LSJ Target: Head and non-damage strikes

44 views
Skip to first unread message

a-e

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 4:37:57 AM9/26/07
to
how do target: head work with non-damaging strikes?

if i strike with theft of vitae with target: head will it do 2 damage
and steal 2 blood?

James Coupe

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 4:57:28 AM9/26/07
to
In message <1190795877.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, a-e

You can't add damage to non-damage dealing strikes.

See the precedents on, for example, Undead Strength + Rowan Ring or
Reverend Blackwood + Theft of Vitae.

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

LSJ

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 7:09:06 AM9/26/07
to
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1190795877.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, a-e
> <antero....@substanssi.net> writes:
>> how do target: head work with non-damaging strikes?
>>
>> if i strike with theft of vitae with target: head will it do 2 damage
>> and steal 2 blood?
>
> You can't add damage to non-damage dealing strikes.
>
> See the precedents on, for example, Undead Strength + Rowan Ring or
> Reverend Blackwood + Theft of Vitae.

And see card text on Target Head.

a-e

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 7:39:26 AM9/26/07
to
On 26 syys, 14:09, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> James Coupe wrote:
> > In message <1190795877.647898.169...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, a-e

> > <antero.elek...@substanssi.net> writes:
> >> how do target: head work with non-damaging strikes?
>
> >> if i strike with theft of vitae with target: head will it do 2 damage
> >> and steal 2 blood?
>
> > You can't add damage to non-damage dealing strikes.
>
> > See the precedents on, for example, Undead Strength + Rowan Ring or
> > Reverend Blackwood + Theft of Vitae.
>
> And see card text on Target Head.

"The strike does +2 damage.", it doesn't specify that strike has to be
damaging strike as opposed to Reverend Blackwoods text. And Undead
Strenght adds +1/+2 strenght to melee weapon strike, so it won't
affect Rowan Ring. But Target: Head just adds +2 damage to a strike,
or should it say something like "This damaging strike does +2 damage."
as Target: Vitals say?

LSJ

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 7:47:07 AM9/26/07
to
a-e wrote:
> On 26 syys, 14:09, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> James Coupe wrote:
>>> In message <1190795877.647898.169...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, a-e
>>> <antero.elek...@substanssi.net> writes:
>>>> how do target: head work with non-damaging strikes?
>>>> if i strike with theft of vitae with target: head will it do 2 damage
>>>> and steal 2 blood?
>>> You can't add damage to non-damage dealing strikes.
>>> See the precedents on, for example, Undead Strength + Rowan Ring or
>>> Reverend Blackwood + Theft of Vitae.
>> And see card text on Target Head.
>
> "The strike does +2 damage.", it doesn't specify that strike has to be
> damaging strike as opposed to Reverend Blackwoods text. And Undead
> Strenght adds +1/+2 strenght to melee weapon strike,

Undead Strength: "make a hand or melee weapon strike at +1 damage"

> so it won't
> affect Rowan Ring.

Why not?
Rowan Ring is a melee weapon.

(Answer: because it isn't a damage-dealing strike)

> But Target: Head just adds +2 damage to a strike,
> or should it say something like "This damaging strike does +2 damage."
> as Target: Vitals say?

It could say that, redundantly, yes.
Target: Vitals also doesn't use the redundant reminder text you quoted, though.
(But, yes, Target Vitals was the card I was thinking of with the "see card text"
comment above. Target Head's card text doesn't offer anything to go beyond the
general ruling James cited.)

a-e

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 8:06:51 AM9/26/07
to
On 26 syys, 14:47, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> a-e wrote:
> > On 26 syys, 14:09, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> James Coupe wrote:
> >>> In message <1190795877.647898.169...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, a-e
> >>> <antero.elek...@substanssi.net> writes:
> >>>> how do target: head work with non-damaging strikes?
> >>>> if i strike with theft of vitae with target: head will it do 2 damage
> >>>> and steal 2 blood?
> >>> You can't add damage to non-damage dealing strikes.
> >>> See the precedents on, for example, Undead Strength + Rowan Ring or
> >>> Reverend Blackwood + Theft of Vitae.
> >> And see card text on Target Head.
>
> > "The strike does +2 damage.", it doesn't specify that strike has to be
> > damaging strike as opposed to Reverend Blackwoods text. And Undead
> > Strenght adds +1/+2 strenght to melee weapon strike,
>
> Undead Strength: "make a hand or melee weapon strike at +1 damage"
>

I remembered that it's "make a hand or melee weapon strike at +1
strenght", well my bad...

