Torn Signpost + Fists of Death
Orpheus
Signpost is counted : does is still set the strength to 3 (at sup), or is
the Fists of Death still counted for +2, adding up to 5 ?
Thanks,
Orpheus
LSJ
Fists of Death counts for +2 (card text).
--
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/
Ulugh Beg II
I know it is supposed to set strength to 2(3), but inherent bonuses
still count.
So a Depraved POT guy still gets 4 STR from a signpost.
I assume the wording originated from the fact that it's not stackable
(as in, two TS don't give 6 STR), but as far as I'm concerned, it could
just as well be read as
A vampire can only play one TS each combat
pot +1 STR
POT +2 STR
If not, are there situations where this does no apply and if so, why has
the current wording been chosen?
Peter D Bakija
> I personally always have been confused by Torn Signpost's wording.
Lots of people have.
> I know it is supposed to set strength to 2(3), but inherent bonuses
> still count.
> So a Depraved POT guy still gets 4 STR from a signpost.
Yup. TS gives you 2 or 3 strength. All other strength bonuses (that I can
think of), at this point, are in terms of + or -, rather than simply setting
a base number.
> I assume the wording originated from the fact that it's not stackable
> (as in, two TS don't give 6 STR), but as far as I'm concerned, it could
> just as well be read as
>
> A vampire can only play one TS each combat
> pot +1 STR
> POT +2 STR
It could be. But currently, you *can* play multiple TS a round--the extras
just don't do anything. But changing the wording would reduce the
cyclability of the card. Not necessarily unwarranted, but a significant
change given the wording you propose.
> If not, are there situations where this does no apply and if so, why has
> the current wording been chosen?
Presumably, to make it functionally different than Fists of Death while not
removing the cycleability of it.
It might be a perfectly good idea to change the wording of TS to what you
propose, but it would have a significant change that you seemed to miss.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"The gun is good! The penis is bad!"
-Zardoz
John P
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:BC039AAE.12905%pd...@lightlink.com...
> Ulugh Beg II wrote:
> > If not, are there situations where this does no apply and if so, why has
> > the current wording been chosen?
>
> Presumably, to make it functionally different than Fists of Death while not
> removing the cycleability of it.
>
> It might be a perfectly good idea to change the wording of TS to what you
> propose, but it would have a significant change that you seemed to miss.
Consider also a future card that sets hand damage to a base number,
other than Torn Signpost (lets call it Torn Lamp Post and give it
incapacitate for all the heroclix players out there). Wording torn
sign post in the current manner allows such cards without any cumulative
effects without additional card text like "only one card to modify base strength
can be played per combat"
-JTP
Peter D Bakija
> Consider also a future card that sets hand damage to a base number,
> other than Torn Signpost (lets call it Torn Lamp Post and give it
> incapacitate for all the heroclix players out there). Wording torn
> sign post in the current manner allows such cards without any cumulative
> effects without additional card text like "only one card to modify base
> strength
> can be played per combat"
Also a good point. I don't think there currently are any other cards that
set a base hand damage rather than simply giving a +X effect. With the
current TS wording, it is possible, should it be deemed a good idea, to
give, say, Obtenebration a similar card that sets hand damage (say "Fists of
Darkness" or something--requires obt, but it otherwise identical to TS)
without giving the Lasombra unprecidented ability to increase hand damage by
playing *two* free strength increasers.
LSJ
> John P wrote:
>>Consider also a future card that sets hand damage to a base number,
>>other than Torn Signpost (lets call it Torn Lamp Post and give it
>>incapacitate for all the heroclix players out there). Wording torn
>>sign post in the current manner allows such cards without any cumulative
>>effects without additional card text like "only one card to modify base
>>strength
>>can be played per combat"
>
> Also a good point. I don't think there currently are any other cards that
> set a base hand damage rather than simply giving a +X effect. With the
> current TS wording, it is possible, should it be deemed a good idea, to
> give, say, Obtenebration a similar card that sets hand damage (say "Fists of
> Darkness" or something--requires obt, but it otherwise identical to TS)
> without giving the Lasombra unprecidented ability to increase hand damage by
> playing *two* free strength increasers.
