, although it does count as "using" the weapon.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > The counters on Weighted Walking Stick would be burned if used by Ghoul Retainer. Therefore, "using" a weapon is considered a strike in certain situations. This is ambiguous. > The designer intent behind the Ghoul Retainer is to use unused weapons in an environmental way, that is: - the effect can't be dodged (it's not a strike) - the damage can't be prevented by cards that mention damage inflicted "by the opposing minion" Otherwise, using the weapon (that is usually using the strike provided by a weapon) works the same way as if it had been used by the bearer. I'll see if the cardtext can be made a bit clearer. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I'm aware of the designer intent. There isn't really a way to clarify how Ghoul Retainer should work the way the designers intended it without ambiguity being introduced in certain situations, as exemplified with Weighted Walking Stick. It may be time to start examining areas where some of the original designer intent should be changed or removed from the game, as was done for Seeds of Corruption. I firmly believe that Ghoul Retainer is one of these instances. The effect just doesn't fit into the game elegantly enough. And It's by far not the only example.

Hi folks, Playing a game in which vampire A has a ghoul retainer, in combat with vampire B. Vampire B is long and strikes with his magnum. Vampire A wants his ghoul retainer to inflict 1 damage at long as in cardtext, the mention "inflicts 1 damage on the opposing minion each round of combat during normal strike resolution at close range" doesnt exists like with other retainers of that type (Wolf Companion, ...). On the other hand all other retainers inflincting damage at long range specify clearly that they do ranged damages (Murder of Crows)... Is a Ghoul retainer able to inflict damages at long range without any weapons? Thanks for your help! Ghoul Retainer Ghoul with 2 life. 1 strength. During the initial strike resolution each round, the Ghoul Retainer inflicts 1 damage or may use a weapon not used by the employing minion (or another retainer) that round (either before or after). This is not a strike, although it does count as "using" the weapon. Murder of Crows Animal with 1 life. i Murder of Crows inflicts 1R damage on the opposing minion each round of combat during normal strike resolution. I As above, but Murder of Crows has 2 life. Wolf Companion Animal with 2 life. i When the minion with this retainer is in combat, the opposing minion takes 1 damage during strike resolution (if the range is close). I As above, but Wolf Companion has 3 life.

> Thetmes wrote: > Playing a game in which vampire A has a ghoul retainer, in combat with vampire B. > > Vampire B is long and strikes with his magnum. Vampire A wants his ghoul retainer to inflict 1 damage at long as in cardtext, the mention "inflicts 1 damage on the opposing minion each round of combat during normal strike resolution at close range" doesnt exists like with other retainers of that type (Wolf Companion, ...). > > On the other hand all other retainers inflincting damage at long range specify clearly that they do ranged damages (Murder of Crows)... > > Is a Ghoul retainer able to inflict damages at long range without any weapons? > No, it inflicts 1 damage during the strike resolution, which has no effect at long range. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Damage inflicted as part of a strike resolution effect is affected by range, meaning if it isn´t explicitly R damage it is only inflicted when at close range. [LSJ 20020104]

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I'm aware of the designer intent. There isn't really a way to clarify how Ghoul Retainer should work the way the designers intended it without ambiguity being introduced in certain situations, as exemplified with Weighted Walking Stick. It may be time to start examining areas where some of the original designer intent should be changed or removed from the game, as was done for Seeds of Corruption. I firmly believe that Ghoul Retainer is one of these instances. The effect just doesn't fit into the game elegantly enough. And It's by far not the only example. > Hundred percent agreed. Some of the old clunky cards should be removed (either by ban or errata) so they don't cause rules issues in the future. Suggestion for errata for ghoul retainer: During the initial strike resolution each round, the Ghoul Retainer inflicts 1 damage or X ranged damage, where X is the amount of damage that one of the weapons equipped by the employer can inflict. (Yes, this would make the retainer strictly better, but I think this is acceptable because it requires equipping both the weapon AND having the retainer in order to do anything. And retainer can't be equipped with concealed weapon.. Its still clunky to use, and requires use of a weapon better than magnum in order to give any actual benefit (since it costs 2 pool). This might make the retainer playable which is a goal in itself.. ) Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech