What's a hand strike (exactly)?
mostly harmless
exactly are permitted after an Immortal Grapple is played.
Card text says strikes that are not hand strikes aren't allowed.
So what's a hand strike? Everything that does hand damage? Or just the
default hand strike without any cards?
The rule book does seem to imply the latter, but I'm not sure.
I'm pretty sure that even melee weapons aren't allowed, but what about
strike cards like Undead Strength or Wolf Claws, that deal modified
hand damage - are these still 'hand strikes'? And what about dodge and
combat ends? What about cards like Entombment or Coma?
Thanks in advance
Michael
Reyda
"mostly harmless" <mostlyh...@chello.at> a écrit dans le message news:
9ebd888f.01091...@posting.google.com...
> While building a new Brujah deck, I was wondering which strikes
> exactly are permitted after an Immortal Grapple is played.
hand strikes ;)
> Card text says strikes that are not hand strikes aren't allowed.
>
> So what's a hand strike? Everything that does hand damage? Or just the
> default hand strike without any cards?
any card that does non ranged damage based on your strength qualifies. Some
weapons are worded like "strength +2 damage" but they are not your hands. So
you cannot strike with a weapon under Immortal Grapple, only bare hands.
Strikin with a weapon is not striking with your hands, i'm sure you agree.
The most commonly seen "hand strikes" those days are : Scorpion sting,
Undead strength, Pushing the limit, Burning wrath, Lucky blow, Scorpion
sting, Dagon's call, Khabar the honor. Sutter step does'nt qualifie since
it's a dodge who inflicts damage as a side effect.
You can modify your hand strike with Wolf claw to make them aggravated. You
are still fighting bare handed.
Dodge, coma, majesty, entombment, fleshcraft and other strike cards are not
hand damage.
i hope i'm clear enough =)
reyda
James Coupe
>> So what's a hand strike? Everything that does hand damage? Or just the
>> default hand strike without any cards?
>
>any card that does non ranged damage based on your strength qualifies.
Just for reference (it pretty much agrees with everything you said), the
ruling's text states:
"Hand Strike: any non-ranged, non-weapon strike that deals damage based
on the striking minion's strength, or any minion's non-ranged damage-
dealing innate strike. [LSJ 19970224]"
So "Strike for strength" is.
So "Scorpion Sting for strength+1" is.
So "Blood Fury" isn't - not based on strength.
So "Shadow Strike" isn't - it's ranged.
So "Bastard Sword" isn't - it's melee weapon based.
So ".44 Magnum" isn't - it's a weapon and it's ranged.
So "Theft of Vitae" isn't - it's ranged and not damage.
etc.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F
They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6
I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D
mostly harmless
Reyda <re...@noos.fr> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
9o76dq$fjk$1...@neon.noos.net...
>
> "mostly harmless" <mostlyh...@chello.at> a écrit dans le message news:
> 9ebd888f.01091...@posting.google.com...
> > While building a new Brujah deck, I was wondering which strikes
> > exactly are permitted after an Immortal Grapple is played.
>
> hand strikes ;)
Really? I don't believe it! :)
> any card that does non ranged damage based on your strength qualifies.
That sounds like a useful definition. Thanks.
Any objections?
M.
James Coupe
<mostlyh...@chello.atNOSPAM!> writes
>> any card that does non ranged damage based on your strength qualifies.
>
>That sounds like a useful definition. Thanks.
>
>Any objections?
The obvious melee weapon based objection.
....salem christ....
> In message <iZHp7.30142$GV1.6...@news.chello.at>, mostly harmless
> <mostlyh...@chello.atNOSPAM!> writes
> >> any card that does non ranged damage based on your strength qualifies.
> >
> >That sounds like a useful definition. Thanks.
> >
> >Any objections?
>
> The obvious melee weapon based objection.
and stutter step, as previously noted, is another objection.
salem.
Bobby_Doc
> Undead strength, Pushing the limit, Burning wrath, Lucky blow, Scorpion
> sting, Dagon's call, Khabar the honor. Sutter step does'nt qualifie since
> it's a dodge who inflicts damage as a side effect.
Are you sure about Dagon's Call?
Robert
Brad Ward
> > The most commonly seen "hand strikes" those days are : Scorpion sting,
> > Undead strength, Pushing the limit, Burning wrath, Lucky blow, Scorpion
> > sting, Dagon's call, Khabar the honor. Sutter step does'nt qualifie since
> > it's a dodge who inflicts damage as a side effect.
So burning wrath is a Hand strike and can be used with immortal
grapple? I heard somewhere otherwise. just would like to clarify.
-Brad
Prince of NLV
James Coupe
<wa...@nevada.edu> writes
>robert_...@hotmail.com (Bobby_Doc) wrote in message news:<87708033.01091...@posting.google.com>...
>> > The most commonly seen "hand strikes" those days are : Scorpion sting,
>> > Undead strength, Pushing the limit, Burning wrath, Lucky blow, Scorpion
>> > sting, Dagon's call, Khabar the honor. Sutter step does'nt qualifie since
>> > it's a dodge who inflicts damage as a side effect.
>
>So burning wrath is a Hand strike and can be used with immortal
>grapple?
Yes. It's a non-ranged strike based on your strength which isn't a
melee weapon strike.
That it's aggravated doesn't matter.
James Coupe
<robert_...@hotmail.com> writes
From here, it looks like Stutter Step to me - with a hand strike effect
and something else as well.
Pat Ricochet
> In message <87708033.01091...@posting.google.com>, Bobby_Doc
> <robert_...@hotmail.com> writes
>>> The most commonly seen "hand strikes" those days are : Scorpion sting,
>>> Undead strength, Pushing the limit, Burning wrath, Lucky blow, Scorpion
>>> sting, Dagon's call, Khabar the honor. Sutter step does'nt qualifie since
>>> it's a dodge who inflicts damage as a side effect.
>>
>> Are you sure about Dagon's Call?
>
> From here, it looks like Stutter Step to me - with a hand strike effect
> and something else as well.
??
Name: Dagon's Call
Cost: 1 blood
[qui] STRIKE: MAKE A HAND STRIKE (at strength damage) and the opposing
minion takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each round this
combat. A vampire may play only one Dagon's Call each combat.
[QUI] As above, and this hand strike does strength+1 damage.
Name: Stutter-Step
[cel] Strike: dodge.
[CEL] STRIKE: DODGE and inflict strength damage. This damage may be modified
by effects that modify hand damage. {This is both a hand strike and a dodge.
It cannot be used if dodges are restricted} Only usable at close range. Not
usable as an additional strike, and this vampire cannot use any additional
strikes this round.
--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
James Coupe
<sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes
>>> Are you sure about Dagon's Call?
>>
>> From here, it looks like Stutter Step to me - with a hand strike effect
>> and something else as well.
>
> ??
>
>Name: Dagon's Call
>Cost: 1 blood
>[qui] STRIKE: MAKE A HAND STRIKE (at strength damage) and the opposing
>minion takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each round this
>combat.
It would appear that the "and the opposing minion takes 1 unpreventable
damage during the press step each round" is also an effect of the
strike.
>Name: Stutter-Step
>[cel] Strike: dodge.
>[CEL] STRIKE: DODGE and inflict strength damage. This damage may be modified
>by effects that modify hand damage. {This is both a hand strike
^^^^ ^^ ^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^
It appears that both of them have an element of hand strike and
something else.
Pat Ricochet
>>>
>>> From here, it looks like Stutter Step to me - with a hand strike effect
>>> and something else as well.
>>
>> ??
>>
>> Name: Dagon's Call
>> Cost: 1 blood
>> [qui] STRIKE: MAKE A HAND STRIKE (at strength damage) and the opposing
>> minion takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each round this
>> combat.
>
> It would appear that the "and the opposing minion takes 1 unpreventable
> damage during the press step each round" is also an effect of the
> strike.
>
>
>> Name: Stutter-Step
>> [cel] Strike: dodge.
>> [CEL] STRIKE: DODGE and inflict strength damage. This damage may be modified
>> by effects that modify hand damage. {This is both a hand strike
> ^^^^ ^^ ^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^
>
> It appears that both of them have an element of hand strike and
> something else.
You oversnipped there a bit and lost the context, though:
> While building a new Brujah deck, I was wondering which strikes
> exactly are permitted after an Immortal Grapple is played.
...
>>> The most commonly seen "hand strikes" those days are : Scorpion sting,
>>> Undead strength, Pushing the limit, Burning wrath, Lucky blow, Scorpion
>>> sting, Dagon's call, Khabar the honor. Sutter step does'nt qualifie since
>>> it's a dodge who inflicts damage as a side effect.
>>
>> Are you sure about Dagon's Call?
>
> From here, it looks like Stutter Step to me - with a hand strike effect
> and something else as well.
It looks rather unlike Stutter-Step. I was confused as to whether you
were implying Stutter-Step *could* be used Immortal Grapple, or that Dagon's
Call *couldn't*. "Are you sure about Dagon's Call" seeming to be "Are you
sure Dagon's Call counts as a hand strike, such that you can use it while
Grappled?"
Academically, I guess they have similarities, but my oh-so-eloquent "??"
was "But, but, but, I thought the question was...WAAAAH! MOM! Those people
on the Internet you warned me about are confusing me!" =)
LSJ
Yes. Card text: "make a hand strike..."
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ
>
> In message <e5b93701.01091...@posting.google.com>, Brad Ward
> <wa...@nevada.edu> writes
> >robert_...@hotmail.com (Bobby_Doc) wrote in message news:<87708033.01091...@posting.google.com>...
> >> > The most commonly seen "hand strikes" those days are : Scorpion sting,
> >> > Undead strength, Pushing the limit, Burning wrath, Lucky blow, Scorpion
> >> > sting, Dagon's call, Khabar the honor. Sutter step does'nt qualifie since
> >> > it's a dodge who inflicts damage as a side effect.
> >
> >So burning wrath is a Hand strike and can be used with immortal
> >grapple?
>
> Yes. It's a non-ranged strike based on your strength which isn't a
> melee weapon strike.
>
> That it's aggravated doesn't matter.
Correct.
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>> Are you sure about Dagon's Call?
>
>Yes. Card text: "make a hand strike..."
Given that it's a hand strike and something else apparently from the
strike, like Stutter Step, would playing Immortal Grapple foil Dagon's
Call?
I read the "and" as suggesting that this is more than just a hand
strike.
LSJ
>
> In message <3BA89005...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >> Are you sure about Dagon's Call?
> >
> >Yes. Card text: "make a hand strike..."
>
> Given that it's a hand strike and something else apparently from the
> strike, like Stutter Step, would playing Immortal Grapple foil Dagon's
> Call?
>
> I read the "and" as suggesting that this is more than just a hand
> strike.
No. Stutter-Step has errata stating that it is not playable if
non-hand-strikes are restricted. It otherwise meets the definition
of a hand strike, so would be playable without the errata.
Dagon's call also meets the definition of a hand strike, so it is.
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>Dagon's call also meets the definition of a hand strike, so it is.
How does the "and the opposing minion takes..." meet the definition of a
hand strike?
I don't dispute that the first part is a hand strike, by definition,
(and thus would be affected by, say, Wolf Claws). I am sceptical as to
how the second part can function under an Immortal Grapple given that I
can't see how that functions as part of a hand strike.
LSJ
>
> In message <3BA89CB2...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >Dagon's call also meets the definition of a hand strike, so it is.
>
> How does the "and the opposing minion takes..." meet the definition of a
> hand strike?
Hand Strike: any non-ranged, non-weapon strike that deals damage based on the striking minion's strength, or any minion's non-ranged damage-dealing innate strike.
Is the strike ranged? No.
Is the strike a weapon strike? No.
Does it inflict damage based on strength? Yes.
> I don't dispute that the first part is a hand strike, by definition,
> (and thus would be affected by, say, Wolf Claws). I am sceptical as to
> how the second part can function under an Immortal Grapple given that I
> can't see how that functions as part of a hand strike.
Scorpion Sting cannot be dodged. That doesn't mean it's not a hand strike,
however.
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>Hand Strike: any non-ranged, non-weapon strike that deals damage based on the striking minion's strength, or any minion's non-ranged damage-
>dealing innate strike.
>
>Is the strike ranged? No.
>Is the strike a weapon strike? No.
>Does it inflict damage based on strength? Yes.
Would "Strike: The opposing minion takes....." be a hand strike on its
own?
LSJ
>
> In message <3BA8A08E...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >Hand Strike: any non-ranged, non-weapon strike that deals damage based on the striking minion's strength, or any minion's non-ranged damage-
> >dealing innate strike.
> >
> >Is the strike ranged? No.
> >Is the strike a weapon strike? No.
> >Does it inflict damage based on strength? Yes.
>
> Would "Strike: The opposing minion takes....." be a hand strike on its
> own?
If the "..." was "strength damage", yes.
It's worded oddly - as if it were trying to be environmental despite
being a strike.
"Strike: the opposing minion takes strength damage" would be properly
written as "Strike: strength damage" to avoid that oddity.
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>> >Hand Strike: any non-ranged, non-weapon strike that deals damage based on the striking minion's strength, or any minion's non-ranged damage-
>> >dealing innate strike.
>> >
>> >Is the strike ranged? No.
>> >Is the strike a weapon strike? No.
>> >Does it inflict damage based on strength? Yes.
>>
>> Would "Strike: The opposing minion takes....." be a hand strike on its
>> own?
>
>If the "..." was "strength damage", yes.
So how have we decided that "Strike: the opposing minion takes 1
unpreventable damage during the press step each round this combat" is
allowed to be part of a hand strike?
This is not strength damage.
LSJ
>
> In message <3BA8A5F9...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >> >Hand Strike: any non-ranged, non-weapon strike that deals damage based on the striking minion's strength, or any minion's non-ranged damage-
> >> >dealing innate strike.
> >> >
> >> >Is the strike ranged? No.
> >> >Is the strike a weapon strike? No.
> >> >Does it inflict damage based on strength? Yes.
> >>
> >> Would "Strike: The opposing minion takes....." be a hand strike on its
> >> own?
> >
> >If the "..." was "strength damage", yes.
>
> So how have we decided that "Strike: the opposing minion takes 1
> unpreventable damage during the press step each round this combat" is
> allowed to be part of a hand strike?
>
> This is not strength damage.
Dagon's Call says "make a hand strike (at strength damage)".
This is strength damage.
This fictional card you have that says "Strike: the opposing minion takes 1
unpreventable damage during the press step each round this combat" would
not be a hand strike, since it does not inflict damage based on strength.
This is in direct contrast with Dagon's Call, which does.
To determine if a strike is a hand strike, as stated above, you need only
to verify that it
1) is not ranged.
2) is not a weapon strike.
3) inflicts damage based on the striking minion's strength
If it meets these three conditions, it is a hand strike (as explicitly stated
in the definition of a hand strike, above).
Dagon's Call is not ranged. Dagon's Call is not a weapon strike. Dagon's Call
inflicts damage based on the striking minion's strength.
=> Dagon's Call is a hand strike.
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>> So how have we decided that "Strike: the opposing minion takes 1
>> unpreventable damage during the press step each round this combat" is
>> allowed to be part of a hand strike?
>>
>> This is not strength damage.
>
>Dagon's Call says "make a hand strike (at strength damage)".
>This is strength damage.
"Strike: [...] and [...]"
Part of the strike is based on strength damage.
Compare with Majesty where [...] and [...] are both part of the Strike.
LSJ
>
> In message <3BA8AD6D...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >> So how have we decided that "Strike: the opposing minion takes 1
> >> unpreventable damage during the press step each round this combat" is
> >> allowed to be part of a hand strike?
> >>
> >> This is not strength damage.
> >
> >Dagon's Call says "make a hand strike (at strength damage)".
> >This is strength damage.
>
> "Strike: [...] and [...]"
>
> Part of the strike is based on strength damage.
OK. And the strike is a hand strike, since it matches the definition
of a hand strike.
> Compare with Majesty where [...] and [...] are both part of the Strike.
OK:
Majesty is not ranged. check.
Majesty is not a weapon strike. check.
Majest deals damage based on strength. FAIL.
=> Majesty is not a hand strike.
Chris Berger
> >Dagon's Call says "make a hand strike (at strength damage)".
> >This is strength damage.
>
> "Strike: [...] and [...]"
>
> Part of the strike is based on strength damage.
>
> Compare with Majesty where [...] and [...] are both part of the Strike.
Majesty has "S:CE" and "burn 1 blood to untap" as part of the effect.
If a vampire is not allowed to end combat as a strike, then it is not
allowed to play Majesty, because Majesty is a "combat ends" strike.
If IG is in effect, you cannot use a strike unless it's a hand strike.
DC meets all the requirements of a hand strike; thus you may play it.
It doesn't matter if it's also something else. If it was "Strike:
combat ends and opposing minion takes Strength damage", it could be
played under IG, barring errata that said the card wasn't a hand
strike.
You could have a card that said, "Strike: deal Strength - 100 damage
(minimum of 0), and call a referendum. Choose a location and a
methuselah. If the referendum is successful, that methuselah gains
control of that location." and it would still be a hand strike. It
would also be a "political strike" or whatever, but barring errata, it
could be played under Immortal Grapple.
If, however, Political Grapple ("minions in combat cannot play strikes
that call referendums") were played, then you would not be able to
play "Well-Aimed Disputed Territory".
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>> >Dagon's Call says "make a hand strike (at strength damage)".
>> >This is strength damage.
>>
>> "Strike: [...] and [...]"
>>
>> Part of the strike is based on strength damage.
>
>OK. And the strike is a hand strike, since it matches the definition
>of a hand strike.
You appear to be wilfully ignoring that the strike has more than one
component.
The card says: "Strike: make a hand strike (at strength damage) and the
opposing minion takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each
round this combat."
Part of the strike is a hand strike; another part of the strike is not.
I see nothing in the definition of hand strike which allows "and the
opposing minion takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each
round this combat" to be considered part of a hand strike, it not being
strength based.
Why does the hand strike component over-ride the non-hand strike
component?
LSJ
>
> In message <3BA8BEFC...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >> >Dagon's Call says "make a hand strike (at strength damage)".
> >> >This is strength damage.
> >>
> >> "Strike: [...] and [...]"
> >>
> >> Part of the strike is based on strength damage.
> >
> >OK. And the strike is a hand strike, since it matches the definition
> >of a hand strike.
>
> You appear to be wilfully ignoring that the strike has more than one
> component.
Not at all. I just note that it matches the definition of a hand strike,
which is a necessary and sufficient condition.
> The card says: "Strike: make a hand strike (at strength damage) and the
> opposing minion takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each
> round this combat."
>
> Part of the strike is a hand strike; another part of the strike is not.
No. This strike is a hand strike, by the definition (as pointed out).
Therefore both parts are part of a hand strike.
> I see nothing in the definition of hand strike which allows "and the
> opposing minion takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each
> round this combat" to be considered part of a hand strike, it not being
> strength based.
I have presented complete step-by-miniscule-step reasoning several times
showing that it is a hand strike by the definition of a hand strike.
If there is a flaw in that, please point it out.
If there is a part of the definition that precludes additional effects, please
point it out.
> Why does the hand strike component over-ride the non-hand strike
> component?
No need to override anything. The strike is a hand strike, by the definition
of a hand strike. Why would adding something that doesn't violate the definition
of a hand strike override the fact that it is a hand strike?
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>> I see nothing in the definition of hand strike which allows "and the
>> opposing minion takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each
>> round this combat" to be considered part of a hand strike, it not being
>> strength based.
>
>I have presented complete step-by-miniscule-step reasoning several times
>showing that it is a hand strike by the definition of a hand strike.
You have shown by complete step-by-miniscule-step reasoning several
times that one part qualifies under the definition of a hand strike.
You have then asserted that this makes the whole strike a hand strike,
even though "and the opposing minion takes..." does not qualify by the
definition of hand strike, step-by-miniscule-step.
Are you attempting to claim that "Strike: The opposing minion takes...."
would be a hand strike?
LSJ
>
> In message <3BA9EC61...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >> I see nothing in the definition of hand strike which allows "and the
> >> opposing minion takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each
> >> round this combat" to be considered part of a hand strike, it not being
> >> strength based.
> >
> >I have presented complete step-by-miniscule-step reasoning several times
> >showing that it is a hand strike by the definition of a hand strike.
>
> You have shown by complete step-by-miniscule-step reasoning several
> times that one part qualifies under the definition of a hand strike.
> You have then asserted that this makes the whole strike a hand strike,
> even though "and the opposing minion takes..." does not qualify by the
> definition of hand strike, step-by-miniscule-step.
The whole strike, taken as a whole, matches the definition of a hand strike.
That is necessary and sufficient. The definition does not require (nor even
allow) taking each part separately, nor does it preclude multiple "parts".
If Bonecraft said "Strike: strength damage. Put this card ..." instead of
"Strike: 1 damage. Put this card ...", it would be a hand strike, by the
definition.
> Are you attempting to claim that "Strike: The opposing minion takes...."
> would be a hand strike?
If it's the strike we've already discussed, then yes, I've already claimed
that, with the caveat that the wording is poor and would, if it were
actually printed, be worded differently (with the same effect) to avoid
confusion.
"Is X a hand strike?" flowchart, based on the clear application of the
definition (with step 1 added for completeness):
1. Is X a strike?
Y -> proceed to 2.
N -> not a hand strike. end.
2. Is X a weapon strike?
Y -> not a hand strike. end.
N -> proceed to 3.
3. Is X a ranged strike?
Y -> not a hand strike. end.
N -> proceed to 4.
4. Does X inflict damage based on the striking minion's strength?
Y -> hand strike. end.
N -> not a hand strike. end.
(The second part of the definition is superfluous now that allies all
indicate their strength values explicitly).
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>> Are you attempting to claim that "Strike: The opposing minion takes...."
>> would be a hand strike?
>
>If it's the strike we've already discussed, then yes, I've already claimed
>that, with the caveat that the wording is poor and would
So you are asserting that Strike: The opposing minion takes 1 damage
during the press step does not violate the definition of hand damage,
except when it does.
Pat Ricochet
>>>> I see nothing in the definition of hand strike which allows "and the
>>>> opposing minion takes 1 unpreventable damage during the press step each
>>>> round this combat" to be considered part of a hand strike, it not being
>>>> strength based.
> 4. Does X inflict damage based on the striking minion's strength?
> Y -> hand strike. end.
> N -> not a hand strike. end.
Key point, James: the definition doesn't say that the ONLY thing that
the strike must do is damage based on strength. Otherwise, 4. would be:
4. Is the sole effect of X to inflict damage, based on the striking minion's
strength, on the opposing minion?
...which seems to be the artificial definition that you're arguing for.
(/dogpile>
James Coupe
<sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes
> Key point, James: the definition doesn't say that the ONLY thing that
>the strike must do is damage based on strength.
