The current book and the website no longer have a definition of environmental damage. Because there was a doubt between Nephandus and crows ... the players reply with the old book and say that it is not prevented by Nephandus. If so, why didn't they put environmental damage in the new book?
In new rulles Nephandus can reduce de crows damage effect?
Hi Eduardo,
The rule did not change - damage from Caring Crows are not damage "made by the opposing minion", they are not reduced. See [PIB 20111017] and [LSJ 20010626] .
> lip wrote:
> The rule did not change - damage from caring crows are not damage "made by the opposing minion". See [PIB 20111017] and [LSJ 20010626] .
>
Correct.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I'd prefer to see environmental damage defined in the rulebook.
Carrion Crows uses the term, but it doesn't intuitively imply that this means the damage does not come from the opposing minion.
A new player (playing with no veterans) would probably look up what implications "environmental damage" has, and never find an answer in the rulebook.
Exactly the problem, because the beginner goes to the rules book and does not find the explanation and it seems that he enters the term damage effect in the second part of the text. And all because the core of this rule(environmental damage) is not in the rules book, but I heard that a new one will come out so i hope they solve it there
Sounds like a "Environmental Damage" keyword might be needed?
Or if all reprints of such cards have "Environmental Damage" slipped into the card text then that would be redundant. Even if probably slightly clearer...
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
> Sounds like a "Environmental Damage" keyword might be needed?
>
> Or if all reprints of such cards have "Environmental Damage" slipped into the card text then that would be redundant. Even if probably slightly clearer...
>
I'm pretty sure i remember Vincent saying that there are no keywords in V:tes. I could be mistaken, though.
> self wrote:
>
> > Lönkka wrote:
> > Sounds like a "Environmental Damage" keyword might be needed?
> >
> > Or if all reprints of such cards have "Environmental Damage" slipped into the card text then that would be redundant. Even if probably slightly clearer...
> >
> I'm pretty sure i remember Vincent saying that there are no keywords in V:tes. I could be mistaken, though.
>
Precisely:
There are no such things labelled as "keyword" in VTES: you won't find the word "keyword" in the rules.
Similarily, you won't find the word "verb" or "adjective" in the rulebook. That doesn't mean that the concept they represent does not exist.
So, "environmental" is not labelled as a keyword but "environmental damage" is described (in the new rulebook) as: "Environmental damage: Any damage not inflicted by a minion either as a strike, or by an explicit effect (“this minion inflicts...”) is environmental. Environmental damage can have no source (such as the damage inflicted by a Carrion Crows) or a non-minion source (such as the damage inflicted by a retainer). Note that environmental damage cannot be dodged, since dodging only protects from the opponent’s strike."
You could call it "adjective" rather than "keyword" for all it matters.
See also www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/77213-discussion-card-costs-and-presentation?start=12#92330
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Precisely:
> There are no such things labelled as "keyword" in VTES: you won't find the word "keyword" in the rules.
> Similarily, you won't find the word "verb" or "adjective" in the rulebook. That doesn't mean that the concept they represent does not exist.
>
> So, "environmental" is not labelled as a keyword but "environmental damage" is described (in the new rulebook) as: "Environmental damage: Any damage not inflicted by a minion either as a strike, or by an explicit effect (“this minion inflicts...”) is environmental. Environmental damage can have no source (such as the damage inflicted by a Carrion Crows) or a non-minion source (such as the damage inflicted by a retainer). Note that environmental damage cannot be dodged, since dodging only protects from the opponent’s strike."
>
> You could call it "adjective" rather than "keyword" for all it matters.
>
> See also www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/77213-discussion-card-costs-and-presentation?start=12#92330
>
Black Hand and Seraph exist solely to act as keywords for restrictions on other cards. Just because they aren't specifically called keywords but otherwise acts like a keyword, it's a keyword. And V:tes is positively loaded with keywords. Insert Duck syllogism here.
I don't know why there's this aversion to admitting that the game uses keywords when it clearly does. Not to mention that were the rules allowed to lean into using keywords, card text would probably end up clearer. Then again, there is no war in Ba Sing Se.
> self wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > Precisely:
> > There are no such things labelled as "keyword" in VTES: you won't find the word "keyword" in the rules.
> > Similarily, you won't find the word "verb" or "adjective" in the rulebook. That doesn't mean that the concept they represent does not exist.
> >
> > So, "environmental" is not labelled as a keyword but "environmental damage" is described (in the new rulebook) as: "Environmental damage: Any damage not inflicted by a minion either as a strike, or by an explicit effect (“this minion inflicts...”) is environmental. Environmental damage can have no source (such as the damage inflicted by a Carrion Crows) or a non-minion source (such as the damage inflicted by a retainer). Note that environmental damage cannot be dodged, since dodging only protects from the opponent’s strike."
> >
> > You could call it "adjective" rather than "keyword" for all it matters.
> >
> > See also www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/77213-discussion-card-costs-and-presentation?start=12#92330
> >
> Black Hand and Seraph exist solely to act as keywords for restrictions on other cards. Just because they aren't specifically called keywords but otherwise acts like a keyword, it's a keyword. And V:tes is positively loaded with keywords. Insert Duck syllogism here.
>
> I don't know why there's this aversion to admitting that the game uses keywords when it clearly does.
>
As a rulemonger, I am trying to avoid using words that don't appear in the rulebook or on the cards, especially when an official term already exist. Black Hand and Seraph are "traits" (as referred to by Vidal, most rulings, and the V5 rulebook). Should I use the word "keyword", it would only lead to confusion and questions such as "what is a keyword? Is it the same as a trait? Is "master" a keyword?" etc.
> self wrote:
> Not to mention that were the rules allowed to lean into using keywords, card text would probably end up clearer.
>
The philosophy for VTES cardtext is less "keywords" and more explicit cardtext. It's a balance between conciseness and complexity that has already been heavily discussed. That doesn't mean new terms will never be added ("wake", "+X hunt" have been added recently).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Call it "trait", "adjective" or "keyword, but not really keyword, even if it actually is a keyword" or whatever you will but I think having such a thing in this case ("Environmental") clearly indicated would lessen the number on misunderstandings and confusion.
Like "Animal", "Seraph" or whatever.
Then again, if the card text in itself mentions the environmental damage the above is redundant. No need to start adding "keywords" (or whatever) for just the sake of it.
For example, the old Carrion Crows didn't include it in the text but the current one does so everything OK with that card at least and no need to adjust it in any way. Hope all the other cards dealing environmental have/will be adjusted to this format.
Here is the current text:
"Carrion Crows"
Only usable before range is determined. A vampire can play only one Carrion Crows each combat.
ani: The opposing minion takes 1R environmental damage each round this combat during normal strike resolution.
ANI: As above, but for 2R environmental damage."
Finnish Politics!
> self wrote:
> I don't know why there's this aversion to admitting that the game uses keywords when it clearly does.
>
I'd say because there is a pathological need of doing everything backwards in the rules committee.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
> Ankha wrote:
> You could call it "adjective" rather than "keyword" for all it matters.
>
Okay, so nothing in V:TES is described as a keyword. I think everybody gets that. The problem is you go off on this tangent to call "environmental" an adjective, but then later on describe "wake" as a "term." Why is wake not solely a verb but also a "term?"
The real heart of the point Lonnka was making (I think) is not necessarily that there needs to be an actual "keyword," but rather some form of identifying and describing the this mechanic of damage used in the game in a simplistic manner. I think Lonnka just happened to use "keyword" for lack of a better description, which led to your befuddling post about adjectives and verbs. All I read with your post is "I'm the rulemonger and it's an adjective!" I have no idea what this means. So I ask you, is "environmental" a term like "wake" or not? If not, how is it different? What does any of this have to do with parts of speech?
To everyone else: Yes, "keywords" exist in VTES, but they are used in unique ways that differ from preconceived notions of how a keyword would normally function; thus the term "keyword" is not used in VTES. Glad we cleared that up.
I think that what Ankha is saying is that as the "rulemonger", his posts are referenced for ruling and so he must be careful about which term he uses when speaking about rules.
So he prefers sticking to things already explained in the rulebook or on cards and "keyword" is not one of those.
But "environmental damage", "wake", or "term" are and so he prefers sticking to those.
And "wake" is a term because it is described in the "special terms" section of the rulebook.
As I see it, if Ankha is consistent in the vocabulary he uses (in the official forum and in the rulebook) it allows people looking for answers about rules to have some kind of consistency in what is what.
If I remember correctly, it was not the case with LSJ and it lead to some confusions in some cases (for example, environmental damage which was never explained in the rulebook before and was used in a lot of rulings).
> Timo wrote:
> I think that what Ankha is saying is that as the "rulemonger", his posts are referenced for ruling and so he must be careful about which term he uses when speaking about rules.
>
> So he prefers sticking to things already explained in the rulebook or on cards and "keyword" is not one of those.
>
Exactly.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > You could call it "adjective" rather than "keyword" for all it matters.
> >
> Okay, so nothing in V:TES is described as a keyword. I think everybody gets that. The problem is you go off on this tangent to call "environmental" an adjective
>
I think you got it wrong.
I personally never called it that way. I said "You could call it "adjective" rather than "keyword" for all it matters." I don't control words used by other people.
People can use whatever word they want.
As a rulemonger, I try to stick to the official VTES vocabulary.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> , but then later on describe "wake" as a "term." Why is wake not solely a verb but also a "term?"
>
Because it's listed in the "special terms" section (until the next rulebook, where it will be listed in the "glossary" section)
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> So I ask you, is "environmental" a term like "wake" or not? If not, how is it different? What does any of this have to do with parts of speech?
>
In the V5 rulebook, it will be listed in the "glossary" section. It doesn't have a specific name so you are free to call it as you want as long as it doesn't conflict with official terms. For instance, "environmental" is not a "trait" as the list of traits is finite, and it doesn't belong to it.
As for "are they different?", since it doesn't matter rulewise (unless you have a rule question about them), there is no need to answer that question. (but since they don't serve the same purpose, they are probably different).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director