Confirmation needed about Garrote

Dear all, If the oposing minion would goes to torpor but the garrote strike has no dealt any damage during that strike resolution, could you please confirm that the garrote may be burnt to burn that oppoing vampire ? Card Text: Name: Garrote Cardtype: Equipment Melee weapon. Strike: strength damage, only usable at close range. If the opposing vampire {would go to torpor} during the strike resolution step of this strike and the bearer remains ready, the bearer may burn this card to burn the opposing vampire {instead}. This is not considered diablerie. Thanks in advance, Rémi. I am Rémi Cavaillé (), Barcelona (Spain). I was the Prince of Lyon (France) around 2003. I am now Official Judge and the 5th Prince of Barcelona. Enjoy VTES, Marvel Champions, L5R and more gaming activities in Khan Jugar: sites.google.com/view/khanjugar/

Nothing on Garrote says that the damages needs to be successfully inflicted, merely that the "opposing vampire would go to torpor during the strike resolution." If you meet that criteria, then you can burn them.

Although if Garrote strike was dodged, I doubt the opponent gets burned, even if he goes to torpor.

> lip wrote: > Although if Garrote strike was dodged, I doubt the opponent gets burned, even if he goes to torpor. > I am not so sure : The text about burning the opposing is not part of the strike. It is just a side effect of the "strike resolution". A strike dodged is still resolved. It could be argued that is is an environemental effect similarly to the damage from a zip gun or black gloves. BUT : after further checking, it appears that the part about weapons doing no damage of blood fury is avoided if the blood fury is dodged...

> Timo wrote: > BUT : after further checking, it appears that the part about weapons doing no damage of blood fury is avoided if the blood fury is dodged... > In what situation am I dodging and using a weapon at the same time?

Additional strikes ?

Dear all, Thanks for the Debate. Let's put an example: The opposing vampire has no blood. The bearer of Garrote plays Carrion Crows. Range is close Strike with Garrote VS Dodge, no minion uses prevent effect. I would say the garrote can be burnt to burn that opposing vampire.. Card Texts: Name: Carrion Crows Cardtype: Combat 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. Regards, Rémi. I am Rémi Cavaillé (), Barcelona (Spain). I was the Prince of Lyon (France) around 2003. I am now Official Judge and the 5th Prince of Barcelona. Enjoy VTES, Marvel Champions, L5R and more gaming activities in Khan Jugar: sites.google.com/view/khanjugar/

> The opposing vampire has no blood. > The bearer of Garrote plays Carrion Crows. > Range is close > Strike with Garrote VS Dodge, no minion uses prevent effect. > > I would say the garrote can be burnt to burn that opposing vampire.. > Yes. The ability to burn a vampire is not tied to the strike being successfully inflicted. It is a separate effect of the card.

I think now what we need is for Ankha to give an official answer. Because even if yes, for garrote (or sup Arhiman's Demesne for that matter) the 2 parts of the text seems to be separated, it could be argued (and it is !) that the second effect is part of the strike effect and therefore would be dodged. And it has been ruled like that by LSJ for Blood Rage/Blood Fury (groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/GBcR6aNjIk4/m/DXPyqBM1R8kJ)

> Timo wrote: > And it has been ruled like that by LSJ for Blood Rage/Blood Fury (groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/GBcR6aNjIk4/m/DXPyqBM1R8kJ) > LSJ confirms a dodged Garrote strike can still burn a vampire that would otherwise meet the conditions to burn them. groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/tEC5uN8yqUE/m/v2XYLdCbk1oJ But that ruling was before 02-DEC-2004 RTR in which "Dodge protects the dodger against all strikes, even aggressive S:CE effects (like Catatonic Fear)." Interestingly, the Blood Rage/Fury ruling cited above uses the RTR reasoning even before the RTR was given. There's no post RTR reversal from LSJ.

> kschaefer wrote: > > > Timo wrote: > > And it has been ruled like that by LSJ for Blood Rage/Blood Fury (groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/GBcR6aNjIk4/m/DXPyqBM1R8kJ) > > > LSJ confirms a dodged Garrote strike can still burn a vampire that would otherwise meet the conditions to burn them. > > groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/tEC5uN8yqUE/m/v2XYLdCbk1oJ > > But that ruling was before 02-DEC-2004 RTR in which "Dodge protects the dodger against all strikes, even aggressive S:CE effects (like Catatonic Fear)." > > Interestingly, the Blood Rage/Fury ruling cited above uses the RTR reasoning even before the RTR was given. > > There's no post RTR reversal from LSJ. > Actually the more I think about it the RTR decision was basically extending dodge's ability to S:CE. Neither of the original rulings should be affected by the RTR change. I'd think LSJ's dodge/Garrote ruling is still accurate.

> LSJ wrote: > > So the burn-effect is not an effect of the strike, but only > > a sort of "other effect" of the weapon? > Right. It's something that can be done if something else (opposing > vampire to torpor) happens during the resolution of the strike. > Since it's not part of the strike, dodging the strike does not prevent the bearer from using the Garrote if the opposing vampire goes to torpor. groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/tEC5uN8yqUE/m/czJYA-Pt00sJ Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Ok. And aside from "LSJ said so". Why is it handled differently for blood rage ? And what about Arhiman's Demesne sup ?

> Timo wrote: > I think now what we need is for Ankha to give an official answer. > > Because even if yes, for garrote (or sup Arhiman's Demesne for that matter) the 2 parts of the text seems to be separated, it could be argued (and it is !) that the second effect is part of the strike effect and therefore would be dodged. > > And it has been ruled like that by LSJ for Blood Rage/Blood Fury (groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/GBcR6aNjIk4/m/DXPyqBM1R8kJ) > I can't see anything in the ruling you link demonstrating your assertion. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I think what is being asked and that i also wonder about is why does the dodging minion get to disregard/protection against the secondary effect (ie. if the opposing vampire..) of cards like Ahriman's Demesne, Blood Fury, Blood Rage, Soul Burn etc. but not from Garrote´s secondary effect when it is worded the same? Per the ruling linked LSJ says "Dodge protects the dodger from all effects of the strike." when talkng about Soul Burn, meaning that the "if the opposing vampire..." effect is also part of the strike itself. In regards of Garrote LSJ says "It's something that can be done if something else (opposing vampire to torpor) happens during the resolution of the strike." which means that it seems these two rulings are contradicting if there isnt something we are/I am missing. Is the difference justified by that Garrote is an equipment/a weapon and not a combat card? Ahriman's Demesne Cardtype: Combat Cost: 2 blood Discipline: Obtenebration Only usable at long range. Not usable during the first round of combat. [obt] Strike: 1R aggravated damage. [OBT] As above, and if the opposing vampire would go to torpor during the resolution of this strike, instead they are burned. Blood Fury 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. Blood Rage Cardtype: Combat Discipline: Thaumaturgy Only usable at close range. [tha] Strike: hand strike. 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+1 damage. Soul Burn Cardtype: Combat Cost: 1 blood Discipline: Thaumaturgy [tha] Strike: 1R 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 2R damage. Garrote Cardtype: Equipment Cost: 1 pool Melee weapon. Strike: strength damage, only usable at close range. If the opposing vampire {would go to torpor} during the strike resolution step of this strike and the bearer remains ready, the bearer may burn this card to burn the opposing vampire {instead}. This is not considered diablerie.

> Ankha wrote: > > > Timo wrote: > > I think now what we need is for Ankha to give an official answer. > > > > Because even if yes, for garrote (or sup Arhiman's Demesne for that matter) the 2 parts of the text seems to be separated, it could be argued (and it is !) that the second effect is part of the strike effect and therefore would be dodged. > > > > And it has been ruled like that by LSJ for Blood Rage/Blood Fury (groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/GBcR6aNjIk4/m/DXPyqBM1R8kJ) > > > I can't see anything in the ruling you link demonstrating your assertion. > > > 2. If soul burn is dodged, does the "weapon inflict no damage" thing > > take effect or not ? (i believe not) > > "Not" is correct. Dodge protects the dodger from all effects of the > strike. > This part. (aggreed he doesn't speak about Blood Rage/Blood Fury in this part but about Soul Burn) But if you think that both rulings contradict each other (*I* think so ^^), you could easily revert the Soul Burn one ^^. Or for clarity, Soul Burn and other similar strike cards could be reworded like that : "This damage cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude [for] and if the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage."