We have had similar arguments before. The rules are intended to define
what you can do. Something not defined is considered to be off-limits.
[LSJ20000609]
"The point is that the primary purpose of the rules is to establish
what you CAN do - everything else (not stated in the rules) is
assumed to be stuff you *can't* do."
LSJ
>
> In message <3BA9F530...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >> Are you attempting to claim that "Strike: The opposing minion takes...."
> >> would be a hand strike?
> >
> >If it's the strike we've already discussed, then yes, I've already claimed
> >that, with the caveat that the wording is poor and would
>
> So you are asserting that Strike: The opposing minion takes 1 damage
> during the press step does not violate the definition of hand damage,
> except when it does.
No. I'm asserting that "Strike: The opposing minion takes strength damage"
(the strike we'd previously discussed) is a hand strike. See my "if"
qualifier above. Message-ID: <3BA8A5F9...@white-wolf.com>
If you wish to change the ellipsis part, then the answer may change, of course.
The new fictional strike above is not a hand strike, per the definition.
Your new fictional strike, by the flowchart (clipped):
Is a strike? check.
Is not a weapon strike? check.
Is not ranged? check.
Inflicts damage based on strength? FAIL.
I still await your response on the other points you keep clipping.
LSJ
>
> In message <B7CF71F4.755F%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet
> <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes
> > Key point, James: the definition doesn't say that the ONLY thing that
> >the strike must do is damage based on strength.
>
> We have had similar arguments before. The rules are intended to define
> what you can do. Something not defined is considered to be off-limits.
>
> [LSJ20000609]
>
> "The point is that the primary purpose of the rules is to establish
> what you CAN do - everything else (not stated in the rules) is
> assumed to be stuff you *can't* do."
The definition of a hand strike isn't telling you that you can
do stuff or that you cannot do stuff. It just tells you what a hand
strike is.
If something matches the definition, it is a hand strike.
If something doesn't, it isn't.
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>The new fictional strike above is not a hand strike, per the definition.
>Your new fictional strike, by the flowchart (clipped):
>
>Is a strike? check.
>Is not a weapon strike? check.
>Is not ranged? check.
>Inflicts damage based on strength? FAIL.
>
>I still await your response on the other points you keep clipping.
So you assert now that that contradicts the definition for hand strikes.
But you assert in Message-ID: <3BA9EC61...@white-wolf.com> that it
doesn't.
LSJ
>
> In message <3BA9FBA6...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >The new fictional strike above is not a hand strike, per the definition.
> >Your new fictional strike, by the flowchart (clipped):
> >
> >Is a strike? check.
> >Is not a weapon strike? check.
> >Is not ranged? check.
> >Inflicts damage based on strength? FAIL.
> >
> >I still await your response on the other points you keep clipping.
>
> So you assert now that that contradicts the definition for hand strikes.
>
> But you assert in Message-ID: <3BA9EC61...@white-wolf.com> that it
> doesn't.
Incorrect.
<3BA9EC61...@white-wolf.com> doesn't have any reference to the new
fictional strike.
It does, however, state that Dagon's Call (which has text different than your
fictional strike) is a hand strike. Dagon's call inflicts damage based on the
striking minion's strength, unlike your fictional strike.
Still awaiting responses from you regarding the previous points you keep
clipping about the definition of a hand strike.
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>It does, however, state that Dagon's Call (which has text different than your
>fictional strike) is a hand strike. Dagon's call inflicts damage based on the
>striking minion's strength, unlike your fictional strike.
and performs the effects of the fictional strike.
With the fictional strike, you state that it contradicts the definition
of a hand strike.
With Message-ID: <3BA9EC61...@white-wolf.com>, you state that the
effects (those which would be performed by the fictional strike but are
in this instance being performed in another fashion) do not violate the
definition of a hand strike.
--
LSJ
>
> In message <3BAA06A4...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >It does, however, state that Dagon's Call (which has text different than your
> >fictional strike) is a hand strike. Dagon's call inflicts damage based on the
> >striking minion's strength, unlike your fictional strike.
>
> and performs the effects of the fictional strike.
>
> With the fictional strike, you state that it contradicts the definition
> of a hand strike.
It fails to meet the definition. It doesn't inflict damage based on strength.
Hand Strike: any non-ranged, non-weapon strike that deals damage based
on the striking minion's strength.
> With Message-ID: <3BA9EC61...@white-wolf.com>, you state that the
> effects (those which would be performed by the fictional strike but are
> in this instance being performed in another fashion) do not violate the
> definition of a hand strike.
Your fictional strike doesn't inflict damage based on strength.
Dagon's Call does, thereby overcoming the "contradiction" found in the
fictional strike.
Please state which fact below is false:
1) Your fictional strike doesn't deal damage based on strength.
2) Fact #1 means that the fictional strike is not a hand strike.
3) Dagon's Call is a non-ranged, non-weapon strike that deals damage
based on the striking minion's strength.
4) Fact #3 means that Dagon's Call is a hand strike
If you choose #4, please indicate which part of the definition of
a hand strike Dagon's Call fails to meet.
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>> With Message-ID: <3BA9EC61...@white-wolf.com>, you state that the
>> effects (those which would be performed by the fictional strike but are
>> in this instance being performed in another fashion) do not violate the
>> definition of a hand strike.
>
>Your fictional strike doesn't inflict damage based on strength.
>
>Dagon's Call does, thereby overcoming the "contradiction" found in the
>fictional strike.
But prior to the errata on Stutter Step, you state:
"> Sorry to come back to this, but I'd like a more detailed explanation.
> Why is it not a hand strike, when it's clearly strength-based and
> non-ranged, hence conforming to the ruling on what a hand strike is?
Because it's a dodge."
Thus stating that, despite the fact that it inflicts damage at close
range which is based on the minion's strength, that it wasn't a hand
strike because it performed a non-hand strike as well.
"
> I was not clear, my apologies, I meant since it is not a hand strike does
> the superior form of King of the Mountain affect a person who strikes with
> stutter-step.
No, for exactly that reason (card text).
"
"The strike is not a hand strike, correct."
and so forth.
That was not considered a hand strike.
Was Stutter Step a strike? check
Is not a weapon strike? check
Is not ranged? check
Inflicts damage based on strength? check
This was, however, ruled at the time to not be a hand strike because it
was also a non-hand strike (in this instance, a dodge).
LSJ
>
> In message <3BAA0BA5...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >> With Message-ID: <3BA9EC61...@white-wolf.com>, you state that the
> >> effects (those which would be performed by the fictional strike but are
> >> in this instance being performed in another fashion) do not violate the
> >> definition of a hand strike.
> >
> >Your fictional strike doesn't inflict damage based on strength.
> >
> >Dagon's Call does, thereby overcoming the "contradiction" found in the
> >fictional strike.
>
> But prior to the errata on Stutter Step, you state:
>
> "> Sorry to come back to this, but I'd like a more detailed explanation.
> > Why is it not a hand strike, when it's clearly strength-based and
> > non-ranged, hence conforming to the ruling on what a hand strike is?
>
> Because it's a dodge."
>
> Thus stating that, despite the fact that it inflicts damage at close
> range which is based on the minion's strength, that it wasn't a hand
> strike because it performed a non-hand strike as well.
Ah. Now we're getting somewhere.
Yes, that statement is in error. It is a hand strike. The damage it deals
is hand damage.
Stutter Step is both a hand strike and a dodge, as indicated on the updated
online card text.
> "
> > I was not clear, my apologies, I meant since it is not a hand strike does
> > the superior form of King of the Mountain affect a person who strikes with
> > stutter-step.
>
> No, for exactly that reason (card text).
> "
>
> "The strike is not a hand strike, correct."
>
> and so forth.
>
> That was not considered a hand strike.
Right. My mistake. It is a hand strike.