> > so it won't
> > affect Rowan Ring.
>
> Why not?
> Rowan Ring is a melee weapon.
>
> (Answer: because it isn't a damage-dealing strike)
>
> > But Target: Head just adds +2 damage to a strike,
> > or should it say something like "This damaging strike does +2 damage."
> > as Target: Vitals say?
>
> It could say that, redundantly, yes.
> Target: Vitals also doesn't use the redundant reminder text you quoted, though.
> (But, yes, Target Vitals was the card I was thinking of with the "see card text"
> comment above. Target Head's card text doesn't offer anything to go beyond the
> general ruling James cited.)

ok.

Miguel Cortes

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 1:58:54 AM9/27/07
to
> ok.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

what about using Target: Head with unpreventable strikes? the
aditional damage is also unpreventable or has the same characteritics
as the regular strike's damage?

LSJ

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 6:48:26 AM9/27/07
to
Miguel Cortes wrote:
>> ok.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

Delete the unused quoted text, especially the Google-placed stuff.

> what about using Target: Head with unpreventable strikes? the
> aditional damage is also unpreventable or has the same characteritics
> as the regular strike's damage?

Yes, per the usual rules on adding damage to a strike.

suolir...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 3:45:00 PM9/27/07
to
Does Catatonic Fear qualify as a damage dealing strike for Target
Vitals?
How about inferior Mercy for Seth?
Or Putrefaction?

suolir...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 3:47:05 PM9/27/07
to
> Or Putrefaction?

Oh right, of course it does. What I meant to ask is whether the minion
with Putrefied vitals takes 3 damage each time he attempts to strike?
Or just once? Or not at all?

LSJ

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 4:19:41 PM9/27/07
to
suolir...@gmail.com wrote:
> Does Catatonic Fear qualify as a damage dealing strike for Target
> Vitals?

Hmm. Guess so.

> How about inferior Mercy for Seth?

Superior, yes. Inferior, no.

> Or Putrefaction?

Yes. (except at [pre])

suolir...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 4:33:14 PM9/27/07
to
On 27 syys, 23:19, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:

> suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Does Catatonic Fear qualify as a damage dealing strike for Target
> > Vitals?
>
> Hmm. Guess so.

Thanks. So, should we expect an errata or should I start trading for
Target Vitals?


Matthew T. Morgan

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 5:09:56 PM9/27/07
to
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, LSJ wrote:

> suolir...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Does Catatonic Fear qualify as a damage dealing strike for Target
>> Vitals?
>
> Hmm. Guess so.

I find that surprising. It seems to me that since the Catatonic Fear
damage is done after combat, the Aim effect shouldn't be still hanging
around to do additional damage, break a gun or whatever.

Or to put it another way, I assumed the Aim card would resolve as strikes
resolve. Since no damage is done by the resolving Catatonic Fear, I
guessed the Aim card would assume no damage was done and go away. Then a
damage is inflicted.

So anyway, if you're looking for a reason to reverse this ruling, feel
free to use that one. :)

Matt Morgan

Wookie813

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 7:18:36 PM9/27/07
to

I totally concur with you, Matt. CF's strike can't be prevented by
"damage from a strike" cards, so how can it be damage from a strike?
It's more like "the minion who burns this location takes 1 damage"
damage. I've yet to do the massive reading on a CF fear rulings
search, though.

James Coupe

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 7:35:35 PM9/27/07
to
In message <1190935116....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

Wookie813 <veknp...@yahoo.com> writes:
>I totally concur with you, Matt. CF's strike can't be prevented by
>"damage from a strike" cards,

Yes it can. The problem is that most of them can't be played because
combat is over.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6c43a22723da8a9e
***
> Is it damage from a strike? Specifically, can it be prevented with
> Leather Jacket?

Yes. Yes.
***

>so how can it be damage from a strike?

Because it's damage. From a strike.

LSJ

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 8:31:28 PM9/27/07
to
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1190935116....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Wookie813 <veknp...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> I totally concur with you, Matt. CF's strike can't be prevented by
>> "damage from a strike" cards,
>
> Yes it can. The problem is that most of them can't be played because
> combat is over.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6c43a22723da8a9e
> ***
>> Is it damage from a strike? Specifically, can it be prevented with
>> Leather Jacket?
>
> Yes. Yes.
> ***
>
>> so how can it be damage from a strike?
>
> Because it's damage. From a strike.

Correct.

Matthew T. Morgan

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 8:36:50 PM9/27/07
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, James Coupe wrote:

> In message <1190935116....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Wookie813 <veknp...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> I totally concur with you, Matt. CF's strike can't be prevented by
>> "damage from a strike" cards,
>
> Yes it can. The problem is that most of them can't be played because
> combat is over.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6c43a22723da8a9e
> ***
>> Is it damage from a strike? Specifically, can it be prevented with
>> Leather Jacket?
>
> Yes. Yes.
> ***

That's a good point. I guess you can use it with Aim cards. Still I
hardly think that was the designer's intent. Maybe there will be some
ruling on it.

Matt Morgan

Wookie813

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 10:10:47 PM9/27/07
to
On Sep 27, 7:35 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Because it's damage. From a strike.

[Dana Carvey doing Johnny Carson impression] That is wild and wacky
stuff. I was not aware of that. Did you know that, Ed? [/Dana Carvey
doing Johnny Carson impression]

So for those of us who are kinda thick, the superior should be
considered in the manner of:
Strike: Combat Ends. + Strike: 1 damage at close range, inflicted
after combat ends.

Daneel

unread,
Sep 29, 2007, 5:42:56 PM9/29/07
to
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:36:50 -0500, Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com>
wrote:

This adds a whole new depth to "visceral fear"... :)

--
Regards,

Daneel

François

unread,
Sep 30, 2007, 2:05:13 AM9/30/07
to
Hello all,


I would like to check the following :) :

Target head and target vitals have slightly different texts on the way
they deal additional damage :

Target Vitals : If any damage from this strike is succesfully
inflicted on the opposing minion, he takes 2 additional damage from
this strike...
Target Head : The strike does +2 damage.

Does that mean, that, in the case of an aimed hand strike for 1, one
needs to prevent only one damage to prevent all in the case of target
vitals, while one needs to prevent 3 damage to prevent all in the case
of target head ?

What happends in the case of target vitals : e.g. I strike for 2
damage and aim at vitals. During the prevention step, opposing minion
prevents 1. Then 2 additional damage are applied and there is a new
prevention step for these 2 additional damage ? Is the second damage
from the original strike applied before that new prevention step ? Can
the opposing minion prevent somehow all the 3 remaining damage with
the same card ?


Thank you,


Francois

LSJ

unread,
Sep 30, 2007, 9:19:47 AM9/30/07
to
François wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>
> I would like to check the following :) :
>
> Target head and target vitals have slightly different texts on the way
> they deal additional damage :
>
> Target Vitals : If any damage from this strike is succesfully
> inflicted on the opposing minion, he takes 2 additional damage from
> this strike...
> Target Head : The strike does +2 damage.
>
> Does that mean, that, in the case of an aimed hand strike for 1, one
> needs to prevent only one damage to prevent all in the case of target
> vitals, while one needs to prevent 3 damage to prevent all in the case
> of target head ?

Yes.

> What happends in the case of target vitals : e.g. I strike for 2
> damage and aim at vitals. During the prevention step, opposing minion
> prevents 1. Then 2 additional damage are applied and there is a new
> prevention step for these 2 additional damage ? Is the second damage
> from the original strike applied before that new prevention step ? Can
> the opposing minion prevent somehow all the 3 remaining damage with
> the same card ?

He cannot go back and prevent the damage that enabled the additional damage in
the first place, although he can prevent the new additional damage.

Precedent set by Twisting the Knife.

Wookie813

unread,
Oct 5, 2007, 7:55:41 PM10/5/07
to
On Sep 27, 4:19 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:

> suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Does Catatonic Fear qualify as a damage dealing strike for Target
> > Vitals?
>
> Hmm. Guess so.

