Hey Scalpel! - Rule questions

In our group, we have some problems with DODGES: 1. Dodge shall beat the opposing minions strike. Following the answers from questions@wizards, even a FIRST STRIKE can be dodged without playing a FS for the dodge. Sounds a little bit crazy, because Celerity is used to hit the opponnent _before his strike occurs_. How shall it be possible to dodge this strike with a "normal" dodge? 2. A Scorpion Sting cannot be dodged. Now the acting minion has played a dodge, the blocking minion plays a Scorpion Sting. Again a somewhat funny ruling (from Rich at questions@wizards): "There is no point in playing an undodgeable strike after the dodge already happened occured". Are you sure ? A strike against a dodge cannot be played, because a dodge was already played ? Amazing ... I would suggest a ruling like "Fine, you have dodged yourself, but I hit you nevertheless". In the first Volume of the weekly rulings, you write : "Hand strikes do not involve weapons" So, if I use Bang Nakh Tigers Claws, this won't be a hand strike. But is is still hand damage, isn't it? Important for (e.g.) Violet Tremain. She needs the additional damage for her special ability, so I want to give her such a weapon. Thanx in advance Marc

Marc Rene Delhalle wrote: > > In our group, we have some problems with DODGES: > 1. Dodge shall beat the opposing minions strike. [snip] As crazy as it may sound, First Strike does not beat dodge. > 2. A Scorpion Sting cannot be dodged. [snip] If the minion declaring its strike first dodges, and the other minion Scorpion Stings (at superior, mind you), the first minion's strike is cancelled. I would reccomend not asking ques...@wizards.com questions about Jyhad/V:tES. They are notoriously prone to giving very erroneous answers... > In the first Volume of the weekly rulings, you write : > "Hand strikes do not involve weapons" So, if I use Bang Nakh Tigers > Claws, this won't be a hand strike. But is is still hand damage, > isn't it? Important for (e.g.) Violet Tremain. She needs the > additional > damage for her special ability, so I want to give her such a weapon. I don't know for sure on this one, but I don't think that it counts as "hand damage". It is instead "Bang Nakh -- Tiger's Claws damage", which happens to be calculated off of the minions current hand damage. Try Lucky Blow instead... James -- James Hamblin je...@cornell.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Only one human captain has ever survived battle with the Minbari fleet. He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else." -- Ambassador Delenn, "Babylon 5: Severed Dreams"

In article <329035...@nmlab.informatik.fh-dortmund.de>, Marc Rene Delhalle <delh...@nmlab.informatik.fh-dortmund.de> wrote: > 1. Dodge shall beat the opposing minions strike. Following the answers > from questions@wizards, even a FIRST STRIKE can be dodged without > playing a FS for the dodge. Sounds a little bit crazy, because > Celerity is used to hit the opponnent _before his strike occurs_. > How shall it be possible to dodge this strike with a "normal" dodge? Noted for the next Rules Meeting. > 2. A Scorpion Sting cannot be dodged. Now the acting minion has played > a dodge, the blocking minion plays a Scorpion Sting. Again a somewhat > funny ruling (from Rich at questions@wizards): "There is no point > in playing an undodgeable strike after the dodge already > happened occured". Are you sure ? A strike against a dodge > cannot be played, because a dodge was already played ? > Amazing ... > I would suggest a ruling like "Fine, you have dodged yourself, > but I hit you nevertheless". If you dodge, and then I play Scorpion Sting, you get the snot beat out of you. In other words, your Dodge became null and void because of Scorpion Sting (no, you can't play a different Strike after I play Scorpion Sting). > In the first Volume of the weekly rulings, you write : > "Hand strikes do not involve weapons" So, if I use Bang Nakh Tigers > Claws, this won't be a hand strike. But is is still hand damage, > isn't it? Important for (e.g.) Violet Tremain. She needs the additional > damage for her special ability, so I want to give her such a weapon. It's still hand damage, as it gives a plus to hand damage. ------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Wilkie Wot...@aol.com a.k.a."Scalpel" Customer Service, Wizards of the Coast "This isn't going to have a happy ending" -Detective Somerset, Se7en -------------------------------------------------------------

