Burning Wrath Q
Murcalumis
the +1, for inferior potence, or +2, for superior) or just the +1 (or +2)?
simulacrum
adapt, migrate, or die
Mark Havener
My group is slightly confused about this as well. We've been playing it
that all the damage is aggravated (because otherwise we figure the card
would say "+1 aggravated hand damage", not "+1 hand damage, aggravated"),
but we are not sure about this at all.
Another question on this card? Why isn't it a clan-specific (Brujah, for
those of you who haven't read any V:TM clanbooks)? I understand that
V:TES and V:TM aren't completely compatible, but this just seems unfair
to my poor Brujah... ;)
-Elfholme
--
******************************************************************************
This bit of wisdom has been brought to you by:
Mark Havener
Lord of
elfh...@netcom.com
Wood Elf King (and Jyhad player extraordinaire!)
******************************************************************************
REF
>-Elfholme
Its not clan specific because the Noss need all the help they can get
<g>. With protean the gangrel will usually not bother to spend the
extra blood. Now of course Giovanni...
REF
Thomas R Wylie
Murcalumis <murca...@aol.com> wrote:
>Does this DS card make all of a vamp's hand damage aggravated (including
>the +1, for inferior potence, or +2, for superior) or just the +1 (or +2)?
Only the added damage is aggravated (just like Dragon Breath Rounds).
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
L. Scott Johnson
Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>Murcalumis <murca...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Does this DS card make all of a vamp's hand damage aggravated (including
>>the +1, for inferior potence, or +2, for superior) or just the +1 (or +2)?
>
>Only the added damage is aggravated (just like Dragon Breath Rounds).
>
Actually the card is a strike card, not a damage-modifier, so all
of the damage would be aggravated:
Strike: +N hand damage, aggravated.
not
Add N aggravated damage to your hand strike.
(a parallel to the DBR wording)
---
The interpretation that make the added damage distinct from hand damage would
mean that Wolf Claws, when used with a strike like Undead Strength, would
only make the base (non-Undead Strength) hand damage aggravated. (Because
you're saying the Undead Strength and Burning Wrath merely add damage to a hand
strike rather than increasing a hand strike's damage.)
--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text
REF
>not
We use different grammer.
Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated
Seems to me that only applies to the part before the comma.
The claw wording is different in that it converts hand damage.
Rory (of course English, like Math has never been my strong suit)
L. Scott Johnson
>>Actually the card is a strike card, not a damage-modifier, so all
>>of the damage would be aggravated:
>> Strike: +N hand damage, aggravated.
>>not
>> Add N aggravated damage to your hand strike.
>> (a parallel to the DBR wording)
>We use different grammer.
> Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated
>Seems to me that only applies to the part before the comma.
>The claw wording is different in that it converts hand damage.
>Rory (of course English, like Math has never been my strong suit)
The part before the comma is the entire strike, so we agree.
To add aggravated damage to an otherwise non-aggravated strike, try:
Strike: +1 aggravated hand damage.
(or, less clearly:)
Strike: hand +1 aggravated damage.
If I said
One day and one week dentention, without food nor water
or
One day without food nor water and one week detention
Which would you choose?
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Smith & Wesson: the original
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | "point and click" interface.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
Daniel Hoffman
>lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
>>Actually the card is a strike card, not a damage-modifier, so all
>>of the damage would be aggravated:
>> Strike: +N hand damage, aggravated.
>>not
>> Add N aggravated damage to your hand strike.
>> (a parallel to the DBR wording)
>We use different grammer.
> Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated
>Seems to me that only applies to the part before the comma.
>The claw wording is different in that it converts hand damage.
>Rory (of course English, like Math has never been my strong suit)
But if you look at the Bastard Sword it says +1 hand damage when it means:
Strike: Hand Damage +1 (errata or some such)
so by consistent WoTC grammar, Burning Wrath should be read as:
Strike: Hand Damage +N, Aggravated
This quite clearly indicates that the entire hand damage is aggravated.
Thomas R Wylie
L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote:
>>>Does this DS card make all of a vamp's hand damage aggravated (including
>>>the +1, for inferior potence, or +2, for superior) or just the +1 (or +2)?
>>Only the added damage is aggravated (just like Dragon Breath Rounds).
>
>of the damage would be aggravated:
> Strike: +N hand damage, aggravated.
>not
> Add N aggravated damage to your hand strike.
I am fully aware that BW is a strike, thank you. I said that the *damage*
acts like Dragon Breath's damage, not that the card is played in the same way.
>The interpretation that make the added damage distinct from hand damage would
>mean that Wolf Claws, when used with a strike like Undead Strength, would
>only make the base (non-Undead Strength) hand damage aggravated. (Because
>you're saying the Undead Strength and Burning Wrath merely add damage to a
>hand strike rather than increasing a hand strike's damage.)
Wolf Claws works like Glaser Rounds; it simply increases the damage of
the vampire's hand strike. Anything that is true about the vampire's normal
hand damage is true about the added damage as well.
Burning Wrath works like Dragon Breath; it increases the damage of the
vampire's hand strike, and modifies the extra damage (and only the extra
damage).
Mark Havener
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>So, if my hand damage is 1 non-agg, and I play a strike card that says
>"Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated", I do my base one plus one agg
>(and not my base one plus one, agg - note the difference the comma makes).
I agree with you on this. The Burning Wrath card is obviously poorly worded.
>But, if my hand damage is 1 agg (Basilia), and I play a strike card that
>says "Strike: +1 hand damage", I do my base one aggravated plus one
>(non-agg) - or do I do two aggravated? If 2agg, why the differing view
>of what Strike cards do?
Hmmm...after thinking about this for a while, I am forced to agree with
you that it *IS* inconsistent. If the hand strike is aggravated damage,
shouldn't any additional hand damage be aggravated also? This is how
Basilia and the Sengir Dagger both work, right? Unless Burning Wrath
doesn't make the hand damage from the strike aggravated at all, but just
adds +1 (or +2) aggravated damage to whatever normal damage your hand strike
does? Wish the card had been worded better. Not sure it's worth a cost
of 3 blood if it's only doing 1 or 2 points of aggravated damage...Wolf
Claws/Claws of the Dead does nearly the same thing for a cost of 1
blood...if that's all it does, why does it cost so much?
Martin Engelhardt
: So, if my hand damage is 1 non-agg, and I play a strike card that says
: "Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated", I do my base one plus one agg
: (and not my base one plus one, agg - note the difference the comma makes).
: But, if my hand damage is 1 agg (Basilia), and I play a strike card that
: says "Strike: +1 hand damage", I do my base one aggravated plus one
: (non-agg) - or do I do two aggravated? If 2agg, why the differing view
: of what Strike cards do?
I don't have her with me (although it's dark :-), but doesn't Basilia
say something like 'hand damage from Basilia is aggrevated? The
Sengir Dagger states that all added Damage is also aggrevated.
So if Basilia uses a Lucky blow, she would deal 2 aggrevated damage,
right?
Martin
--
Martin Engelhardt mer...@fim1.informatik.uni-mannheim.de
Thomas R Wylie
Martin Engelhardt <mer...@pips01.informatik.uni-mannheim.de> wrote:
>: L. Scott Johnson writes:
>: So, if my hand damage is 1 non-agg, and I play a strike card that says
>: "Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated", I do my base one plus one agg
>: (and not my base one plus one, agg - note the difference the comma makes).
Correct.
>: But, if my hand damage is 1 agg (Basilia), and I play a strike card that
>: says "Strike: +1 hand damage", I do my base one aggravated plus one
>: (non-agg) - or do I do two aggravated? If 2agg, why the differing view
>: of what Strike cards do?
You do 2 aggravated. When you increase the damage done by a fist, weapon,
or whatever, the increased damage inherits all the qualities of the base
damage. Basilia's Lucky Blow is fully aggravated, a vampire whose hand damage
didn't harm allies would never hurt allies with hand damage, and so on.
Conversely, if there is a special quality about damage added to a strike
(such as being aggravated), this quality is not necessarily inherited by the
strike's base damage.
>I don't have her with me (although it's dark :-), but doesn't Basilia
>say something like 'hand damage from Basilia is aggrevated? The
>Sengir Dagger states that all added Damage is also aggrevated.
This text (which only appears in the original text) was basically a reminder.
>So if Basilia uses a Lucky blow, she would deal 2 aggrevated damage, right?
Right.
Robert Courtney Campbell
>> Strike: Hand Damage +N, Aggravated
>> This quite clearly indicates that the entire hand damage is aggravated.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but exactly when would this come into play? I
mean, I throw out a torn signpost with Don Cruez, blur, and for my third
strike I throw a burning wrath down, isn't Anson burnt anyway, whether the
damage previous to the burning wrath damage aggrivated or not?