Erosion sets a vampire's base strength to 0.
It also matters for the Great Beast (who has 4 strength, not +3 strength)
and for allies with strength less than or greater than 1 who can play
Potence cards.
If Torn Signpost is to be MRP'ed, it would likely be to take it back to its
original wording, rather than to continue to prop up the current concept.
salem
<pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled:
>John P wrote:
>
>> Consider also a future card that sets hand damage to a base number,
>> other than Torn Signpost (lets call it Torn Lamp Post and give it
>> incapacitate for all the heroclix players out there). Wording torn
>> sign post in the current manner allows such cards without any cumulative
>> effects without additional card text like "only one card to modify base
>> strength
>> can be played per combat"
>
>Also a good point. I don't think there currently are any other cards that
>set a base hand damage rather than simply giving a +X effect.
Erosion. (sets base to 0. A Quietus action)
An Eroded minion who plays a current TS at POT will have a base
strength of 3.
An Eroded minion who plays this proposed wording of TS (+1/+2 once per
combat) at POT will have a resultant strength of 2.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
Ira
> set a base hand damage rather than simply giving a +X effect.
The Great Beast doesn't get benefit from a Torn Signpost.
Ira
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3FDE529A...@white-wolf.com...
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > Also a good point. I don't think there currently are any other cards
that
> > set a base hand damage rather than simply giving a +X effect. With
the
> > current TS wording, it is possible, should it be deemed a good idea,
to
> > give, say, Obtenebration a similar card that sets hand damage (say
"Fists of
> > Darkness" or something--requires obt, but it otherwise identical to
TS)
> > without giving the Lasombra unprecidented ability to increase hand
damage by
> > playing *two* free strength increasers.
>
> Erosion sets a vampire's base strength to 0.
>
> It also matters for the Great Beast (who has 4 strength, not +3
strength)
> and for allies with strength less than or greater than 1 who can play
> Potence cards.
>
> If Torn Signpost is to be MRP'ed, it would likely be to take it back
to its
> original wording, rather than to continue to prop up the current
concept.
If this were to actually happen, do you mean its "original original"
wording (in Jyhad - "Play before range is determined. This vampire does
2 hand damage for remainder of the combat") or its "second original"
wording (in V:TES - "Only usable before range is determined. This
vampire can inflict 2 hand damage as a strike for remainder of the
combat")?
Obviously I would prefer Jyhad, since it wouldn't change things by
making Torn Signpost unstackable with Undead Strength (etcetera).
Although given that, there wouldn't be much point in changing text from
the current rather clearly stated "This vampire has a strength of 2 for
the remainder of combat."
... except, perhaps, for the purposes of effects that could make a
minion "immune" to Torn Signpost. :-)
Josh
doesn't really need to see any more cards get their text changed to move
their functionality around more than it already has been
LSJ
>>original wording, rather than to continue to prop up the current concept.
>
> If this were to actually happen, do you mean its "original original"
> wording (in Jyhad - "Play before range is determined. This vampire does
> 2 hand damage for remainder of the combat") or its "second original"
> wording (in V:TES - "Only usable before range is determined. This
> vampire can inflict 2 hand damage as a strike for remainder of the
> combat")?
>
> Obviously I would prefer Jyhad, since it wouldn't change things by
> making Torn Signpost unstackable with Undead Strength (etcetera).
> Although given that, there wouldn't be much point in changing text from
> the current rather clearly stated "This vampire has a strength of 2 for
> the remainder of combat."
>
> ... except, perhaps, for the purposes of effects that could make a
> minion "immune" to Torn Signpost. :-)
The V:TES wording could be seen as a version of one interpretation of
the Jyhad wording (with a slight modification to make the strike
optional). That was what I meant.
> doesn't really need to see any more cards get their text changed to move
> their functionality around more than it already has been
Agreed. This is just a thought experiment. For now, anyway. :-)