> Was Stutter Step a strike? check
> Is not a weapon strike? check
> Is not ranged? check
> Inflicts damage based on strength? check
>
> This was, however, ruled at the time to not be a hand strike because it
> was also a non-hand strike (in this instance, a dodge).
It fits the definition, and is a hand strike.
It cannot be used under an Immortal Grapple because of errata.
Derek Ray
>James Coupe wrote:
(a whole bunch of back-and-forth)
OK, looking at the cards in question, we have:
Dagon's Call reads "Strike: make a hand strike, AND (side effect)"
Stutter-Step reads "Strike: dodge, AND (side effect)".
Catatonic Fear reads "Strike: combat ends, AND (side effect)".
I fail to even IDENTIFY the contradiction, or why there should be any
confusion. There's the bit that identifies what the strike is, and then
there's a whole bunch of side effects... right?
Why is this a non-viable way to rule on the cards? (In addition, it
removes the need for errata to Stutter-Step).
--
Derek
AGITATOR, n. A statesman who shakes the fruit trees of
his neighbors -- to dislodge the worms.
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>> "The strike is not a hand strike, correct."
>>
>> and so forth.
>>
>> That was not considered a hand strike.
>
>Right. My mistake. It is a hand strike.
If this is true even prior to the errata, I will happily concede the
point.
(Aside: Though if this is true, the whole E/R/C seems unnecessary. You
are performing a hand strike (above) and a dodge (card text). Since
Immortal Grapple prevents you from playing non-hand strikes and you are
playing a dodge (which is prohibited), in tandem with the fact that you
can't play a card when you can't play part of a card (e.g. you can't
play Blur and Acrobatics (superior) on one of the additional strikes),
any change seems entirely unnecessary.)
I would also suggest that the definition of hand strike be clarified the
next time the rulings page is updated, along with adding the Stutter
Step ERC (since it isn't current card text) of course.
On a related point (since I've been looking up card texts a fair bit),
would it be possible to have a key at the top of each of the card text
files (including the full plain and full HTML) which of the symbols (<>,
{}, [] etc.) on the text files represent what?
James Coupe
<lor...@yah00.com> writes
>Dagon's Call reads "Strike: make a hand strike, AND (side effect)"
>Stutter-Step reads "Strike: dodge, AND (side effect)".
>Catatonic Fear reads "Strike: combat ends, AND (side effect)".
>
>I fail to even IDENTIFY the contradiction, or why there should be any
>confusion.
In the post you respond to:
Previous rulings had suggested that Stutter Step, despite conforming to
the check list LSJ had provided, wasn't a hand strike, by original card
text. Why checking all the boxes on one card and checking them all on
another resulted in entirely contradictory rulings confused me, at that
point.
It's now been clarified that without anything other than Stutter Step's
original card text and the hand strike checklist, Stutter Step is a hand
strike.
Now, Stutter Step has a specific exceptional ruling, however, that it
can't be played if Dodges are prohibited.
LSJ
>
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:56:21 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> >James Coupe wrote:
>
> (a whole bunch of back-and-forth)
>
> OK, looking at the cards in question, we have:
>
> Dagon's Call reads "Strike: make a hand strike, AND (side effect)"
> Stutter-Step reads "Strike: dodge, AND (side effect)".
> Catatonic Fear reads "Strike: combat ends, AND (side effect)".
>
> I fail to even IDENTIFY the contradiction, or why there should be any
> confusion. There's the bit that identifies what the strike is, and then
> there's a whole bunch of side effects... right?
>
> Why is this a non-viable way to rule on the cards? (In addition, it
> removes the need for errata to Stutter-Step).
The current situation (with errata on Stutter-Step) preserves the fact
that Stutter-Step is a hand strike (and therefore would be aggravated
if made by Thetmes, for example).
Setting up some other situation whereby Stutter-Step is not a hand strike
(but is merely a Dodge) would alter that state.
LSJ
> (Aside: Though if this is true, the whole E/R/C seems unnecessary. You
> are performing a hand strike (above) and a dodge (card text). Since
> Immortal Grapple prevents you from playing non-hand strikes and you are
> playing a dodge (which is prohibited), in tandem with the fact that you
Dodges aren't prohibted; non-hand-strikes are.
Since Stutter-Step is a hand strike, it would not be prohibited (except for
the errata).
> can't play a card when you can't play part of a card (e.g. you can't
> play Blur and Acrobatics (superior) on one of the additional strikes),
> any change seems entirely unnecessary.)
>
> I would also suggest that the definition of hand strike be clarified the
> next time the rulings page is updated, along with adding the Stutter
> Step ERC (since it isn't current card text) of course.
The definition of hand strike is unchanged. What clarification do you
propose?
Pat Ricochet
> that Stutter-Step is a hand strike (and therefore would be aggravated
> if made by Thetmes, for example).
So, Stutter-Step/Claws works, then?
Neat! Time for a !Gangrel deck. =)
James Coupe
<sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes
>> The current situation (with errata on Stutter-Step) preserves the fact
>> that Stutter-Step is a hand strike (and therefore would be aggravated
>> if made by Thetmes, for example).
>
> So, Stutter-Step/Claws works, then?
It does.
It's a hand strike
-> Hand strikes inflict hand damage
-> Claws make hand damage aggravated
Pat Ricochet
> In message <B7CF991E.757C%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet
> <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes
>>> The current situation (with errata on Stutter-Step) preserves the fact
>>> that Stutter-Step is a hand strike (and therefore would be aggravated
>>> if made by Thetmes, for example).
>>
>> So, Stutter-Step/Claws works, then?
>
> It does.
>
> It's a hand strike
> -> Hand strikes inflict hand damage
> -> Claws make hand damage aggravated
Rhetorical question, but thanks. =)
Derek Ray
>The current situation (with errata on Stutter-Step) preserves the fact
>that Stutter-Step is a hand strike (and therefore would be aggravated
>if made by Thetmes, for example).
Card text:
Name: Stutter-Step
[CEL] Strike: dodge and inflict strength damage. This damage may be
modified by effects that modify hand damage. {This is both a hand strike
and a dodge. It cannot be used if dodges are restricted} Only usable at
close range. Not usable as an additional strike, and this vampire cannot
use any additional strikes this round.
Why wouldn't "This damage may be modified by effects that modify hand
damage" apply in all those cases?
Card text from Thetmes reads "Damage from Thetmes's hand strikes is
aggravated." This is an inherent effect that permanently modifies
Thetmes' hand damage, and therefore should apply to Stutter-Step as
well.
Same with Wolf Claws: "For the remainder of the round, this vampire's
hand damage is aggravated."
>Setting up some other situation whereby Stutter-Step is not a hand strike
>(but is merely a Dodge) would alter that state.
Hm. I don't know. I believe that 'hand damage' is the same as 'damage
inflicted by a hand strike', myself. Everything should inherently
apply, with no need for errata, just a clarification. Alternatively, it
points up a current mixup in card wordings: the use of "damage from
hand strikes" and "hand damage" to mean two different things, when
they're actually the same thing -- and THAT should perhaps be made
consistent, instead. (Meaning Thetmes could get errata to read
"Thetmes' hand damage is aggravated", to remove the pesky wording
problem.)
Chris Berger
long), I have a different problem... If Stutter Step is both a dodge
*and* a hand strike, then it could be played under Immortal Grapple,
no? Text of Sabbat Immortal Grapple = "Only hand strikes may be used
for the remainder of combat." Has that been changed? It seems to me
the only check here is, "is Stutter Step a hand strike." Answer is
yes, thus it can be played. You (LSJ) seem to be implying that the
errata making Stutter Step both a dodge and a hand strike somehow
prevents this. If this is true, then I can see James's confusion.
Even with dodge as a defined type of strike and "do something else"
not a defined type of strike, they seem to be parallel.