> inm8 wrote: > I think what is being asked and that i also wonder about is why does the dodging minion get to disregard/protection against the secondary effect (ie. if the opposing vampire..) of cards like Ahriman's Demesne, Blood Fury, Blood Rage, Soul Burn etc. but not from Garrote´s secondary effect when it is worded the same? Per the ruling linked LSJ says "Dodge protects the dodger from all effects of the strike." when talkng about Soul Burn, meaning that the "if the opposing vampire..." effect is also part of the strike itself. In regards of Garrote LSJ says "It's something that can be done if something else (opposing vampire to torpor) happens during the resolution of the strike." which means that it seems these two rulings are contradicting if there isnt something we are/I am missing. Is the difference justified by that Garrote is an equipment/a weapon and not a combat card? > > Ahriman's Demesne > > Cardtype: Combat > Cost: 2 blood > Discipline: Obtenebration > Only usable at long range. Not usable during the first round of combat. > [obt] Strike: 1R aggravated damage. > [OBT] As above, and if the opposing vampire would go to torpor during the resolution of this strike, instead they are burned. > > Blood Fury > > 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. > > Blood Rage > > Cardtype: Combat > Discipline: Thaumaturgy > Only usable at close range. > [tha] Strike: hand strike. 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+1 damage. > > Soul Burn > > Cardtype: Combat > Cost: 1 blood > Discipline: Thaumaturgy > [tha] Strike: 1R 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 2R damage. > > Garrote > > Cardtype: Equipment > Cost: 1 pool > Melee weapon. > Strike: strength damage, only usable at close range. If the opposing vampire {would go to torpor} during the strike resolution step of this strike and the bearer remains ready, the bearer may burn this card to burn the opposing vampire {instead}. This is not considered diablerie. > Ankha an explanation please.

It's weird, because I posted an answer a few days ago... > > inm8 wrote: > Is the difference justified by that Garrote is an equipment/a weapon and not a combat card? > Indeed, though I'm not really pleased with the distinction; still, it makes sense. A combat card that says: "Strike: X. And Y." is not the same as a weapon that says "Strike: X. And Y". In the first case, X and Y are part of the strike effects. In the second case, the weapon provide a strike (X). It also provides some permanent effect (Y) which is not part of the strike. For instance, Blade of Enoch reads: "Strike: strength+1 damage. Damage inflicted by this weapon on a Brujah or Brujah antitribu is aggravated. Frenzy cards cannot be played on this vampire with capacity 6 or more." The fact that the damage inflicted is aggravated and that frenzy cards cannot be played are not effects from the strike provided by the weapon (even if it refers to the strike: Garrote) On the other hand, any effect on the dodging minion provided by "strike" combat card (the strike itself, or the fact that his or her weapons inflict no damage in the case of Blood Rage) are ignored. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > It's weird, because I posted an answer a few days ago... > > > > inm8 wrote: > > Is the difference justified by that Garrote is an equipment/a weapon and not a combat card? > > > Indeed, though I'm not really pleased with the distinction; still, it makes sense. > > A combat card that says: "Strike: X. And Y." is not the same as a weapon that says "Strike: X. And Y". > > In the first case, X and Y are part of the strike effects. > In the second case, the weapon provide a strike (X). It also provides some permanent effect (Y) which is not part of the strike. > > For instance, Blade of Enoch reads: "Strike: strength+1 damage. Damage inflicted by this weapon on a Brujah or Brujah antitribu is aggravated. Frenzy cards cannot be played on this vampire with capacity 6 or more." > > The fact that the damage inflicted is aggravated and that frenzy cards cannot be played are not effects from the strike provided by the weapon (even if it refers to the strike: Garrote) > > On the other hand, any effect on the dodging minion provided by "strike" combat card (the strike itself, or the fact that his or her weapons inflict no damage in the case of Blood Rage) are ignored. > Maybe a retemplating of the cards would avoid the question raised by this ruling ? "This damage cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude [for] and if the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage."

Retemplating all the strike combat cards because of one ruling must be carefully considered. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Retemplating all the strike combat cards because of one ruling must be carefully considered. > I understand that and of course it's up to you but you yourself stated that you were not pleased with the way it works. And we just had a discussion with several rule-savy people who had different opinions about the way it should be played. It shows that the distinction is not readily understandable and (*I* think) could be easily fixed with a very minor modification of those cards (actually, so minor that is is just the removing of 1 punctuation mark and the adding of a 3 letters word). And it is a template already used on at least 1 card :Name: Ahriman's Demesne [Gehenna:C, POD:DTC] Cardtype: Combat Cost: 2 blood Discipline: Obtenebration Only usable at long range. Not usable during the first round of combat. [obt] Strike: 1R aggravated damage. [OBT] As above, and if the opposing vampire would go to torpor during the resolution of this strike, instead they are burned. Artist: Monte Moore EDIT : And after checking the number of cards with the template, I found that there is already 2 different templates used : > > Name: Bollix > [AU:C] > Cardtype: Combat > Discipline: Celerity/Presence/Thaumaturgy > Requires an anarch. > [cel] Maneuver or press. > Cancel the opposing minion's aim, frenzy, or grapple card as it is played, and its cost is not paid. > [tha] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage. This damage cannot be prevented by cards requiring Fortitude [for]. The opposing vampire's strikes with weapons inflict no damage on this vampire this round. > Artist: Tomáš "zelgaris" Zahradníček > > Name: Soul Burn > [Sabbat:C, CE:PTr2, Third:C] > Cardtype: Combat > Cost: 1 blood > Discipline: Thaumaturgy > [tha] Strike: 1R 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 2R damage. > Artist: Craig Maher > Actually no : the 2 cards have strictly different effects (intentional ?) bollix doesn't forbid a weapon to kill a retainer ^^

The question is if the ruling [LSJ 20040928] is correctly categorizing the effect "If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage." of Soul Burn as being part of the strike???....i would argue that it is not.....for example when looking at Ahriman's Demesne effect "...if the opposing vampire would go to torpor during the resolution of this strike, instead they are burned." it clearly refers back to the strike itself making it undoubtedly part of the strike....this is not the case for Soul Burn. Garrote to me is correctly ruled to have an effect that can be used unrelated to the success of inflicting damage by the strike it provides but it is still dependent on the strike being used to be able to trigger the burn effect . Wether an effect is provided by an equipment or not or provided from a different type of card shouldn't affect the interpretation of the written word,. As far as i´m aware there is nothing in the rules that prevents a combat card that provides a strike to also be able to provide an additional unrelated effect which i would say cards like Soul Burn do. What is it that makes the effect ""If the opposing vampire..." of Soul Burn part of the strike effect and therefore dodgeable??? > Ankha wrote: > A combat card that says: "Strike: X. And Y." is not the same as a weapon that says "Strike: X. And Y". > Why is it not the same if the wording of the cards are the same? What is the rationale behind making this distinction? > > Ankha wrote: > In the first case, X and Y are part of the strike effects. > Should only be part of the strike effect if explicitly written so, i.e. Ahriman's Demesne, but not by default...why would it be? > > Ankha wrote: > > In the second case, the weapon provide a strike (X). It also provides some permanent effect (Y) which is not part of the strike. > The provision of temporary or permanent effects should be applicable to other cards as well if written so i.e. combat cards could provide an additional effect that are not part of the strike with the difference being that this would be a temporary effect instead of permanent one. > > Ankha wrote: > For instance, Blade of Enoch reads: "Strike: strength+1 damage. Damage inflicted by this weapon on a Brujah or Brujah antitribu is aggravated. Frenzy cards cannot be played on this vampire with capacity 6 or more." > > The fact that the damage inflicted is aggravated and that frenzy cards cannot be played are not effects from the strike provided by the weapon (even if it refers to the strike: Garrote) > The fact that to wield the weapon Blade of Enoch one needs to use the strike it provides, which has the effect of boosting the damage of the strike, and only when using this strike it can trigger the effect of making that damage "by this weapon" aggravated if inflicted on a Brujah or Brujah antitribu... i would argue that that makes it part of the strike...its similar to i.e. Blood Rage (which prevents the usage of Fortitude to prevent damage) or Poker (resulting in the weapon being burnt if all damage is prevented with the help of Fortitude). They are all effects that affect the behavior and dealing of the damage or an additional effect but all bound to the strike itself....if that doesn't make it part of the strike then what is the definition of making something part of a strike? Something that can´t be triggered independently from the strike must be part of it by logic. The frenzy card prevention part i agree with and is to me clearly not part of the strike but a permanent effect it provides to the minion equipped with the weapon. > > Ankha wrote: > On the other hand, any effect on the dodging minion provided by "strike" combat card (the strike itself, or the fact that his or her weapons inflict no damage in the case of Blood Rage) are ignored. > This doesn't seem right....the rules say "Dodge... protects the dodging minion and their possessions from the effects of the opposing strike."...not all effects provided by a combat card or all effects of a combat card that also provides a strike. I mean the fact that it is a combat card that provides a strike doesn't prevent it from also being able to provide additional effects. Ankha as always thanks for the patience with us, our questions and for taking the time to gives us answers and knowledge.