We've been playing it almost like a dragon breath rounds, where it just
tacks 2AG onto the end of the damage, and the only time it makes any
difference is when somebody comes up with a skin of rock, or mabee a flack
jacket and a resplendant protector...
--
____________________________________________________________________
Earl, are you okay???
Earl?????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Courtney Campbell
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt3680b
Internet: gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt3680b
Robert Courtney Campbell
>> Burning Wrath works like Dragon Breath; it increases the damage of the
>> vampire's hand strike, and modifies the extra damage (and only the extra
>> damage).
This is how we've been playing it, and it makes more sense this way. (btw,
I'm glad they came up with this card, because it makes Brujah worth
playing again...)
L. Scott Johnson
>Martin Engelhardt <mer...@pips01.informatik.uni-mannheim.de> wrote:
>>: L. Scott Johnson writes:
>>: So, if my hand damage is 1 non-agg, and I play a strike card that says
>>: "Strike: +1 hand damage, aggravated", I do my base one plus one agg
>>: (and not my base one plus one, agg - note the difference the comma makes).
>Correct.
>>: But, if my hand damage is 1 agg (Basilia), and I play a strike card that
>>: says "Strike: +1 hand damage", I do my base one aggravated plus one
>>: (non-agg) - or do I do two aggravated? If 2agg, why the differing view
>>: of what Strike cards do?
>You do 2 aggravated. When you increase the damage done by a fist, weapon,
>or whatever, the increased damage inherits all the qualities of the base
>damage. Basilia's Lucky Blow is fully aggravated, a vampire whose hand damage
So Basilia wielding a Bastard Sword would srtike for 2 aggravated, by that
statement. (Or, by the initial Burning Wrath answer, would strike for at
least 1agg +1normal).
Any reasoning behind why this is not the case?
>didn't harm allies would never hurt allies with hand damage, and so on.
>Conversely, if there is a special quality about damage added to a strike
>(such as being aggravated), this quality is not necessarily inherited by the
>strike's base damage.
Burning wrath says (X+2)aggravated damage, where X is the vampires base
hand damage. It is not a hand strike - it cannot be used by a vampire
immortally grappled (it doesn't follow the 'hand stike' template - to put
it in WotC terms). It is a strike which does aggravated damage, the amount
of which is based on the vampire's hand damage.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | File Not Found...
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Delete User instead? (Y/y)
L. Scott Johnson
>Daniel Hoffman (dhof...@cris.com) wrote:
>>> Strike: Hand Damage +N, Aggravated
>>> This quite clearly indicates that the entire hand damage is aggravated.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but exactly when would this come into play? I
>mean, I throw out a torn signpost with Don Cruez, blur, and for my third
>strike I throw a burning wrath down, isn't Anson burnt anyway, whether the
>damage previous to the burning wrath damage aggrivated or not?
I can't correct you if you don't make a statement :-).
It matters a great deal if you have plans to prevent the damage.
Two damage is easier to prevent than three (preventing two agg and
taking the one normal is *much* better for the preventing vampire
than preventing two agg and taking the third agg on the chin.)
>We've been playing it almost like a dragon breath rounds, where it just
>tacks 2AG onto the end of the damage, and the only time it makes any
>difference is when somebody comes up with a skin of rock, or mabee a flack
>jacket and a resplendant protector...
And then it is a big difference.
DBR says that it adds damage to an existing strike (one that is in the
process of resolving).
Burning Wrath says that it *is* a strike which does agg damage (the amount of
which is based on the striker's hand damage).
Algustas
Wow, you've really confused me! Please explain.
On 26 Feb 1996, Robert Courtney Campbell wrote:
[Stuff about Burning Wrath deleted.]
> This is how we've been playing it, and it makes more sense this way. (btw,
> I'm glad they came up with this card, because it makes Brujah worth
> playing again...)
Hows that again? Brujah are the Gods of combat, and Rush Combat
decks are a viable strategy. Whatever do you mean by "worth playing again?"
Algustas
*****After you've heard two eyewitness accounts of an auto accident it
makes you wonder about history.***** Bits & Pieces
David Pontes
> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>
> >>: But, if my hand damage is 1 agg (Basilia), and I play a strike card that
> >>: says "Strike: +1 hand damage", I do my base one aggravated plus one
> >>: (non-agg) - or do I do two aggravated? If 2agg, why the differing view
> >>: of what Strike cards do?
