If i use a walk of flame with Reverend Blackwood what would happen:
3 aggravated damage?
2 aggravated damage, 1 normal damage??
if so can i choose the way it is done. say the normal damage first
then the aggravated.
And what about theft of vitae and drain essence.?
and if i use soul burn the damage done cause Blackwood can be
prevented??
Trimegisto (pare...@lander.es) wrote:
: If i use a walk of flame with Reverend Blackwood what would happen:: 3 aggravated damage?
: 2 aggravated damage, 1 normal damage??
The latter.
: if so can i choose the way it is done. say the normal damage first
: then the aggravated.
No. Normal damage is always applied first (when a mix of normal and agg
damage is done).
: And what about theft of vitae and drain essence.?
These strikes are not damage-dealing strikes, so will not be
modified by Blackwood's ability.
: and if i use soul burn the damage done cause Blackwood can be
: prevented??
No. The extra damage done by the strike bacuse of Blackwood's special
ability cannot be prevented.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> Trimegisto (pare...@lander.es) wrote:
>
> : And what about theft of vitae and drain essence.?
>
> These strikes are not damage-dealing strikes, so will not be
> modified by Blackwood's ability.
Err... i'm confused. Reverend Blackwood says 'inflicts +1 damage with
any strike card that requires Thaumaturgy'... Theft of Vitae is a strike
card that requires Thaumaturgy... why wouldn't it do +1 damage (i.e.,
one damage, 1/2 blood stolen)?
Does this also mean that Increased Strength (+1/+2 damage for strikes
that require Potence) doesn't infict any damage with a Fractured
Armament at minor, but it does at major?
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
: No. Normal damage is always applied first (when a mix of normal and agg
: damage is done).
But you can always choose which damage to prevent, yes?
: : And what about theft of vitae and drain essence.?: These strikes are not damage-dealing strikes, so will not be
: modified by Blackwood's ability.
Is this official errata, as it is not supported at all by card
text? Blackwood only requires a Tha. strike for his ability,
not a damage dealing one.
-Wallpaper Paste
for all those useless cards
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
: Trimegisto (pare...@lander.es) wrote:
: : If i use a walk of flame with Reverend Blackwood what would happen:: : 3 aggravated damage?
: : 2 aggravated damage, 1 normal damage??: The latter.
Oops. The former. This works differently than Burning Wrath,
which was what I was thinking of. Damage added to a strike inherets
all of the attributes of that strike's base damage.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dave Green wrote:
>
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
>> : No. Normal damage is always applied first (when a mix of normal and agg
> : damage is done).
>
> But you can always choose which damage to prevent, yes?
Yes.
> : : And what about theft of vitae and drain essence.?
>
> : These strikes are not damage-dealing strikes, so will not be
> : modified by Blackwood's ability.
>
> Is this official errata, as it is not supported at all by card
> text? Blackwood only requires a Tha. strike for his ability,
> not a damage dealing one.
Yes. Strikes which are not damage dealing cannot be made to deal
damage, no matter what modifiers are applied. This ruling is from
From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
Subject: Rules Team Rulings: 2/21/96
Date: 21 Feb 1996 21:48:14 GMT
Message-ID: <4gg3uu$9...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Art Martella wrote:
>
> Err... i'm confused. Reverend Blackwood says 'inflicts +1 damage with
> any strike card that requires Thaumaturgy'... Theft of Vitae is a strike
> card that requires Thaumaturgy... why wouldn't it do +1 damage (i.e.,
> one damage, 1/2 blood stolen)?
Rev. Blackwood _increases_ the damage dealt by a strike by 1. If the
strike is not a damage dealing one, then there is nothing to increase.
> Does this also mean that Increased Strength (+1/+2 damage for strikes
> that require Potence) doesn't infict any damage with a Fractured
> Armament at minor, but it does at major?
Probably. I'll wait for LSJ on this one.
James
--
James Hamblin
je...@cornell.edu
---------------------------------------------------
"Well, Mulder didn't say that it _was_ Alex Trebek,
just someone who looked extremely like him."
-- Dana Scully, X-Files:
"Jose Chung's _From Outer Space_"
Art Martella wrote:
>
> L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Trimegisto (pare...@lander.es) wrote:
> >> > : And what about theft of vitae and drain essence.?
> >
> > These strikes are not damage-dealing strikes, so will not be
> > modified by Blackwood's ability.
>> Err... i'm confused. Reverend Blackwood says 'inflicts +1 damage with
> any strike card that requires Thaumaturgy'... Theft of Vitae is a strike
> card that requires Thaumaturgy... why wouldn't it do +1 damage (i.e.,
> one damage, 1/2 blood stolen)?