If you say that Stutter Step cannot be played if you cannot play
strikes that are not hand strikes, then it leaves open another
question. What kinds of strikes are considered "defined strike
types"? Dodge, hands, steal blood, and S:CE? So if a strike is
considered both dodge and hands, steal blood and hands, or S:CE and
hands, it can't be played, but if it's "something else" and hands then
it *can* be played? That's weird. I'm not saying that I think
Dagon's Call isn't a hand strike or that it can't be played under IG.
I'm just saying I don't understand how the errata on Stutter Step
keeps *it* from being played under Immortal Grapple.
LSJ
>
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:40:06 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> >The current situation (with errata on Stutter-Step) preserves the fact
> >that Stutter-Step is a hand strike (and therefore would be aggravated
> >if made by Thetmes, for example).
>
> Card text:
>
> Name: Stutter-Step
> [CEL] Strike: dodge and inflict strength damage. This damage may be
> modified by effects that modify hand damage. {This is both a hand strike
> and a dodge. It cannot be used if dodges are restricted} Only usable at
> close range. Not usable as an additional strike, and this vampire cannot
> use any additional strikes this round.
>
> Why wouldn't "This damage may be modified by effects that modify hand
> damage" apply in all those cases?
It does. But Thetmes's card text addresses damage from his hand strikes.
If Stutter-Step isn't a hand strike,...
> Card text from Thetmes reads "Damage from Thetmes's hand strikes is
> aggravated." This is an inherent effect that permanently modifies
> Thetmes' hand damage,
It modifies the damage done by his hand strikes, as stated. If it just
said "his hand damage is aggravated", then there'd be no problem.
> and therefore should apply to Stutter-Step as
> well.
Yes, it should. But it would not if Stutter-Step is not a hand strike.
>
> Same with Wolf Claws: "For the remainder of the round, this vampire's
> hand damage is aggravated."
Different from Thetmes's text.
> >Setting up some other situation whereby Stutter-Step is not a hand strike
> >(but is merely a Dodge) would alter that state.
>
> Hm. I don't know. I believe that 'hand damage' is the same as 'damage
> inflicted by a hand strike', myself. Everything should inherently
Nice, but the current situation handles it in the same manner without
bringing that assumption into the picture.
> apply, with no need for errata, just a clarification. Alternatively, it
> points up a current mixup in card wordings: the use of "damage from
> hand strikes" and "hand damage" to mean two different things, when
> they're actually the same thing -- and THAT should perhaps be made
> consistent, instead. (Meaning Thetmes could get errata to read
> "Thetmes' hand damage is aggravated", to remove the pesky wording
> problem.)
Right. But a bit too late for that. So you end up with errata on Stutter-Step,
or with errata on Thetmes (and a few other similarly-worded effects).
Derek Ray
wrote:
>I'm just saying I don't understand how the errata on Stutter Step
>keeps *it* from being played under Immortal Grapple.
The errata on the card reads:
{This is both a hand strike and a dodge. It cannot be used if dodges are
restricted}
Which is using a sledgehammer to kill a fly, IMO, but it is definitely
effective at preventing Stutter-Step from being played under IG.
LSJ
>
> Now that my post has finally gotten up on deja (man, it takes *sooooo*
> long), I have a different problem... If Stutter Step is both a dodge
> *and* a hand strike, then it could be played under Immortal Grapple,
> no? Text of Sabbat Immortal Grapple = "Only hand strikes may be used
> for the remainder of combat." Has that been changed? It seems to me
> the only check here is, "is Stutter Step a hand strike." Answer is
> yes, thus it can be played. You (LSJ) seem to be implying that the
> errata making Stutter Step both a dodge and a hand strike somehow
> prevents this. If this is true, then I can see James's confusion.
> Even with dodge as a defined type of strike and "do something else"
> not a defined type of strike, they seem to be parallel.
No. I say that the errata stating "Stutter-Step cannot be used if
only hand strikes (or only dodges) can be used" prevents it from
being used under Immortal Grapple.
Card text makes Stutter-Step a hand strike - don't need errata to
do that. The only errata Stutter-Step has is the errata restricting
its use.
> If you say that Stutter Step cannot be played if you cannot play
> strikes that are not hand strikes, then it leaves open another
> question. What kinds of strikes are considered "defined strike
> types"? Dodge, hands, steal blood, and S:CE? So if a strike is
There are no defined strike types except hand strikes.
Other effects are addressed with obvious descriptions ("a gun's strike",
for example on ammo cards; see also Dog Pack).
> considered both dodge and hands, steal blood and hands, or S:CE and
> hands, it can't be played, but if it's "something else" and hands then
> it *can* be played? That's weird. I'm not saying that I think
> Dagon's Call isn't a hand strike or that it can't be played under IG.
> I'm just saying I don't understand how the errata on Stutter Step
> keeps *it* from being played under Immortal Grapple.
The errata expressly prevents it.
Reyda
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message news:
3BAA1C75...@white-wolf.com...
> James Coupe wrote:
> > (Aside: Though if this is true, the whole E/R/C seems unnecessary. You
> > are performing a hand strike (above) and a dodge (card text). Since
> > Immortal Grapple prevents you from playing non-hand strikes and you are
> > playing a dodge (which is prohibited), in tandem with the fact that you
>
> Dodges aren't prohibted; non-hand-strikes are.
> Since Stutter-Step is a hand strike, it would not be prohibited (except
for
> the errata).
This is confusing. Only hand strikes are permitted under IG. If Stutter step
is a dodge and a hand strike, there's still a dodge in it. Dodge can't be
used , so Stutter Step can't be used, without the need of errata. (if i
understand correctly, SS is errata-ed only for the IG purpose)
Imagine that a Tzimisce just played Skin trap, your celerity guy cannot play
Stutter step because it's also a dodge -even if it's a hand strike. Is it so
complicated ?
I said earlier in this thread that SS doesn't qualifie as a hand strike only
because the rulemonger decided it.
Now, after all those reversals and arguments, I just can't see the point of
this ping pong logic here between LSJ and Mr Coupe.
Do we need this errata or not ?
(snip)
> > I would also suggest that the definition of hand strike be clarified the
> > next time the rulings page is updated, along with adding the Stutter
> > Step ERC (since it isn't current card text) of course.
>
> The definition of hand strike is unchanged. What clarification do you
> propose?
We know now (ridiculous steps of explanation...) what a hand strike is.
So :
Stutter step is a dodge. Which inflicts strength damage. So it's a dodge + a
hand strike. Why should we change this then ?
do we trash the errata ?
reyda
Reyda
(snip)
> Card text makes Stutter-Step a hand strike - don't need errata to
> do that. The only errata Stutter-Step has is the errata restricting
> its use.
(snip)
> > considered both dodge and hands, steal blood and hands, or S:CE and
> > hands, it can't be played, but if it's "something else" and hands then
> > it *can* be played? That's weird. I'm not saying that I think
> > Dagon's Call isn't a hand strike or that it can't be played under IG.
> > I'm just saying I don't understand how the errata on Stutter Step
> > keeps *it* from being played under Immortal Grapple.
>
> The errata expressly prevents it.
do we really need this errata ? or is it merely a clarification on how to
play stutter step ?
reyda
James Coupe
>This is confusing. Only hand strikes are permitted under IG. If Stutter step
>is a dodge and a hand strike, there's still a dodge in it. Dodge can't be
>used , so Stutter Step can't be used, without the need of errata. (if i
>understand correctly, SS is errata-ed only for the IG purpose)
Scorpion Sting also applies, assuming you're the Methuselah playing
*after* the Scorpion Sting has been played.