Riposte as well, then. Hmmmm. I Riposte your face!!!!

leon.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 9:14:36 AM10/8/07
to
On Sep 28, 6:19 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:

> suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Does Catatonic Fear qualify as a damage dealing strike for Target
> > Vitals?
>
> Hmm. Guess so.

The days of the Frederick the Weak rush deck are finally at hand...
Frederick gets Super Presence... Frederick goes and rushes Enkidu and
Catatonic Fears him in the nuts for 3-preventable-only-by-Leather-
Jacket damage... oh yeah.

bswai...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 1:43:17 PM10/11/07
to
On Sep 27, 8:31 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> James Coupe wrote:
> > In message <1190935116.397417.96...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Wookie813 <veknpont...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
> >> so how can [Catatonic Fear damage] be damage from a strike?

>
> > Because it's damage. From a strike.
>
> Correct
>

On a related note I found this ruling on Dagon's Call:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/1313c2a6b7ae3a16/129b7a9ee8517b14?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Dagons+Call&rnum=11#129b7a9ee8517b14

>> My question is: if a hand strike, such as dagon's call, does "extra side
>> effects" that deal damage, is that damage considered hand damage? to be
more
>> exact, with an example: does thetmes does 1 unpreventable damage during
>> press step if he uses a dagons call?

> No.
> Only the damage that resolves with the strike is strike damage.

> --
> LSJ (vtes...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
> V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Catatonic Fear damage is not "damage that resolves with the strike".
So, taken together does this mean that Catatonic Fear damage is
"damage from a strike" but NOT "strike damage"?

-Ben Swainbank

LSJ

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 1:50:00 PM10/11/07
to
bswai...@gmail.com wrote:
> Catatonic Fear damage is not "damage that resolves with the strike".

Yes, it is. Strike resolution of CF: End combat and apply damage after combat ends.

> So, taken together does this mean that Catatonic Fear damage is
> "damage from a strike" but NOT "strike damage"?

No.

bswai...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 3:18:45 PM10/11/07
to
On Oct 11, 1:50 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:

Hunh. Since the Catatonic Fear damage is after combat (and thus after
the Psyche!, taste, and Hidden Lurker phases) I figured we were well
past strike resolution.

Now I'm curious. Does this ruling depend on the implied puctuation of
the superior text?

Strike: combat ends.
As above, and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once combat ends
if the range is close.

If that superior is interpreted as:

Strike: combat ends. Inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once
combat ends if the range is close.

Would Target: Vitals no longer be legit via the Dagon's Call ruling?

Whereas...

Strike: combat ends, and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once
combat ends if the range is close.

... means the damage is resolved "with the strike" (even if it's after
combat) and thus Target: Vitals is ok?

-Ben Swainbank

LSJ

unread,
Oct 11, 2007, 3:25:30 PM10/11/07
to
bswai...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 11, 1:50 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> bswainb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Catatonic Fear damage is not "damage that resolves with the strike".
>> Yes, it is. Strike resolution of CF: End combat and apply damage after combat ends.
>>
>>> So, taken together does this mean that Catatonic Fear damage is
>>> "damage from a strike" but NOT "strike damage"?
>> No.
>
> Hunh. Since the Catatonic Fear damage is after combat (and thus after
> the Psyche!, taste, and Hidden Lurker phases) I figured we were well
> past strike resolution.
>
> Now I'm curious. Does this ruling depend on the implied puctuation of
> the superior text?

No, it's just the strike's effect.

It is strike that does two things as part of its resolution: it ends combat and
inflicts damage.

Like Majesty does two things as part of its resolution: first it untaps the
vampire and then it ends combat.

> Strike: combat ends.
> As above, and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once combat ends
> if the range is close.
>
> If that superior is interpreted as:
>
> Strike: combat ends. Inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once
> combat ends if the range is close.
>
> Would Target: Vitals no longer be legit via the Dagon's Call ruling?
>
> Whereas...
>
> Strike: combat ends, and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once
> combat ends if the range is close.
>

> .... means the damage is resolved "with the strike" (even if it's after


> combat) and thus Target: Vitals is ok?

There may be a wording which makes it a delayed effect, sure.
But that would be pointless for an effect whose "delay time" is zero.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages