Camarilla Edition Preview
LSJ
VTES web page (linked in my .sig below) for more.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
The Tzimisce Lord
> FYI: The preview for The Camarilla Edition has begun. See the
> VTES web page (linked in my .sig below) for more.
>
humm big break with the previous product line,
but it looks ok to me (the new layout)
i already have a q? about Concelaed Weapons:
Can lazverinus equip with bastard sword?
(as a regular blow will do 4 damages)
Can Basilia equipe with a bastard sword?
(as a regular blow will do 2 aggro)
cheers!
--
TzimisceLord
http://myvtes.free.fr
http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr
Peter D Bakija
> Can Basilia equipe with a bastard sword?
> (as a regular blow will do 2 aggro)
Basillia with a weapon does not inflict aggrivated damage. Basillia does
aggrivated hand damage, not aggrivated weapon damage.
Weapons do damage based on a minion's strength, but are not hand strikes or
hand damage.
Basillia does aggrivated hand damage. Weapons are not hand damage. They are
weapon damage.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@bigplanet.com
http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6
"I am the autumn in the scarlet
I am the make-up on your eyes"
-Kim Deal
Sorrow
> VTES web page (linked in my .sig below) for more.
Thanks for the preview!!
I like that Concealed Weapon is getting fixed in the CE. Going to
have to make a weenie Computer Hack with a .44 deck now. :p
As far as the new look goes, I'm going to have to come back here
often and see if it grows on me. Maybe it's because I've played
since very early on and I'm used to the way the cards look now but
my first reaction was that I do not like the new look/layout. Also,
it's going to be really funky, diconcerting and possibly confusing
when you start to mix library and crypt cards and even the same
type of card (combat, for example) doesn't look alike.
That said, the new look definitely has style and I'm sure it's going
to be flashy enough to attract new players (which, after all, is one
of the primary goals of this set). I'm just going to have to come back
and see it grows on me
Sorrow
-who really appreciates that the first preview vamp wasn't drawn by
Shy
---
I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me.
They ask me if I feel remorse and I answer, "Why of course!
There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!"
So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy
Sorrow
> Can lazverinus equip with bastard sword?
> (as a regular blow will do 4 damages)
Probably. The restriction is on the weapon itself
not what the weapon can ultimately do when used
as a strike.
> Can Basilia equipe with a bastard sword?
> (as a regular blow will do 2 aggro)
Actually, it won't do aggro. Her special only augments
strikes that she does with hands not with weapons.
Sorrow
---
I told the priest - don't count on any second coming. God got his
ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. He had the
balls to come, the gall to die and then forgive us. No, I don't
wonder why, I wonder what he thought it would get us
LSJ
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > FYI: The preview for The Camarilla Edition has begun. See the
> > VTES web page (linked in my .sig below) for more.
> >
>
> humm big break with the previous product line,
> but it looks ok to me (the new layout)
>
> i already have a q? about Concelaed Weapons:
> Can lazverinus equip with bastard sword?
> (as a regular blow will do 4 damages)
(Note: new card texts don't go into effect until the set
is legal for play.)
Yes.
A regular strike with a bastard sword inflicts 2 damage.
(default strength is 1; BS inflicts str+1 damage; the
current minion's current strength is not an issue)
Likewise, a Bonecraft will not enable a minion to equip
a hypothetical weapon that does str+3 damage with Concealed
Weapon.
> Can Basilia equipe with a bastard sword?
> (as a regular blow will do 2 aggro)
You are mistaken. Basilia's special only makes her hand damage
aggravated. It won't make her melee weapon damage aggravated.
The Tzimisce Lord
> The Tzimisce Lord wrote:
>>
>> LSJ wrote:
>> > FYI: The preview for The Camarilla Edition has begun. See the
>> > VTES web page (linked in my .sig below) for more.
>> >
>>
>> humm big break with the previous product line,
>> but it looks ok to me (the new layout)
>>
>> i already have a q? about Concelaed Weapons:
>> Can lazverinus equip with bastard sword?
>> (as a regular blow will do 4 damages)
>
> (Note: new card texts don't go into effect until the set
> is legal for play.)
>
> Yes.
>
> A regular strike with a bastard sword inflicts 2 damage.
> (default strength is 1; BS inflicts str+1 damage; the
> current minion's current strength is not an issue)
>
> Likewise, a Bonecraft will not enable a minion to equip
> a hypothetical weapon that does str+3 damage with Concealed
> Weapon.
ok.
>
>> Can Basilia equipe with a bastard sword?
>> (as a regular blow will do 2 aggro)
>
> You are mistaken. Basilia's special only makes her hand damage
> aggravated. It won't make her melee weapon damage aggravated.
>
you right, sorry
Orpheus
Well, the preview at least...
> I like that Concealed Weapon is getting fixed in the CE. Going to
> have to make a weenie Computer Hack with a .44 deck now. :p
Yeah, it's a good thing that that card got fixed ; nopt sure it is one that
everybody can have access to such a power now, even without aggravated it's
big ! And who said recently the !Salubri weren't worth shit because they
couldn't Disguise ?...
:-)
> As far as the new look goes, I'm going to have to come back here
> often and see if it grows on me. Maybe it's because I've played
> since very early on and I'm used to the way the cards look now but
> my first reaction was that I do not like the new look/layout.
Also,
> it's going to be really funky, diconcerting and possibly confusing
> when you start to mix library and crypt cards and even the same
> type of card (combat, for example) doesn't look alike.
I agree.
> That said, the new look definitely has style and I'm sure it's going
> to be flashy enough to attract new players (which, after all, is one
> of the primary goals of this set). I'm just going to have to come back
> and see it grows on me
Yes !
And we are glad to announce 2 thingd :
- some people DO draw better then Ken M. (although I have seen far, far
better artwork)
- Welcome to Sir Ralph Hamilton, the first infiltrated True Brujah !!
That means one thing : although there may not be any BL discipline (who
knows...) in Camarilla, the set was also thought out to remedy some of the
problems with it (or just make it competitive with Camarilla), if only
vampire wise (and Concealed proves that it works also cardwise).
Can't wait !!!
Orpheus, who reinstalled and has yet to program some funky signature (wonder
where Sorrow found his...).
Francois Gombault
> Orpheus, who reinstalled and has yet to program some funky signature
> (wonder where Sorrow found his...).
The Curse Of Millhaven
released: 1996
words and music by Nick Cave
Francois,
with an itty bitty help from google, admitedly.
Henrik Isaksson
> > Can lazverinus equip with bastard sword?
> > (as a regular blow will do 4 damages)
>
> (Note: new card texts don't go into effect until the set
> is legal for play.)
>
> Yes.
>
> A regular strike with a bastard sword inflicts 2 damage.
> (default strength is 1; BS inflicts str+1 damage; the
> current minion's current strength is not an issue)
>
? Is this a reversal of:
A weapon's "current damage" is the amount of damage that the weapon would
inflict if used as a strike by bearer against a generic opponent. (This
affects Concealed Weapon, Illegal Search and Seizure, and Machine Blitz).
[RTR 19980623]
Which parts of the new restriction makes it funktion differently than
before?
Old Concealed weapon: "The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or do more
than 4 damage."
New Concealed weapon: "The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or inflict
(with a regular strike) aggravated damage or more than 3 damage"
Does this new ruling mean that Black Cat now cannot conceal out a 3-pool
weapon? Can I now play Illegal Search and Seizure on Lazverinus with a
bastard sword?
ISaS: "You may burn one weapon that costs more than 2 pool or inflicts more
than 3 damage"
/henrik isaksson
off building a harbinger shambling horde deck with concealed meathooks and
martyr's resilience...
arden mcbathan
> Yuhah, it's out !! :-)
couldn't Disguise ?...
yeah, with gas powered chainsaw fitting right in the restrictions...
reyda
"arden mcbathan" <sonnenk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aae0be1a.02070...@posting.google.com...
New card text :
Only usable before range is chosen.
Equip the salubri antitribu in combat with a gas powered chainsaw from your
hand.