In article <WotCCST-1811...@w11-63.wizards.com>, Jon Wilkie <Wot...@aol.com> wrote: >In article <329035...@nmlab.informatik.fh-dortmund.de>, Marc Rene >Delhalle <delh...@nmlab.informatik.fh-dortmund.de> wrote: >> In the first Volume of the weekly rulings, you write : >> "Hand strikes do not involve weapons" So, if I use Bang Nakh Tigers >> Claws, this won't be a hand strike. But is is still hand damage, >> isn't it? Important for (e.g.) Violet Tremain. She needs the additional >> damage for her special ability, so I want to give her such a weapon. > >It's still hand damage, as it gives a plus to hand damage. What? Bang Nakh is a *melee weapon* that does hand +2 damage for each strike. Think about it: the stronger you are, the more effectively you can use Bang Nakh to rip through your opponent, but you're still hitting them with a weapon. Just because the Bang Nakh are attached to your hands doesn't mean that they do hand daamge. Jon, you're about 1 for 4 on the rulings you've given. Not to sound pretentious or rude, but maybe you *should* stick to just asking the rules team for answers. -Judy -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> "You boys aren't drunk. You're just stupid." - Beavis & Butt-Head <> <> jcoo...@eng.umd.edu * http://www.glue.umd.edu/~jcookson <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Jon Wilkie wrote (in reference to a question about wheither or not damage from a Bang-Nakh is hand damage): >It's still hand damage, as it gives a plus to hand damage. Jon, this is in complete contridiction to what you stated about "Hand Damage" in your earlier statement about what is and is not hand damage (in the "Weekly Answers" thread up above). You said something along the lines of "If it is at close range and does not use a weapon, it is hand damage." While this statement is iffy, if not outright wrong (Hand Damage is damage done by a vampires hand, and/or hand strike modifiers, like Undead Strength), stating that a strike with a Bang-Nakh is hand damage, even though it comes from a weapon, is entirely out of left field. The rules on what is or is not a "Hand Strike" or "Hand Damage" as our group understands (or deemed it) are: -Must be made by vampires hand. (not another strike card that does not specfically give bonuses to hand damage, such as Undead Strength, Torn Signpost, Claws of the Dead, ect.) -Does not involve a weapon. (Weapons that say Strike for +X Hand damage do damage _based_ on the vampires hand damage, but are weapon strikes and weapon damage, not hand strikes and hand damage. Striking with a Bang-Nakh does hand+2 damage, but it is not hand damage, it is Bang-Nakh damage, and thus cannot be used while Immortally Grappled and does not count for that Tzimisce vampire's ability.) The only ambiguity comes in with the cards Scorpion Sting and Burning Wrath, which are worded like weapons (which are not hand strikes) but imply that they are hand strikes. If there were two different basic wording templates for cards that were hand strikes and were not hand strikes, all would be solved. For example: -Hand Strikes: "Strike: With hand for +X damage (add effects like Aggro or cannot be dodged). Card example: "Really Big Fist: Strike: With hand for +3 damage. All damage in this strike is aggrivated and may not be dodged. As above, but +4 damage." Non hand strikes based on hand damage: "Strike: for damage equal to hand +X (add effects here) Card Example: "Big Flaming Chainsaw: Strike: for damage equal to hand+4. All damage in this strike is agrivated. May only be used for one strike per combat." Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "And the license said you had to stick around until I was dead. But if you're tired of looking at my face I guess I already am." -Liz Phair

In article <56r4jq$h...@maryann.eng.umd.edu>, jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu (Judith Cookson Grunberger) wrote: > Jon, you're about 1 for 4 on the rulings you've given. Not to sound > pretentious or rude, but maybe you *should* stick to just asking the rules > team for answers. Okay. Noted for the next Rules Meeting. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Jon Wilkie wrote: > > >In article <329035...@nmlab.informatik.fh-dortmund.de>, Marc Rene > >Delhalle <delh...@nmlab.informatik.fh-dortmund.de> wrote: > > In the first Volume of the weekly rulings, you write : > > "Hand strikes do not involve weapons" So, if I use Bang Nakh Tigers > > Claws, this won't be a hand strike. But is is still hand damage, > > isn't it? Important for (e.g.) Violet Tremain. She needs the additional > > damage for her special ability, so I want to give her such a weapon. > > It's still hand damage, as it gives a plus to hand damage. Noooo....It's a weapon! It's a weapon! Weapons don't grant additional hand damage, but hand damage is added on to weapons. As has been said before-melee weapons which say +1 or +2 hand damage on them calibrate damage off the vampire's hand damage. Violet Tremain needs to do _hand_ damage. A strike from a Bang Nakh or Bastard Sword is counted as _melee weapon_ damage. From a game-world perspective, it means that the Tzimisce has to touch the poor victim, not hit them with a weapon. From a card-world perspective, Violet Tremain and Claws-type hand damage aggs would become too powerful. (Every time Violet, or Pieter had a Bang Nakh, their opponent would take 3 damage and lose a capacity or take 3 aggs.) Channeling the Beast or Lucky Blow would work, and neither of those would be too powerful in conjunction with Violet's ability or other cards. They're not permanent, and they don't help Violet out for the rest of the game. -Nathan Harada It's not just you, Jon, I haven't liked some of Tom's or Shawn's rulings either. Phobia....pffft.