Because strikes which are not damage-dealing strikes cannot
deal damage, no matter what modifiers are applied to them.
This was ruled on by Tom in the case of using Lucky Blow
on a Rowan Ring strike.
> Does this also mean that Increased Strength (+1/+2 damage for strikes
> that require Potence) doesn't infict any damage with a Fractured
> Armament at minor, but it does at major?
Yes. (*)
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> : Trimegisto (pare...@lander.es) wrote:
> : : If i use a walk of flame with Reverend Blackwood what would happen:
>
> : : 3 aggravated damage?
> : : 2 aggravated damage, 1 normal damage??
>> Oops. The former. This works differently than Burning Wrath,> which was what I was thinking of. Damage added to a strike inherets
> all of the attributes of that strike's base damage.
>
I have a question. What happens if he theft of vitae's? If he
steals 2 and does 1 pt of damage, which is applied first?
dh
In article <331339...@regency.wizards.com>, "L. Scott Johnson"
<vte...@regency.wizards.com> wrote:
> > Err... i'm confused. Reverend Blackwood says 'inflicts +1 damage with
> > any strike card that requires Thaumaturgy'... Theft of Vitae is a strike
> > card that requires Thaumaturgy... why wouldn't it do +1 damage (i.e.,
> > one damage, 1/2 blood stolen)?
>
> Because strikes which are not damage-dealing strikes cannot
> deal damage, no matter what modifiers are applied to them.
Okay, perhaps I'm running this into the ground, but (you knew there was a but),
the card text says the Blackwood inflicts (not the card) +1 damage WITH
ANY (not ads to,
not on) strike card which requires Thaumaturgy. This indicates, to me,
that BLACKWOOD deals
one damage on any of those strikes with thaumaturgy.
PjV
Paul J. Van Voorhis wrote:
>
> Okay, perhaps I'm running this into the ground, but (you knew there was
> a but), the card text says the Blackwood inflicts (not the card) +1 damage
> WITH ANY (not ads to, not on) strike card which requires Thaumaturgy. This
> indicates, to me, that BLACKWOOD deals one damage on any of those strikes with
> thaumaturgy.
"Inflicts +1 damage" is different from "Inflicts an extra point of
damage". Damage modifiers do no affect non-damaging strikes. Playing
Increased Strength, for example, doesn't make your Shattering Blow deal
damage.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dan Hollis (dan.h...@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: I have a question. What happens if he theft of vitae's? If he
: steals 2 and does 1 pt of damage, which is applied first?
a) he only steals 2. His special ability will not make a non-damaging
strike deal damage. Nothing will make a non-damaging strike deal
damage.
b) if he stole blood *and* did damage somehow (had a Ghoul Retainer
in his employ, e.g.) then they would be applied at the same time:
the victim loses two blood (which Blackwood gains) and takes one
damage. *Then* the victim pays one blood to heal damage (or, if he
cannot, goes to Torpor).
Healing always takes place immediately *after* the strike and other
strike-resolution effects are applied. This is why you can use
stolen blood to heal damage, and why blood stolen in excess of
capacity drains off before you begin healing damage.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Paul J. Van Voorhis (vanv...@tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: In article <331339...@regency.wizards.com>, "L. Scott Johnson"
: <vte...@regency.wizards.com> wrote:: > Because strikes which are not damage-dealing strikes cannot: > deal damage, no matter what modifiers are applied to them.: Okay, perhaps I'm running this into the ground, but (you knew there was a but),: the card text says the Blackwood inflicts (not the card) +1 damage WITH
: ANY (not ads to,
: not on) strike card which requires Thaumaturgy. This indicates, to me,
: that BLACKWOOD deals
: one damage on any of those strikes with thaumaturgy.
The stop reading it that way :-)
The English language isn't perfect, but it is better than nothing.
Blackwood inflicts +1 damage with any strike card which requires
thaumaturgy.
has been ruled to mean the same as
When Blackwood uses a strike card that requires Thaumaturgy, then
that strike is at +1 damage.
---
Trap's card text can be read in many different ways.
But only one is the correct (official) way, while the
rest are merely illustrations of the ambiguity of
the choice of phrasing. Not incorrect inasfar as the
English is concerned; simply not the interpretation
intended.
Similarly for Blackwood's card text.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>Okay, perhaps I'm running this into the ground, but (you knew there was a
but),
>the card text says the Blackwood inflicts (not the card) +1 damage WITH
>ANY (not ads to,
>not on) strike card which requires Thaumaturgy. This indicates, to me,
>that BLACKWOOD deals
>one damage on any of those strikes with thaumaturgy.