(insert some flavor text from texas chainsaw massacre =) )
LSJ
>
> > > i already have a q? about Concelaed Weapons:
> > > Can lazverinus equip with bastard sword?
> > > (as a regular blow will do 4 damages)
> >
> > (Note: new card texts don't go into effect until the set
> > is legal for play.)
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > A regular strike with a bastard sword inflicts 2 damage.
> > (default strength is 1; BS inflicts str+1 damage; the
> > current minion's current strength is not an issue)
> >
>
> ? Is this a reversal of:
>
> A weapon's "current damage" is the amount of damage that the weapon would
> inflict if used as a strike by bearer against a generic opponent. (This
> affects Concealed Weapon, Illegal Search and Seizure, and Machine Blitz).
> [RTR 19980623]
No.
> Which parts of the new restriction makes it funktion differently than
> before?
Card text: "with a regular strike".
> Old Concealed weapon: "The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or do more
> than 4 damage."
>
> New Concealed weapon: "The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or inflict
> (with a regular strike) aggravated damage or more than 3 damage"
>
> Does this new ruling mean that Black Cat now cannot conceal out a 3-pool
> weapon? Can I now play Illegal Search and Seizure on Lazverinus with a
> bastard sword?
> ISaS: "You may burn one weapon that costs more than 2 pool or inflicts more
> than 3 damage"
No, it does not mean that. BC's card text says nothing about "with a regular
strike". Likewise ISaS.
reyda
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3D219251...@white-wolf.com...
(snip)
> No, it does not mean that. BC's card text says nothing about "with a
regular
> strike". Likewise ISaS.
What is a regular strike ? =)
LSJ
A normal strike by a regular minion.
A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a
non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon
in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions.
reyda
> reyda wrote:
> >
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D219251...@white-wolf.com...
> > (snip)
> > > No, it does not mean that. BC's card text says nothing about "with a
> > regular
> > > strike". Likewise ISaS.
> >
> > What is a regular strike ? =)
>
> A normal strike by a regular minion.
>
> A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a
> non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon
> in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions.
Will the definition of "regular" strike will be put in the rulebook ? =)
LSJ
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3D219A48...@white-wolf.com...
> > reyda wrote:
> > >
> > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3D219251...@white-wolf.com...
> > > (snip)
> > > > No, it does not mean that. BC's card text says nothing about "with a
> > > regular
> > > > strike". Likewise ISaS.
> > >
> > > What is a regular strike ? =)
> >
> > A normal strike by a regular minion.
> >
> > A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a
> > non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon
> > in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions.
>
> Will the definition of "regular" strike will be put in the rulebook ? =)
Rulebook glossary:
Regular: regular
?
Sorrow
> Rulebook glossary:
> Regular: regular
You really can be infuriating at times, Scott...
This definition, the definition that you just posted:
"A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a
non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon
in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions."
appears nowhere in the rulebook. And it is not at all intuitive. Perhaps it
is to you because you're the rulemonger but it isn't to us. Since the above
definition has great relevance to the game and particularly to Concealed
Weapon, it would behoove you to add it into the rulebook lest you actually
want to be bombarded by a ton of questions about it after release.
This is exactly what I was saying before with that whole Masika issue. It
is not at all intuitive and your definition in that case cannot be implied by
the card text. It *needs* to be documented somewhere.
Sorrow
LSJ
>
> > > Will the definition of "regular" strike will be put in the rulebook ? =)
> > Rulebook glossary:
> > Regular: regular
>
> You really can be infuriating at times, Scott...
Note the smilie at the end of his post to get a sense of the tone involved.
> This definition, the definition that you just posted:
>
> "A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a
> non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon
> in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions."
>
> appears nowhere in the rulebook. And it is not at all intuitive. Perhaps it
Not "at all" intuitive?
Regular means non-special, non-modified is not intuitive in any sense?
That's difficult to believe.
> is to you because you're the rulemonger but it isn't to us. Since the above
> definition has great relevance to the game and particularly to Concealed
> Weapon, it would behoove you to add it into the rulebook lest you actually
> want to be bombarded by a ton of questions about it after release.
>
> This is exactly what I was saying before with that whole Masika issue. It
> is not at all intuitive and your definition in that case cannot be implied by
> the card text. It *needs* to be documented somewhere.
Well, it's now on google.
If more than a handful of players express confusion over the concept, it
may be added elsewhere. For now, however, the clutter is kept to a minimum.
Sorrow
> Note the smilie at the end of his post to get a sense of the tone involved.
Yes, my bad. There should have been a smiley there. Here it is. :p
heheheh. Though, your answers can be frustrating at times.
> > This definition, the definition that you just posted:
> > "A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a
> > non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon
> > in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions."
> > appears nowhere in the rulebook. And it is not at all intuitive. Perhaps it
> Not "at all" intuitive?
No it isn't, otherwise questions wouldn't be asked.
> Regular means non-special, non-modified is not intuitive in any sense?
No, it isn't. See Lazverinus. His regular strikes hit for 3. They aren't modified
by anything other than his special. So, if he strikes with the Bastard Sword
w/o Lucky Blow or Dawn Op he is hitting for 4. While Lupo with the same sword
only strikes for 2. So, can Lazverinus equip a Bastard Sword with CE? Some
would say "Yes, becasue the Sword itself only gives +1" but others would say
"No because when he strikes he's doing 4 which is clearly not allowed by CE".
So which is it? Because of things like that, it isn't intuitive.
> That's difficult to believe.
See above.
> > This is exactly what I was saying before with that whole Masika issue. It
> > is not at all intuitive and your definition in that case cannot be implied by
> > the card text. It *needs* to be documented somewhere.
> Well, it's now on google.
Actually, it's only referenced on Google.
In case anyone else is curious, Masika's text doesn't mean what it says. There
actually is no "between turns" phase. Because of that, what Masika *really* means
is that he untaps at the end of a meth's discard phase.
I'd love for someone to tell me _that_ is intuitive.
> If more than a handful of players express confusion over the concept, it
> may be added elsewhere. For now, however, the clutter is kept to a minimum.
Clutter to a minimum? All you need to do is add to the rulebook that there is no
"between turns" phase; that it's *always* someone's turn. That will keep players
from using cards illegally (tapping Dreams between turns, for instance) and keep
the furor of realizing that one of the strategies you've built your deck around doesn't
actually work and only because some obscure ruling in cyberspace said so.
Sorrow
---
"Just once I'd like a childhood memory I don't have to repress."
- Malcolm
LSJ
>
> > > You really can be infuriating at times, Scott...
> > Note the smilie at the end of his post to get a sense of the tone involved.
>
> Yes, my bad. There should have been a smiley there. Here it is. :p
> heheheh. Though, your answers can be frustrating at times.
>
> > > This definition, the definition that you just posted:
> > > "A regular minion (with the default strength, which is 1) making a
> > > non-modified strike (no Lucky Blow or Dawn Operation) with the weapon
> > > in question against a generic opponent under normal conditions."
> > > appears nowhere in the rulebook. And it is not at all intuitive. Perhaps it
> > Not "at all" intuitive?
>
> No it isn't, otherwise questions wouldn't be asked.
I've seen enough questions about other things to know that that
"otherwise" is not true.
:-)
>
> > Regular means non-special, non-modified is not intuitive in any sense?
>
> No, it isn't. See Lazverinus. His regular strikes hit for 3. They aren't modified
> by anything other than his special. So, if he strikes with the Bastard Sword
> w/o Lucky Blow or Dawn Op he is hitting for 4. While Lupo with the same sword
> only strikes for 2. So, can Lazverinus equip a Bastard Sword with CE? Some
> would say "Yes, becasue the Sword itself only gives +1" but others would say
> "No because when he strikes he's doing 4 which is clearly not allowed by CE".
> So which is it? Because of things like that, it isn't intuitive.
>
> > That's difficult to believe.
>
> See above.
How much damage does a Bastard Sword do with a regular strike?
(You'll note that this is the phraseology used on CW - not something that
would involve questions about the minion using it or the target of the strike
or the relation between the two or strike modifiers or combat modifiers
in effect).
> > > This is exactly what I was saying before with that whole Masika issue. It
> > > is not at all intuitive and your definition in that case cannot be implied by
> > > the card text. It *needs* to be documented somewhere.
> > Well, it's now on google.
>
> Actually, it's only referenced on Google.
> In case anyone else is curious, Masika's text doesn't mean what it says. There
> actually is no "between turns" phase. Because of that, what Masika *really* means
> is that he untaps at the end of a meth's discard phase.
> I'd love for someone to tell me _that_ is intuitive.
No need.
Players who treat the effect as happening in some non-existent
"between turns" phase end up with the same result.
It was badly worded. Not the same as intuive, by any means.
But the effect is so inconsequential as to warrant no text in the ERC list.
> > If more than a handful of players express confusion over the concept, it
> > may be added elsewhere. For now, however, the clutter is kept to a minimum.
>
> Clutter to a minimum? All you need to do is add to the rulebook that there is no
> "between turns" phase; that it's *always* someone's turn. That will keep players
> from using cards illegally (tapping Dreams between turns, for instance) and keep
> the furor of realizing that one of the strategies you've built your deck around doesn't
> actually work and only because some obscure ruling in cyberspace said so.
Or add nothing.
Note on tapping DotS "between turns":
It only grants +2 hand size until the end of the "current turn". Therefore
there must be a current turn.
Card text is all that's necessary to clear that one case up - not some
obscure ruling in cyberspace.
Derek Ray
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about:
>Henrik Isaksson wrote:
>>
>> ? Is this a reversal of:
>>
>> A weapon's "current damage" is the amount of damage that the weapon would
>> inflict if used as a strike by bearer against a generic opponent. (This
>> affects Concealed Weapon, Illegal Search and Seizure, and Machine Blitz).
>> [RTR 19980623]
>
>No.
>
>> Which parts of the new restriction makes it funktion differently than
>> before?
>
>Card text: "with a regular strike".
Lazverinus' regular strike is hands, though, for 3 damage.
It seems more than just a bit inconsistent, having gone to all the
trouble to set up the concepts of "base strength", "strength+x" damage,
the definition of "hand strike", etc., and having had a Rules Team
ruling on a highly similar issue in the past, to now overturn that
precedent based on...?
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
LSJ
Card text.
Here's a question:
How much damage does a Bastard Sword do with a regular strike?
(Pretend a newbie asked you about that having heard you mention
the card but without reference to any minion, combat, game, or
deck).
Card text on CW: "The *weapon* cannot ... inflict (with a regular
strike) ... more than 3 damage."
Lazvernius's special ability doesn't come into play when determining
what a weapon will inflict with a regular strike. The default strength
is 1. A minion with a strength of other than 1 is the exception, not
the norm. When evaluating a "regular strike", use the regular, not the
abnormal.
Henrik Isaksson
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3D21BC61...@white-wolf.com...
Well, I would probably have answered: That depends on who's holding it, but
it will do strength+1 damage.
> (Pretend a newbie asked you about that having heard you mention
> the card but without reference to any minion, combat, game, or
> deck).
>
> Card text on CW: "The *weapon* cannot ... inflict (with a regular
> strike) ... more than 3 damage."
>
> Lazvernius's special ability doesn't come into play when determining
> what a weapon will inflict with a regular strike. The default strength
> is 1. A minion with a strength of other than 1 is the exception, not
> the norm. When evaluating a "regular strike", use the regular, not the
> abnormal.
If I would, without the help of a rulemonger, try to make a ruling on the
"regular strike" part of CW, I would say that it means the damage the holder
of the weapon would do with a regular strike against a regular opponent,
i.e. Lazverinus would do 4 damage with a bastard sword, and Fidus, the
shrunken beast would do 1 damage with the same sword.
Don't you think that this pretended newbie will have trouble gripping the,
IMO, counter-intentuive explaination that Lazverinus can conceal a bastard
sword, but you cannoy play ISaS on him if he has it?