In article <19961119054...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com says... > >Jon Wilkie wrote (in reference to a question about wheither or not damage >from a Bang-Nakh is hand damage): > >>It's still hand damage, as it gives a plus to hand damage. > >Jon, this is in complete contridiction to what you stated about "Hand >Damage" in your earlier statement about what is and is not hand damage (in >the "Weekly Answers" thread up above). You said something along the lines >of "If it is at close range and does not use a weapon, it is hand damage." I had the same problem with his answer until I realized that he's using a vocabulary slightly different than ours (and his definitions are correct, I guess)... There is a difference between "Hand DAMAGE" and "Hand STRIKE". "Hand DAMAGE" is what we call close-range damage as opposed to ranged damage ("1R"). A "Hand STRIKE" will say "Strike: blah-blah-blah". So, a Bang-nakh will do "hand damage" according to Jon, but it does not do "hand strikes". I would prefer that the distinction between hand strikes and hand damage be used by everyone, but that would make life too easy. Remember, "hand damage" = "damage that is not ranged" and "hand strike" means "a strike using bare hands". I hope I have the WotC-speak correct. The Cybernetic Samurai sam...@followme.com

> I had the same problem with his answer until I realized that > he's using a vocabulary slightly different than ours (and his > definitions are correct, I guess)... There is a difference between > "Hand DAMAGE" and "Hand STRIKE". "Hand DAMAGE" is what we call > close-range damage as opposed to > ranged damage ("1R"). A "Hand STRIKE" will say "Strike: > blah-blah-blah". No, no, no! Blood Rage is not hand damage. > I would prefer that the distinction between hand strikes and hand > damage be used by everyone, but that would make life too easy. > Remember, > "hand damage" = "damage that is not ranged" and "hand strike" means "a > strike using bare hands". I hope I have the WotC-speak correct. This is just wrong. If I have Wolf Claws and a bastard sword, I should _not_ be dealing 2 aggravated damage. It makes no sense!! I believe that Jon is honestly mistaken, and this will be corrected soon. [ quoted text not captured ]

>No, no, no! Blood Rage is not hand damage. >This is just wrong. If I have Wolf Claws and a bastard sword, I should >_not_ be dealing 2 aggravated damage. It makes no sense!! So what's the deal? If a vamp w/Sup Potence is equipped with a Bastard Sword and plays Increased Strength and uses Undead Strength as their strike, does that vamp do 5 damage or 6? Sorrow -- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorrow wrote: > > So what's the deal? If a vamp w/Sup Potence is equipped with a > Bastard Sword and plays Increased Strength and uses Undead Strength > as their strike, does that vamp do 5 damage or 6? OK, if they use Undead Strength with their melee weapon (i.e., they haven't been Immortally Grappled, etc.), then they do: 1 (base) + 1 (sword) + 2 (Un.Str.) + 2 (Incr.Str.) = 6 [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow thoughtfully stated: : So what's the deal? If a vamp w/Sup Potence is equipped with a Bastard Sword : and plays Increased Strength and uses Undead Strength as their strike, does : that vamp do 5 damage or 6? This example is not very useful, because Undead Strength can be used with hand OR melee weapon. So it doesn't matter in this case. Juan -- ___ /^\/\ ,, Juan Burwell | __| || ( {=@=====[=] Amherst College | _| \\/\// /^\ ||// \_/\/ '' jmbu...@unix.amherst.edu |___| \/\/ \_/ ||\\

In article <329366...@cornell.edu>, je...@cornell.edu says... >> "hand damage" = "damage that is not ranged" and "hand strike" means "a >> strike using bare hands". I hope I have the WotC-speak correct. > >This is just wrong. If I have Wolf Claws and a bastard sword, I should >_not_ be dealing 2 aggravated damage. It makes no sense!! > >I believe that Jon is honestly mistaken, and this will be corrected >soon. You are right. I started making assumptions about the terms myself, since after a while "hand damage", "hand strike", "close-ranged attack", "ranged attack", "ranged damage", and "damage at close-range" (as well as "strike: blah-blah-blah") all start sounding the same at 2am. I know what I mean, however, and I know what you mean... Ken sam...@followme.com p.s. You know what Jyhad really needs is a dictionary or glossary of terms.

> > This is just wrong. If I have Wolf Claws and a bastard sword, I should > _not_ be dealing 2 aggravated damage. It makes no sense!! I totally aggre with this!! It is simply illogical. I think the whole reading of the new (post-Jyhad-edition) melee weapons is a mistake. The old Bastard sword reads: Melee Weapon 2 damage each strike which makes it absolutely clear what is meant. Then (!) cards that state use hand or melee weapon at +x make perfect sense and nobody would have bothered wether or not, say, wolf claws could be used on it. But with those twisted optional rules in VtES (The higher the Generation the higher the handdamage) they were forced to make something with + to make weapons useful for older Vamps. Well, since we all know that they made lots of mistakes in the new edition I don't have to comment on that! Terminology is quite misleading and so I suggest forgetting that optional rule and read melee weapons in the old fashion... Marc

> STRIKE". "Hand DAMAGE" is what we call close-range damage as opposed to > ranged damage ("1R"). A "Hand STRIKE" will say "Strike: blah-blah-blah". > So, a Bang-nakh will do "hand damage" according to Jon, but it does not do > "hand strikes". If this were true, then you could use Wolf Claws on a strike with Bang-Nakh. This is not the case (according to everyone) and I don't agree. [ quoted text not captured ]