The plus before the 1 implies that you should add the 1, and therefore
that strikes that don't deal damage have nothing to add to (althought I
admit the argument is pretty thin).
---
Liam Burke
"Only a Malkavian would attack Cthulhu with laughing gas..."
-overheard
> has been ruled to mean the same as
>
> When Blackwood uses a strike card that requires Thaumaturgy, then
> that strike is at +1 damage.> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)> Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
> (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
Okies, but it would be better to say "if a thau strike deals damage ,
blackwood ads +1"
too many people in the playgroup have this logic--and I admit card text IS
confusing--
for example
Strike, Steal Blood <--- a strike card which uses thau
damage from this card = none = 0
blackwood does +1 damage on thau strikes
steal blood (damage=0) +1 = 1 damage dealt by blackwood.
Whereas I think the majority of this type of clarification means ) none =
nothing to add damage TO. Therefore Blackwood does no additional damage.
(sighing at myself and the six people I play with) (grin)
Paul J. Van Voorhis wrote:
>> > has been ruled to mean the same as
> >
> > When Blackwood uses a strike card that requires Thaumaturgy, then
> > that strike is at +1 damage.
>
> > L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
> > Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
> > (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
>
> Okies, but it would be better to say "if a thau strike deals damage ,
> blackwood ads +1"
> too many people in the playgroup have this logic--and I admit card text IS
> confusing--
The "if a strike deals damage" is a part of the rules, not peculiar
to Blackwood. If you use Lucky Blow on a Rowan Rin strike, it
still won't dealany damage because Rowan Ring is a non-damaging
strike.
> for example
>
> Strike, Steal Blood <--- a strike card which uses thau
>
> damage from this card = none = 0
Not dealing damage is different than dealing 0 (or negative) damage.
> blackwood does +1 damage on thau strikes
>
> steal blood (damage=0) +1 = 1 damage dealt by blackwood.
Steal blood doesn't deal damage, so it won't deal damage even
if an effect increases the damage it would do if it dealt damage.
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
: Dave Green wrote:: Yes. Strikes which are not damage dealing cannot be made to deal
: damage, no matter what modifiers are applied. This ruling is from: 4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage": effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect.
Because I enjoy beating dead horses, how would the logic of
this ruling apply to De-Evolved Gangrel, or Eroded vampires, or
the like? You seem to be saying that since hand strikes from
such vampires deal no damage, they "cannor be made to deal
damage, no matter what modifiers are applied." To me, this
sounds absurd, what am I missing here?
-Dave Green
I'm sick of flour and water
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dealing zero damage is quite different from being not damage
dealing. A punch is still a damage-dealing strike, even if
it deals zero (or negative) damage. You are free to modify
this amount with appropriate effects.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dave Green wrote:
>
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
> : Dave Green wrote:
>
> : Yes. Strikes which are not damage dealing cannot be made to deal
> : damage, no matter what modifiers are applied. This ruling is from
>
> : 4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
> : effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect.
>
> Because I enjoy beating dead horses, how would the logic of
> this ruling apply to De-Evolved Gangrel, or Eroded vampires, or
> the like? You seem to be saying that since hand strikes from
> such vampires deal no damage, they "cannor be made to deal
> damage, no matter what modifiers are applied." To me, this
> sounds absurd, what am I missing here?
>> -Dave Green
> I'm sick of flour and water
Gangrel De-evolution sets a positive base strike to -1 of base, it
doesn't remove the base hand damage all together. I would think any card
that adds it back would work.
But Erosion does reset base hand damage done by vamp to zero. Is this
the same as this vamp no longer does any intrinsic damage? Hmmmmmn...
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
pheersum inhabits the mortal shell of eric schultheis. one
channels mailto://phee...@netwizards.net. nature says,"go ahead, have
as many babies as you want. something will eat them."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Green (dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
: : Dave Green wrote:: : Yes. Strikes which are not damage dealing cannot be made to deal
: : damage, no matter what modifiers are applied. This ruling is from: : 4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
: : effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect.: Because I enjoy beating dead horses, how would the logic of
: this ruling apply to De-Evolved Gangrel, or Eroded vampires, or
: the like? You seem to be saying that since hand strikes from
: such vampires deal no damage, they "cannor be made to deal
: damage, no matter what modifiers are applied." To me, this
: sounds absurd, what am I missing here?
Strikes that deal damage in an amount equal to zero or less are still
considered damage dealing strikes. This is in contrast to strikes where
the effect of the strike has nothing to do with the concept of damage.
I guess its like the difference between having a zero balance in your
checking account, and not having a checking account.
Or the difference between drinking a beverage that contains zero
calories, and not drinking a beverage. Niether will do any damage to
your diet, but in only the former case will adding sugar to your drink alter
that fact.
John W.
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> Dealing zero damage is quite different from being not damage
> dealing. A punch is still a damage-dealing strike, even if
> it deals zero (or negative) damage. You are free to modify
> this amount with appropriate effects.
Hmmm... well, this question has nothing to do with the good
Reverend, but from the bit of LSJ's post that I quoted above, it seems
that it is possible that a minion could do negative damage with a
strike (or other damage source). Is this in fact possible with the
currently available cards? (methinks so, but Im to lazy to check) If
a minion were to deal negative damage by any means, what happens? I
can think of three possibilities:
1) The victim of the damage is actually healed ( I spend -3 blood
to heal the -3 damage...)
2) The rules fail to cover the situation and a paradox destroys
the universe (or at least the game)
3) Everyone agrees just how stupid this is, and ignores all
damage less than 1.
--
Steve "I Bled Someone for 14 Pool in One Turn Because of a
Misdirection" Wampler, creator of the "Spend 29 Pool on Vampires and
Get Bled for One and Die™" deck
sjwa...@hotmail.com (ignore the above adress, its plain brown wrong)
Steve Wampler wrote:
>
> L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > Dealing zero damage is quite different from being not damage
> > dealing. A punch is still a damage-dealing strike, even if
> > it deals zero (or negative) damage. You are free to modify
> > this amount with appropriate effects.
>
> Hmmm... well, this question has nothing to do with the good
> Reverend, but from the bit of LSJ's post that I quoted above, it seems
> that it is possible that a minion could do negative damage with a
> strike (or other damage source). Is this in fact possible with the
> currently available cards? (methinks so, but Im to lazy to check) If
> a minion were to deal negative damage by any means, what happens? I
> can think of three possibilities:> 3) Everyone agrees just how stupid this is, and ignores all
> damage less than 1.
This is correct.
Strikes which deal negative damage do not restore life or blood,
nor does the "damaged" minion have to burn life or blood to heal
the negative amount.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dave Green (dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
: : 4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
: : effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect.
:
: Because I enjoy beating dead horses, how would the logic of
: this ruling apply to De-Evolved Gangrel, or Eroded vampires, or
: the like? You seem to be saying that since hand strikes from
: such vampires deal no damage, they "cannor be made to deal
: damage, no matter what modifiers are applied." To me, this
: sounds absurd, what am I missing here?
What you are missing is the distinction between dealing zero damage,
and not dealing any damage. This was discussed to death when the ruling
that LSJ quoted was released. There is a large difference between dealing
zero damage (but the strike being inherently able to deal damage) and
using a "strike" which does NOT deal damage. The difference is that you
can add damage to a zero damage strike (you can add more damage to a
strike which could be damaging) and you CAN'T add damage to a
non-damaging strike (If you weren't going to be able to cause damage
in the first place, you can't add more).
I'm sure others will chime in on this point.
-spongy
> 1) The victim of the damage is actually healed ( I spend -3 blood
to heal the -3 damage...)
> 2) The rules fail to cover the situation and a paradox destroys
the universe (or at least the game)
> 3) Everyone agrees just how stupid this is, and ignores all
damage less than 1.
All three are conceivably possible, depending on who you're playing with.
(Note: if you end up playing with anyone that follows rule 1, then find
someone else, or at least brush up on speaking in rhyme...)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997 19:17:36 GMT, dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Dave
Green) wrote:
>L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:>: Dave Green wrote:
>
>: Yes. Strikes which are not damage dealing cannot be made to deal
>: damage, no matter what modifiers are applied. This ruling is from>
>: 4) Strikes only deal damage if they say they do. Playing a "+X damage"
>: effect on a strike that deals no damage has no effect.
>
>Because I enjoy beating dead horses, how would the logic of
>this ruling apply to De-Evolved Gangrel, or Eroded vampires, or
>the like? You seem to be saying that since hand strikes from
>such vampires deal no damage, they "cannor be made to deal
>damage, no matter what modifiers are applied." To me, this
>sounds absurd, what am I missing here?
The difference between 0 damage and no damage.
>-Dave Green
>I'm sick of flour and water
Remove * to mail to me personally (avoid SPAM)
PHI * j.p.a....@student.utwente.nl * www.cs.utwente.nl/~baalman
"ego is beast, ego is evil,
but ego knows best, at least he says so" --- The God Machine