/Henrik Isaksson
Chris Berger
>
> How much damage does a Bastard Sword do with a regular strike?
>
I assume you can see where the confusion lies.
One could almost make an argument that a Bastard Sword only does 1 damage and
the rest of the damage comes from the strength of the minion. Meaning, without
some sort of ruling on what a "regular strike" is, one could reasonably guess
that a Bastard Sword, for purposes of Concealed Weapon, dealt 1 damage, 2
damage, or damage based on the minion it is put on.
LSJ
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3D21B307...@white-wolf.com...
> >
> > How much damage does a Bastard Sword do with a regular strike?
> >
> How much damage does Lazverinus using a Bastard Sword do with a regular strike?
> I assume you can see where the confusion lies.
Of course.
Fortunately, CW only refers to the former. Card text.
> One could almost make an argument that a Bastard Sword only does 1 damage and
> the rest of the damage comes from the strength of the minion. Meaning, without
> some sort of ruling on what a "regular strike" is, one could reasonably guess
> that a Bastard Sword, for purposes of Concealed Weapon, dealt 1 damage, 2
> damage, or damage based on the minion it is put on.
One could, if the default strength were 0 instead of 1, sure.
LSJ
> If I would, without the help of a rulemonger, try to make a ruling on the
> "regular strike" part of CW, I would say that it means the damage the holder
> of the weapon would do with a regular strike against a regular opponent,
> i.e. Lazverinus would do 4 damage with a bastard sword, and Fidus, the
> shrunken beast would do 1 damage with the same sword.
Why make a special case for the holder and not his opponent or the current
combat modifiers? CW is a combat card, after all.
Henrik Isaksson
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3D21DCD7...@white-wolf.com...
> Henrik Isaksson wrote:
> > If I would, without the help of a rulemonger, try to make a ruling on
the
> > "regular strike" part of CW, I would say that it means the damage the
holder
> > of the weapon would do with a regular strike against a regular opponent,
> > i.e. Lazverinus would do 4 damage with a bastard sword, and Fidus, the
> > shrunken beast would do 1 damage with the same sword.
>
> Why make a special case for the holder and not his opponent or the current
> combat modifiers? CW is a combat card, after all.
>
Why make a special case out of CW, and not ISaS?
/henrik isaksson
LSJ
You've seen the Camarilla Edition ISaS?
Derek Ray
>Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>> Lazverinus' regular strike is hands, though, for 3 damage.
>>
>> It seems more than just a bit inconsistent, having gone to all the
>> trouble to set up the concepts of "base strength", "strength+x" damage,
>> the definition of "hand strike", etc., and having had a Rules Team
>> ruling on a highly similar issue in the past, to now overturn that
>> precedent based on...?
>
>Card text.
>
>Here's a question:
>
>How much damage does a Bastard Sword do with a regular strike?
The correct response is "Whose regular strike"?
The default strike, as stated in the rulebook and in a number of other
places, is "hands". Default is sufficiently similar to regular so that
people can follow the connection. Hand strike damage amount is
different depending on the strength of the striking minion; therefore
unless you know something else about the regular strike, you don't know
what a regular strike does even WITHOUT the bastard sword.
>(Pretend a newbie asked you about that having heard you mention
>the card but without reference to any minion, combat, game, or
>deck).
Just did. There is no "regular" strike as defined; the default strike
(the only logical choice for finding something to match "regular") is
hands-for-strength. The reason this matters is because allies have 0
default strength, and vampires have 1 default strength.
>Lazvernius's special ability doesn't come into play when determining
>what a weapon will inflict with a regular strike. The default strength
>is 1. A minion with a strength of other than 1 is the exception, not
>the norm. When evaluating a "regular strike", use the regular, not the
>abnormal.
Right. I'm using the default.
I think the problem is that "strength" has been set up over the course
of several rulings to be similar to an "attribute" of vampires, as
opposed to just a "special" of +2. The special text is still there for
Seeds of Corruption, etc., but the "base strength" concept has been
poked around for some time. This seems to directly turn it around and
shove it the other direction.