Exactly What Is Anesthetic Touch?

73 views
Skip to first unread message

Halcyan 2

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 3:49:39 AM12/10/01
to
I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is:

Anesthetic Touch
Type(s): Combat
Discipline(s): Auspex Obeah
Rarity: Common
Artist(s): Mark Nelson
Set(s): *Bloodlines

Only usable at close range
<aus> Strike: dodge.
<obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the resolution
of this strike.
<OBE> As above, with First Strike.


From what it looks like, it seems like both a hand strike *and* a S:CE
(assuming one of the Obeah versions). I just wanted to confirm that...

<<
From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com)
Subject: Re: What's a hand strike (exactly)?
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
View this article only
Date: 2001-09-19 07:36:23 PST

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).
>>

Anesthetic Touch is not ranged, not a weapon strike, and it inflicts damage
based on the striking minion's strength. Thus it is a hand strike, right? Also,


<< From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com)
Subject: Re: Pair of Quick Questions
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
View this article only
Date: 2001-01-19 04:00:05 PST

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote:
> "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> a écrit:
> > #1. Is the superior version of Preternatural Evasion considered
> > S:CE? It says
> > "SUP: Strike: this vampire burns 1 blood to end combat." But it
> > doesn't actually say "combat ends" or anything.
> Despite the strang wording, the card is effectively -Strike: combat
> ends.

It is a strike. It ends combat (if the vampire burns a blood).
It will end combat as soon as strike resolution begins, just as,
say, Majesty would.
>>

Anesthetic Touch is a strike. And it ends combat (after strike resolution).
Although it ends combat after the strike resolution (as opposed to the
beginning, like most other S:CE), it would still seem to be a S:CE, right?


#1. So if Anesthetic Touch is both a hand strike and a S:CE, then it seems to
follow the footsteps of Stutter-Step (which is both a hand strike and a dodge).
Would it then have the same restriction:

Stutter-Step is both a hand strike and a dodge. It cannot be used if only hand
strikes (or only dodges) are allowed. [LSJ 20010919]

?

#2. If Anesthetic Touch is not considered a S:CE, would you be able to play it
if the opposing minion had a Dog Pack?


Thanks!

Halcyan 2

Flux

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 5:26:25 AM12/10/01
to
halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in
news:20011210034939...@mb-md.aol.com:

> I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is:
>
> Anesthetic Touch
> Type(s): Combat
> Discipline(s): Auspex Obeah
> Rarity: Common
> Artist(s): Mark Nelson
> Set(s): *Bloodlines
>
> Only usable at close range
> <aus> Strike: dodge.
> <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the
> resolution of this strike.
> <OBE> As above, with First Strike.
>
>
> From what it looks like, it seems like both a hand strike *and* a S:CE
> (assuming one of the Obeah versions). I just wanted to confirm that...

Right.

> <<
> From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com)
> Subject: Re: What's a hand strike (exactly)?
> Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
> View this article only
> Date: 2001-09-19 07:36:23 PST
>
> 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).
>>>
>
> Anesthetic Touch is not ranged, not a weapon strike, and it inflicts
> damage based on the striking minion's strength. Thus it is a hand
> strike, right? Also,
>

Yes, it is a hand strike.

> << From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com)
> Subject: Re: Pair of Quick Questions
> Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
> View this article only
> Date: 2001-01-19 04:00:05 PST
>
> "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote:
>> "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> a écrit:
>> > #1. Is the superior version of Preternatural Evasion considered
>> > S:CE? It says
>> > "SUP: Strike: this vampire burns 1 blood to end combat." But it
>> > doesn't actually say "combat ends" or anything.
>> Despite the strang wording, the card is effectively -Strike: combat
>> ends.
>
> It is a strike. It ends combat (if the vampire burns a blood).
> It will end combat as soon as strike resolution begins, just as,
> say, Majesty would.
>>>
>
> Anesthetic Touch is a strike. And it ends combat (after strike
> resolution). Although it ends combat after the strike resolution (as
> opposed to the beginning, like most other S:CE), it would still seem to
> be a S:CE, right?

Yes.