Reyda
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news:
Ja2SbiDQ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <9ods3a$r59$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes
> >This is confusing. Only hand strikes are permitted under IG. If Stutter
step
> >is a dodge and a hand strike, there's still a dodge in it. Dodge can't be
> >used , so Stutter Step can't be used, without the need of errata. (if i
> >understand correctly, SS is errata-ed only for the IG purpose)
>
> Scorpion Sting also applies, assuming you're the Methuselah playing
> *after* the Scorpion Sting has been played.
can't we just say that
1- if the Stutter Step is played first, then the dodge effect is nullified
2 - if the Scorpion sting is played first, then the defending vampire cannot
play stutter step because it's a dodge too.
It doesn't seem counter intuitive to me.
any comments ?
reyda
--Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality.
Jules de Gaultier
James Coupe
>can't we just say that
>1- if the Stutter Step is played first, then the dodge effect is nullified
>2 - if the Scorpion sting is played first, then the defending vampire cannot
>play stutter step because it's a dodge too.
This is indeed the situation with the E/R/C.
The Lasombra
news:iyMYxse6...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <9oe0qp$4br$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes
> >can't we just say that
> >1- if the Stutter Step is played first, then the dodge effect is nullified
> >2 - if the Scorpion sting is played first, then the defending vampire cannot
> >play stutter step because it's a dodge too.
>
> This is indeed the situation with the E/R/C.
#2 is in no way correct.
Scorpion Sting does not restrict the opposing minion or its choice
of strike in any form or fashion.
Dodge is ineffectual against the damage from Scorpion Sting because
the strike cannot be dodged, but Dodge is not prohibited by Scorpion Sting.
See the LSJ of [19960805] quoted here:
"Scorpion Sting doesn't prevent your opponent from dodging, it is merely
a strike that cannot be cancelled by a dodge.
So, the strike your opponent chose (a Dodge) is not illegal, it simply
fails to counter your strike. (It doesn't necessarily fizzle - it is still
a successful strike, it simply doesn't affect the outcome of the Scorpion
Sting - this is the same as fizzling for now, since no cards depend on
simply successfull striking for anything, but this could change).
--
L. Scott Johnson "
and again [20000814] here:
"I read Scorpion Sting as meaning that the strike cannot be
dodged, not that the opposing minion cannot play a dodge as his
strike (like S:CE cannot be dodged but doesn't prevent the opponent
from trying). So, yes, You can play Arms of the Abyss for a futile
dodge.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/"
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
--
Posted from rr-163-54-80.atl.mediaone.net [24.163.54.80]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
James Coupe
The Lasombra <thela...@hotmail.com> writes
>#2 is in no way correct.
>Scorpion Sting does not restrict the opposing minion or its choice
>of strike in any form or fashion.
My apologies; brain fart.
Chris Berger
>
> No. I say that the errata stating "Stutter-Step cannot be used if
> only hand strikes (or only dodges) can be used" prevents it from
> being used under Immortal Grapple.
>
both a hand strike and a dodge. It cannot be used if dodges are
restricted"
Immortal Grapple doesn't restrict dodges. You can play all the dodges
you want under IG, as long as they're hand strikes (which none are,
other than SS). Is there another errata that I'm not aware of? If
so, I'm pretty sure it's not on the White Wolf site, although the
first errata (it is both a hand strike and a dodge) *is* there.
Chris Berger
> This is confusing. Only hand strikes are permitted under IG. If Stutter step
> is a dodge and a hand strike, there's still a dodge in it. Dodge can't be
> used , so Stutter Step can't be used, without the need of errata. (if i
> understand correctly, SS is errata-ed only for the IG purpose)
>
it's only *1* strike that dodges *and* does hand damage, thus making
it a hand strike. If the two effects were considered separate
effects, then your argument would hold.
Let's say that I say, "only motor vehicles may drive on this road."
If you try to ride a bike on the road, you cannot. If you try to
drive a car on the road, you can. As simple as that. But what if
someone wants to ride a motorcycle? Well, LSJ would say, "that's
fine. it's a motor vehicle." James would say, "no! it's a bike, and
you just said you can't ride a bike on the road." LSJ would be right,
because there's no rule against bikes. There's just a rule against
vehicles that are not motor vehicles.
You are confused, perhaps, because a dodge is usually not a hand
strike. But a dodge *can* be a hand strike, if it deals damage based
on a minion's strength. In this case, the dodge is a hand strike.
Immortal Grapple doesn't prohibit dodges (like Scorpion Sting does),
it prohibits strikes that aren't hand strikes. If a dodge is a hand
strike, then it is a hand strike. I don't know how to state it more
simply than that. It could be a million different things. It could
be deal strength damage, steal 2 blood, dodge, combat ends, destroy a
location, and order a pizza, but it's still a hand strike if it fits
the definition of a hand strike, and that's what matters.
> Imagine that a Tzimisce just played Skin trap, your celerity guy cannot play
> Stutter step because it's also a dodge -even if it's a hand strike. Is it so
> complicated ?
>
No. It's not so complicated. Which is why I don't understand how
you're saying it's not a hand a strike... (???)
> do we trash the errata ?
>
Not unless you want it playable under Immortal Grapple, which I, for
one, could care less about.
Talo...@hotmail.com
>
>can't we just say that
>1- if the Stutter Step is played first, then the dodge effect is nullified
>2 - if the Scorpion sting is played first, then the defending vampire cannot
>play stutter step because it's a dodge too.
>It doesn't seem counter intuitive to me.
>
>any comments ?
>
>reyda
Looks good to me.
T
Reyda
"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
2552be258bc77f2f29e...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> #2 is in no way correct.
> Scorpion Sting does not restrict the opposing minion or its choice
> of strike in any form or fashion.
>
> Dodge is ineffectual against the damage from Scorpion Sting because
> the strike cannot be dodged, but Dodge is not prohibited by Scorpion
Sting.
Thanks a lot for your eternal vigilance, Jeff =)
now, we have one problem resolved since Stutter Step and Scorpion sting will
never create new problems.
the only one that remains is IG...
and that's a big one. Can't we follow an intuitive logic by saying that
StuSte is a dodge + a hand strike (that's almost written on the card) so it
cannot be played under IG since only hand strikes are allowed ? Stut Step
being a dodge too, playing it is not allowed.
That seems okay, doesn't it ?
reyda
Reyda
"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> a écrit dans le message news:
5287ede4.01092...@posting.google.com...
> "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:<9ods3a$r59$1...@neon.noos.net>...
>
> > This is confusing. Only hand strikes are permitted under IG. If Stutter
step
> > is a dodge and a hand strike, there's still a dodge in it. Dodge can't
be
> > used , so Stutter Step can't be used, without the need of errata. (if i
> > understand correctly, SS is errata-ed only for the IG purpose)
> >
> *smack* There's also still a hand strike in it. It isn't 2 strikes,
> it's only *1* strike that dodges *and* does hand damage, thus making
> it a hand strike. If the two effects were considered separate
> effects, then your argument would hold.
>
> Let's say that I say, "only motor vehicles may drive on this road."
No. There are exclusive and inclusive conditions. Your example is not
relevant.
> You are confused, perhaps, because a dodge is usually not a hand
> strike. But a dodge *can* be a hand strike, if it deals damage based
> on a minion's strength. In this case, the dodge is a hand strike.
I still believe it's a dodge + a hand strike altogether.
> Immortal Grapple doesn't prohibit dodges (like Scorpion Sting does),
> it prohibits strikes that aren't hand strikes. If a dodge is a hand
> strike, then it is a hand strike.
I bet it's a dodge too. Hey, at least it's written clearly on the card.
(snip)
> > Imagine that a Tzimisce just played Skin trap, your celerity guy cannot
play
> > Stutter step because it's also a dodge -even if it's a hand strike. Is
it so
> > complicated ?
> >
> No. It's not so complicated. Which is why I don't understand how
> you're saying it's not a hand a strike... (???)
I said it earlier because the *rulemonger* said it's not a hand strike. Now,
the rulemonger himself and an obscure judge from a remote island (i'm joking
james ;) ) are arguing about wether it's a hand strike or not.
I wonder why it cannot be TWO diffent type of strikes in one card.
Hence the Skin Trap example.
> > do we trash the errata ?
> >
> Not unless you want it playable under Immortal Grapple, which I, for
> one, could care less about.
I don't want this card to be playable under IG. Written as it is, it's a
dodge + a hand strike so, it cannot be used under IG.
Reyda
"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> a écrit dans le message news:
5287ede4.01092...@posting.google.com...
> Immortal Grapple doesn't restrict dodges. You can play all the dodges
> you want under IG, as long as they're hand strikes (which none are,
> other than SS).
Excuse me to interfere, but i think your logic is quite different from mine.
"Your ford T can be of any color as long as it's black. "
"-so i can buy a pink one ! nice ! i like pink !"
"alas, sir, pink cars are prohibited in this county !"
"too bad ! i'll buy a black one, then..."
Only hand strike can be played under IG. Fine. But following my own,
not-so-twisted logic, if you assume that Stutter Step is both a dodge and a
hand strike, and you cannot play a dodge under IG (only hand strikes),
Stutter step is not playable.
Or maybe i'm missing the whole point . Can you help us LSJ ?
reyda
LSJ
As Chris Berger pointed out:
Immortal Grapple restricts strikes that are not hand strikes. (card text)
Stutter-Step is a hand strike (definition of a hand strike).
=> Stutter-Step is not restricted.
Stutter-Step now has errata restricting it.
LSJ
The first "errata" is a clarification. It is a hand strike by definition
and a dodge by card text. No errata needed.
The second part is the failed attempt to reword the card in light of the
errata. As you note, it doesn't work. Hence the rewording of the errata
that I gave above. Hopefully we can all agree that the new wording of
the errata is sufficient to accomplish the goal.
The card lists will reflect the new wording when they are updated (soon,
hopefully). The E/R/C list will include the errata when it is updated
(again, soon, hopefully).
Halcyan 2
>"Your ford T can be of any color as long as it's black. "
>"-so i can buy a pink one ! nice ! i like pink !"
>"alas, sir, pink cars are prohibited in this county !"
>"too bad ! i'll buy a black one, then..."
But there's a difference between requiring all Ford T's to be black (a hand
strike) and prohibiting them from being pink (prohibiting dodges).
Yes, it's clear that I can't play a Dodge (the actual card) because it's pink.
But since Stutter Step is both a hand strike and a dodge, it is both black
*and* pink (we'll say solid black with some pink stripes!).
So when we get to "Your ford T can be of any color as long as it's black," the
black and pink car *is* black. But it's also pink too. And the wording of IG
requires cars to be black as opposed to prohibiting "all other colors," even if
such a prohibition may or may not be implied.
Halcyan 2
Derek Ray
wrote:
>simply than that. It could be a million different things. It could
>be deal strength damage, steal 2 blood, dodge, combat ends, destroy a
>location, and order a pizza, but it's still a hand strike if it fits
Command of the Host
Action, 1 blood
+1 stealth action.
[dom] The owner of the house must immediately order and pay for one
large "supreme" pizza, no anchovies.
[DOM] As above, but move 2 pool from the owner's pool to yours while
he's in the other room on the phone.
Sorrow
> Action, 1 blood
> +1 stealth action.
> [dom] The owner of the house must immediately order and pay for one
> large "supreme" pizza, no anchovies.
> [DOM] As above, but move 2 pool from the owner's pool to yours while
> he's in the other room on the phone.
Next time I'm in Atlanta, I'm definitely playing this card!! :p
Sorrow
---
"Are they dead?" - Pugsly
"Does it matter?" - Wednesday
James Coupe
<lor...@yah00.com> writes
>Command of the Host
>Action, 1 blood
>+1 stealth action.
>[dom] The owner of the house must immediately order and pay for one
>large "supreme" pizza, no anchovies.
Are you sure this isn't a Dementation card?
Derek Ray
>> Command of the Host
>> Action, 1 blood
>> +1 stealth action.
>> [dom] The owner of the house must immediately order and pay for one
>> large "supreme" pizza, no anchovies.
>> [DOM] As above, but move 2 pool from the owner's pool to yours while
>> he's in the other room on the phone.
>
>Next time I'm in Atlanta, I'm definitely playing this card!! :p
Sounds good to me. We'll probably be at Tatu's house again, so... :)
Chris Berger
> Chris Berger wrote:
>
> The first "errata" is a clarification. It is a hand strike by definition
> and a dodge by card text. No errata needed.
>
> The second part is the failed attempt to reword the card in light of the
> errata. As you note, it doesn't work. Hence the rewording of the errata
> that I gave above. Hopefully we can all agree that the new wording of
> the errata is sufficient to accomplish the goal.
>
> The card lists will reflect the new wording when they are updated (soon,
> hopefully). The E/R/C list will include the errata when it is updated
> (again, soon, hopefully).
Heh, okay. I must have missed where it was stated that this is new
errata (my, this thread is ridiculously long).
I think that almost all of us agree... 8)
Chris Berger
> "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> a écrit dans le message news:
> 5287ede4.01092...@posting.google.com...
> >
>
> No. There are exclusive and inclusive conditions. Your example is not
> relevant.
>
are both inclusive conditions. Immortal Grapple has never been an
exclusive condition, it just hasn't come up before, because no one
else thought that, say, Mighty Grapple wasn't a hand strike because it
is also a press.
IG says, "Only hand strikes may be used for the remainder of combat."
I say, "Only motor vehicles may drive on this road." No go back and
read the example again.
>
> > You are confused, perhaps, because a dodge is usually not a hand
> > strike. But a dodge *can* be a hand strike, if it deals damage based
> > on a minion's strength. In this case, the dodge is a hand strike.
>
> I still believe it's a dodge + a hand strike altogether.
>
It's not a dodge strike plus a hand strike. It is *one* strike that
is both a hand strike and a dodge. There is nothing that says that a
dodge is not a hand strike. It *can* be a hand strike. If you look
at the card as two different things, which both must be allowed, then
look at it like this: The card is a hand strike. Is that allowed?
Yes, it is. The card is a dodge. Is that allowed? Only if it's a
hand strike. Perhaps you should reread Immortal Grapple and see that
it doesn't restrict dodges. Maybe that's where the confusion is?
> > > do we trash the errata ?
> > >
> > Not unless you want it playable under Immortal Grapple, which I, for
> > one, could care less about.
>
> I don't want this card to be playable under IG. Written as it is, it's a
> dodge + a hand strike so, it cannot be used under IG.
Okay, I'm not one to give up easily, but I guess if you still don't
get it, then we just have to agree that it's not playable under IG.
For me, because of the errata. For you, because of bizarre logic.
....salem christ....
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, LSJ wrote:
> James Coupe wrote:
> > >lsj said:
> > >Dagon's Call says "make a hand strike (at strength damage)".
> > >This is strength damage.
> >
> > "Strike: [...] and [...]"
> >
> > Part of the strike is based on strength damage.
>
> OK. And the strike is a hand strike, since it matches the definition
> of a hand strike.
>
> > Compare with Majesty where [...] and [...] are both part of the Strike.
and majesty is considered a S:CE. so dagon's first [...] is enough to
qualify it as a hand strike, and majesty's first [...] (assuming
superior majesty) is enough to qualify it as a s:ce.
or, james, are you arguing that majesty at superior is not a s:ce, and
thus could be playable if the opponent has a Dog Pack, because it has a
second [...] after the first s:ce [...]?
which, to me, seems wrong.
salem.