>
> >You do 2 aggravated. When you increase the damage done by a fist, weapon,
> >or whatever, the increased damage inherits all the qualities of the base
> >damage. Basilia's Lucky Blow is fully aggravated, a vampire whose hand damage
>
> So Basilia wielding a Bastard Sword would srtike for 2 aggravated, by that
> statement. (Or, by the initial Burning Wrath answer, would strike for at
> least 1agg +1normal).
>
> Any reasoning behind why this is not the case?
I'm afraid I don't agree with this. The way I see it, Basilia is
a deformed Gangrel whose hands have turned into claws (this may happen,
you know...), and so delivers aggr. hand damage as if she had a permanent
'Wolf Claws' on her (inferior, of course). If Basilia's type of
strike changes by any means (bastard sword, Torn Signpost, etc.)
(i.e. she is no longer using her 'claws'), the strike is not necessarily
aggravated.
Or in other words: there are two types of strike modifiers -
added damage and base damage. The added damage retains all the properties
of the base damage. The base damage changes these properties and is also
affected by any appropriate added damage modifiers.
>
> >didn't harm allies would never hurt allies with hand damage, and so on.
> >Conversely, if there is a special quality about damage added to a strike
> >(such as being aggravated), this quality is not necessarily inherited by the
> >strike's base damage.
>
> Burning wrath says (X+2)aggravated damage, where X is the vampires base
> hand damage. It is not a hand strike - it cannot be used by a vampire
> immortally grappled (it doesn't follow the 'hand stike' template - to put
> it in WotC terms). It is a strike which does aggravated damage, the amount
> of which is based on the vampire's hand damage.
>
I do not know where the idea for this card came. It seems to be a
combat action (no, it's not a game term, I know...) that requires more
than a simple hand strike, and so someone who is 'Immortally Grappled'
should not be able to preform it.
Hope this helps...
David Pontes
8[
L. Scott Johnson
>On 26 Feb 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>>
>> >>: But, if my hand damage is 1 agg (Basilia), and I play a strike card that
>> >>: says "Strike: +1 hand damage", I do my base one aggravated plus one
>> >>: (non-agg) - or do I do two aggravated? If 2agg, why the differing view
>> >>: of what Strike cards do?
>>
>> >You do 2 aggravated. When you increase the damage done by a fist, weapon,
>> >or whatever, the increased damage inherits all the qualities of the base
>> >damage. Basilia's Lucky Blow is fully aggravated, a vampire whose hand damage
>>
>> So Basilia wielding a Bastard Sword would srtike for 2 aggravated, by that
>> statement. (Or, by the initial Burning Wrath answer, would strike for at
>> least 1agg +1normal).
>>
>> Any reasoning behind why this is not the case?
> I'm afraid I don't agree with this. The way I see it, Basilia is
>a deformed Gangrel whose hands have turned into claws (this may happen,
>you know...), and so delivers aggr. hand damage as if she had a permanent
>'Wolf Claws' on her (inferior, of course). If Basilia's type of
>strike changes by any means (bastard sword, Torn Signpost, etc.)
>(i.e. she is no longer using her 'claws'), the strike is not necessarily
>aggravated.
And you'd be 100% correct, as far as the game world goes.
But I'm talking about the card game mechanics.
> Or in other words: there are two types of strike modifiers -
>added damage and base damage. The added damage retains all the properties
>of the base damage. The base damage changes these properties and is also
>affected by any appropriate added damage modifiers.
Neither Bastard Sword nor Burning Wrath is a strike modifier.
They are both strikes.
One does some amount of normal (non-agg) damage.
The other does some amount of aggravated damage.
Both of the amounts are based on the user's hand damage amount, whether
aggravated or not.
Why should one (Wrath) be viewed as a damage modifier and the other
not?
I only used Basilia as an example to show how silly the official
(strikes inherit all qualities of the strikes they are based on) ruling
would be when applied evenly to all cards.
Every time Tom (among others) mentions Burning Wrath, it is in
the context of a damage modifier, which it is not.
Burning Wrath is *not* a hand strike, any more than a Bastard Sword's
strike is a hand strike. Bot are simpy strikes which do some amount
of damage, one does all-agg, the other does all-non-agg - both
completely independent of the aggaravted (or not) nature of the
user's base hand damage.
> I do not know where the idea for this card came. It seems to be a
>combat action (no, it's not a game term, I know...) that requires more
>than a simple hand strike, and so someone who is 'Immortally Grappled'
>should not be able to preform it.
> Hope this helps...
Sure does - that's my point exactly.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | A titanic intellect...
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | In a world full of icebergs.