> #1. So if Anesthetic Touch is both a hand strike and a S:CE, then it
> seems to follow the footsteps of Stutter-Step (which is both a hand
> strike and a dodge). Would it then have the same restriction:
>
> Stutter-Step is both a hand strike and a dodge. It cannot be used if
> only hand strikes (or only dodges) are allowed. [LSJ 20010919]
>
> ?

No. The restriction on Stutter Step is made due to specific errata (that
text is errata to the card text, not a ruling or clarification). So
Anesthetic Touch should be usable against IG, which states that only hand
strikes can be used - AT is a hand strike and therefore can be used. It is
also a S:CE, but IG doesn't restrict the use of those, it just demands
that they be hand strikes, which most are not.

> #2. If Anesthetic Touch is not considered a S:CE, would you be able to
> play it if the opposing minion had a Dog Pack?

No. It's still a S:CE card, it's just a hand strike _too_ (and therefore
playable with IG).


All IMO, of course. :-)


Flux

LSJ

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 6:40:10 AM12/10/01
to
Halcyan 2 wrote:
> I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is:
>
> Anesthetic Touch
> Only usable at close range
> <aus> Strike: dodge.
> <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the resolution
> of this strike.
> <OBE> As above, with First Strike.
>
>
> From what it looks like, it seems like both a hand strike *and* a S:CE
> (assuming one of the Obeah versions). I just wanted to confirm that...

No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat before
any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5]. AT doesn't qualify.



> #1. So if Anesthetic Touch is both a hand strike and a S:CE, then it seems to
> follow the footsteps of Stutter-Step (which is both a hand strike and a dodge).
> Would it then have the same restriction:
>
> Stutter-Step is both a hand strike and a dodge. It cannot be used if only hand
> strikes (or only dodges) are allowed. [LSJ 20010919]
>
> ?

Moot, but no. That restriction is errata to S-S, not a general ruling.

> #2. If Anesthetic Touch is not considered a S:CE, would you be able to play it
> if the opposing minion had a Dog Pack?

Yes.

--
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/

Flux

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 8:11:36 AM12/10/01
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
news:3C149F1A...@white-wolf.com:

> Halcyan 2 wrote:
>> I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is:
>>
>> Anesthetic Touch
>> Only usable at close range
>> <aus> Strike: dodge.
>> <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the
>> resolution of this strike.
>> <OBE> As above, with First Strike.
>>
>>
>> From what it looks like, it seems like both a hand strike *and* a S:CE
>> (assuming one of the Obeah versions). I just wanted to confirm that...
>
> No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat
> before any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5].
> AT doesn't qualify.

Ok, if you say so...


>> #1. So if Anesthetic Touch is both a hand strike and a S:CE, then it
>> seems to follow the footsteps of Stutter-Step (which is both a hand
>> strike and a dodge). Would it then have the same restriction:
>>
>> Stutter-Step is both a hand strike and a dodge. It cannot be used if
>> only hand strikes (or only dodges) are allowed. [LSJ 20010919]
>>
>> ?
>
> Moot, but no. That restriction is errata to S-S, not a general ruling.

Agreed...


>> #2. If Anesthetic Touch is not considered a S:CE, would you be able to
>> play it if the opposing minion had a Dog Pack?
>
> Yes.

This I don't get/agree. Dog Pack says that the opposing minion cannot play
'combat ends' as a strike. Guess what? AT is a strike and says that
'combat ends'... Why should it be playable against a Dog Pack??

Flux

LSJ

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 8:50:00 AM12/10/01
to
Flux wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in

> > Halcyan 2 wrote:
> >> #2. If Anesthetic Touch is not considered a S:CE, would you be able to
> >> play it if the opposing minion had a Dog Pack?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> This I don't get/agree. Dog Pack says that the opposing minion cannot play
> 'combat ends' as a strike. Guess what? AT is a strike and says that
> 'combat ends'... Why should it be playable against a Dog Pack??

It is not "combat ends as a strike".

Sorrow

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 8:54:10 AM12/10/01
to

> > This I don't get/agree. Dog Pack says that the opposing minion cannot play
> > 'combat ends' as a strike. Guess what? AT is a strike and says that
> > 'combat ends'... Why should it be playable against a Dog Pack??
> It is not "combat ends as a strike".

It's an effect.
Like that one card that allows you to do 1 damage and steal a M:Discipline
card. You can prevent the damage but the Discipline card would still get
stolen. However, if you Dodged, nothing would happen.

LSJ, is that true for AT as well? If you Dodge the strike (thus cancelling it),
would the Combat Ends effect still occur?

Sorrow
---
"I am Jack's wasted life."
- Narrator

LSJ

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 9:06:28 AM12/10/01
to
Sorrow wrote:
> LSJ, is that true for AT as well? If you Dodge the strike (thus cancelling it),
> would the Combat Ends effect still occur?

Yes. Dodge doesn't cancel the strike.

AT should be thwarted by a dodge from a backstory POV, but by the rules, dodge
only protects the dodging minion. Ending combat isn't an effect applied to the
dodging minion, so isn't affected.

Note also the the "combat ends after this strike is resolved" only applies at
close range, since it doesn't say otherwise (and, as before, it isn't covered
by the S:CE rules, so doesn't get the "effective at long range" benefit of
those rules).

X_Zealot

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 9:19:38 AM12/10/01
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C14C164...@white-wolf.com...

> Sorrow wrote:
> > LSJ, is that true for AT as well? If you Dodge the strike (thus
cancelling it),
> > would the Combat Ends effect still occur?
>
> Yes. Dodge doesn't cancel the strike.
>
> AT should be thwarted by a dodge from a backstory POV, but by the rules,
dodge
> only protects the dodging minion. Ending combat isn't an effect applied to
the
> dodging minion, so isn't affected.
>
> Note also the the "combat ends after this strike is resolved" only applies
at
> close range, since it doesn't say otherwise (and, as before, it isn't
covered
> by the S:CE rules, so doesn't get the "effective at long range" benefit of
> those rules).

On a separate note, Does Dodge protect you from the damage during the Press
phase from Dagons Call?

Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp

LSJ

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 9:49:16 AM12/10/01
to
X_Zealot wrote:
> On a separate note, Does Dodge protect you from the damage during the Press
> phase from Dagons Call?

Yes.

Flux

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 9:59:24 AM12/10/01
to
"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:683R7.630$Cc1.1...@newshog.newsread.com:

>
>> > This I don't get/agree. Dog Pack says that the opposing minion
>> > cannot play 'combat ends' as a strike. Guess what? AT is a strike
>> > and says that 'combat ends'... Why should it be playable against a
>> > Dog Pack??
>> It is not "combat ends as a strike".
>
> It's an effect.

That is a strike and ends combat.
It also does other things (so do most other S:CE cards, nothing new
there), and it doesn't end combat like a 'normal' S:CE does, but it's
still a strike and it ends combat. It really sounds like it's 'combat ends
as a strike' to me...

> Like that one card that allows you to do 1 damage and steal a
> M:Discipline card. You can prevent the damage but the Discipline card
> would still get stolen. However, if you Dodged, nothing would happen.

Ok, I think I know what the problem is.
S:CE is treated as a special, specific strike effect (like 'hand strike').
Unfortunately, it also is the description of any effect that ends combat
(how else would you describe an effect that ends combat? 'Terminate
Combat'? :-).
From LSJ's post it seems that Dog Pack should prevent the 'special' S:CE
strike, but not general 'end combat' effects from strikes.

This seems wrong and confusing to me... then again, it wouldn't be the
first time I get confused with VtES. :-)


> LSJ, is that true for AT as well? If you Dodge the strike (thus
> cancelling it), would the Combat Ends effect still occur?

At least this part I understand: dodge only cancels a strike's effect on
the Dodging minion...

:-)


Flux

LSJ

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 10:07:27 AM12/10/01
to
Flux wrote:
>
> "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:683R7.630$Cc1.1...@newshog.newsread.com:
>
> >
> >> > This I don't get/agree. Dog Pack says that the opposing minion
> >> > cannot play 'combat ends' as a strike. Guess what? AT is a strike
> >> > and says that 'combat ends'... Why should it be playable against a
> >> > Dog Pack??
> >> It is not "combat ends as a strike".
> >
> > It's an effect.
>
> That is a strike and ends combat.
> It also does other things (so do most other S:CE cards, nothing new
> there), and it doesn't end combat like a 'normal' S:CE does, but it's
> still a strike and it ends combat. It really sounds like it's 'combat ends
> as a strike' to me...

See the rules for S:CE [6.4.5]
Note that this is not that.

> > Like that one card that allows you to do 1 damage and steal a
> > M:Discipline card. You can prevent the damage but the Discipline card
> > would still get stolen. However, if you Dodged, nothing would happen.
>
> Ok, I think I know what the problem is.
> S:CE is treated as a special, specific strike effect (like 'hand strike').
> Unfortunately, it also is the description of any effect that ends combat
> (how else would you describe an effect that ends combat? 'Terminate
> Combat'? :-).
> From LSJ's post it seems that Dog Pack should prevent the 'special' S:CE
> strike, but not general 'end combat' effects from strikes.

Right.
Dog Pack won't prevent you from using Coma, for instance, even though that
strike will end combat.

Reyda

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 10:15:44 AM12/10/01
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C149F1A...@white-wolf.com...

> Halcyan 2 wrote:
> > I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is:
> >
> > Anesthetic Touch
> > Only usable at close range
> > <aus> Strike: dodge.
> > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the
resolution
> > of this strike.
> > <OBE> As above, with First Strike.
> >
> >
> > From what it looks like, it seems like both a hand strike *and* a S:CE
> > (assuming one of the Obeah versions). I just wanted to confirm that...
>
> No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat
before
> any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5]. AT doesn't
qualify.

I control the acting vampire in combat. The opposing minion hits my vampire
with more damage than i can heal. I played inferior Anesthetic touch. Can i
assume that combat ends before the damage prevention step ? So i cannot use
skin of steel ? Does the opposing minion have the option to burn my vampire
with Decapitate or Amaranth or is it prohibited by card text ?

I control the defending vampire in a "Dawn operation combat" against
Basilia. I play superior Anesthetic touch in response to opponent's strike:
combat ends and continue the action at +1 stealth. What happens ? do i hit
my opponent with first strike ? Is she sent to torpor ? can i amaranth her
? does she continue the action anyway ?
If, in the same combat, Basilia have played, say, lucky blow. could i have
inflicted 1 agg with superior Anesthetic touch, then amaranth her ?

reyda

LSJ

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 10:33:24 AM12/10/01
to
Reyda wrote:
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3C149F1A...@white-wolf.com...
> > Halcyan 2 wrote:
> > > I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is:
> > >
> > > Anesthetic Touch
> > > Only usable at close range
> > > <aus> Strike: dodge.
> > > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the
> resolution
> > > of this strike.
> > > <OBE> As above, with First Strike.
> > >
> > >
> > > From what it looks like, it seems like both a hand strike *and* a S:CE
> > > (assuming one of the Obeah versions). I just wanted to confirm that...
> >
> > No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat
> before
> > any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5]. AT doesn't
> qualify.
>
> I control the acting vampire in combat. The opposing minion hits my vampire
> with more damage than i can heal. I played inferior Anesthetic touch. Can i
> assume that combat ends before the damage prevention step ? So i cannot use

No. Damage prevention is part of strike resolution.

> skin of steel ? Does the opposing minion have the option to burn my vampire

You may.

> with Decapitate or Amaranth or is it prohibited by card text ?

The former.

> I control the defending vampire in a "Dawn operation combat" against
> Basilia. I play superior Anesthetic touch in response to opponent's strike:
> combat ends and continue the action at +1 stealth. What happens ? do i hit
> my opponent with first strike ? Is she sent to torpor ? can i amaranth her
> ? does she continue the action anyway ?

The FoM ends combat before your strike gets to resolve [6.4.5]
The action continues at +1 stealth.

> If, in the same combat, Basilia have played, say, lucky blow. could i have
> inflicted 1 agg with superior Anesthetic touch, then amaranth her ?

Yes.

Meeta Punjabi

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 11:43:27 AM12/10/01
to
> > > > Anesthetic Touch
> > > > Only usable at close range
> > > > <aus> Strike: dodge.
> > > > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the
> > resolution
> > > > of this strike.
> > > > <OBE> As above, with First Strike.

Since I'm in the business of asking questions today. If the strike is dodged
does combat end? Or do dodged strikes, that are directed still resolve?
Paul

LSJ

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 12:18:14 PM12/10/01
to

Per <3C14C164...@white-wolf.com> in this thread, the dodge will not
stop the AT from ending combat.

Flux

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 12:45:00 PM12/10/01
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
news:3C14CFAF...@white-wolf.com:

> Flux wrote:
>>
>> "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:683R7.630$Cc1.1...@newshog.newsread.com:
>>
>> >
>> >> > This I don't get/agree. Dog Pack says that the opposing minion
>> >> > cannot play 'combat ends' as a strike. Guess what? AT is a strike
>> >> > and says that 'combat ends'... Why should it be playable against
>> >> > a Dog Pack??
>> >> It is not "combat ends as a strike".
>> >
>> > It's an effect.
>>
>> That is a strike and ends combat.
>> It also does other things (so do most other S:CE cards, nothing new
>> there), and it doesn't end combat like a 'normal' S:CE does, but it's
>> still a strike and it ends combat. It really sounds like it's 'combat
>> ends as a strike' to me...
>
> See the rules for S:CE [6.4.5]
> Note that this is not that.

Nor am I saying it is (not anymore that is, that was my first impression,
but upon hearing your opinion and going through the rulesbook I can agree
with your point). I'm just stating the obvious: that this is a strike and
that it ends combat by explicit card text.


>> Ok, I think I know what the problem is.
>> S:CE is treated as a special, specific strike effect (like 'hand
>> strike'). Unfortunately, it also is the description of any effect that
>> ends combat (how else would you describe an effect that ends combat?
>> 'Terminate Combat'? :-).
>> From LSJ's post it seems that Dog Pack should prevent the 'special'
>> S:CE strike, but not general 'end combat' effects from strikes.
>
> Right.
> Dog Pack won't prevent you from using Coma, for instance, even though
> that strike will end combat.

Not if it's dodged. :-)

AT has explicit text to end combat, Coma does not.
The wording on Dog Pack does not seem to specify that it prevents S:CE, it
could very well be interpreted to literaly mean that it prevents ending
combat as a strike, which AT does.

Frankly, I don't care much either way, I just think it's messy. It reminds
me of the confusion there used to be with Hand Damage before Strength came
along (though obviously not as serious, it's only one card).

Flux

James Coupe

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 12:57:42 PM12/10/01
to
In message <Xns9173B46A87...@130.133.1.4>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt>
writes:

>AT has explicit text to end combat, Coma does not.

However, Dog Pack is not referring to any old strike that will end
combat.

It is referring to the "Combat Ends" strike as defined in the rules.

--
James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D It's been a long road, getting from there to here
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA213D7E It's been a long time, and my time is finally near
668C3695D623D5D I will see my dream come alive at last, I will touch the sky
And they're not gonna hold me down no more, no they're not gonna change my mind

Halcyan 2

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 1:38:26 PM12/10/01
to
>>AT has explicit text to end combat, Coma does not.
>
>However, Dog Pack is not referring to any old strike that will end
>combat.
>
>It is referring to the "Combat Ends" strike as defined in the rules.

But then why is Preternatural Evasion considered a S:CE?

Preternatural Evasion [Sabbat, SW]
Cardtype: Combat
Discipline: Celerity
[cel] Strike: dodge.
[CEL] Strike: this vampire burns 1 blood to end combat.


The ending of combat seems to be as much of an "effect" as the ending of combat
in anesthetic touch.

Halcyan 2

LSJ

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 1:50:26 PM12/10/01
to

It ends combat in the [6.4.5] manner (as a strike).
As opposed to AT, which ends combat after the strike.

Flux

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 3:03:14 PM12/10/01
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
news:3C1503F2...@white-wolf.com:

> Halcyan 2 wrote:
>>
>> >>AT has explicit text to end combat, Coma does not.
>> >
>> >However, Dog Pack is not referring to any old strike that will end
>> >combat.
>> >
>> >It is referring to the "Combat Ends" strike as defined in the rules.
>>
>> But then why is Preternatural Evasion considered a S:CE?
>>
>> Preternatural Evasion [Sabbat, SW]
>> Cardtype: Combat
>> Discipline: Celerity
>> [cel] Strike: dodge.
>> [CEL] Strike: this vampire burns 1 blood to end combat.
>>
>> The ending of combat seems to be as much of an "effect" as the ending
>> of combat in anesthetic touch.
>
> It ends combat in the [6.4.5] manner (as a strike).

Why does it end combat in the the [6.4.5] manner?
Why shouldn't I just read this as meaning: 'This vampire burns one blood
during strike resolution to end combat' (in which case it would be beaten
by First Strike), like all other strike effects implicitly do? Because it
'ends combat as a strike'?

> As opposed to AT, which ends combat after the strike.

You mean 'after the strike resolution'. Just because it doesn't happen
during strike resolution doesn't mean it's not part of the strike
(otherwise you couldn't dodge the press damage from Dagon's Call, to use
an example in this thread).

AT also 'ends combat as a strike', it just does it in a different timing.
Why should I not look at AT as a Strike: Combat Ends with a different,
explicit timing?


Flux

LSJ

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 3:35:58 PM12/10/01
to
Flux wrote:
> Why does it end combat in the the [6.4.5] manner?

Because it is a combat ends strike and 6.4.5 lists the manner in which
such strikes resolve.

> Why shouldn't I just read this as meaning: 'This vampire burns one blood
> during strike resolution to end combat' (in which case it would be beaten
> by First Strike), like all other strike effects implicitly do? Because it
> 'ends combat as a strike'?

Yes.

As someone else suggested, it would be clearer if "S:CE" was more a distinct
term than it is in its current descriptive form. Say, if all S:CE effects
said "Strike: flee" instead of "Strike: end combat" and 6.4.5 used "flee"
instead of combat ends. Then Preternatural Evasion could say "Strike: this
vampire burns 1 blood to flee" while AT could unambiguously be worded as it is.

But it isn't.

> > As opposed to AT, which ends combat after the strike.
>
> You mean 'after the strike resolution'. Just because it doesn't happen
> during strike resolution doesn't mean it's not part of the strike
> (otherwise you couldn't dodge the press damage from Dagon's Call, to use
> an example in this thread).

?
After the strike resolution *is* after the strike.

Dagon's Call:
You don't dodge the press damage - you dodge the "get hit with an effect
that will damage you during the press step" effect - the effect which is
done during the resolution of the strike. If you dodged, then there is
no press damage to be concerned about.

> AT also 'ends combat as a strike', it just does it in a different timing.
> Why should I not look at AT as a Strike: Combat Ends with a different,
> explicit timing?

If it did, then it would resolve before the damage it did could be inflicted
and the "First Strike" designation would be meaninglinesss. [6.4.5]

Flux

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 5:18:43 PM12/10/01
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
news:3C151CAE...@white-wolf.com:

> Flux wrote:
>> Why does it end combat in the the [6.4.5] manner?
>
> Because it is a combat ends strike and 6.4.5 lists the manner in which
> such strikes resolve.
>
>> Why shouldn't I just read this as meaning: 'This vampire burns one
>> blood during strike resolution to end combat' (in which case it would
>> be beaten by First Strike), like all other strike effects implicitly
>> do? Because it 'ends combat as a strike'?
>
> Yes.
>
> As someone else suggested, it would be clearer if "S:CE" was more a
> distinct term than it is in its current descriptive form.

Actually, I suggested that myself. :-)

> Say, if all
> S:CE effects said "Strike: flee" instead of "Strike: end combat" and
> 6.4.5 used "flee" instead of combat ends. Then Preternatural Evasion
> could say "Strike: this vampire burns 1 blood to flee" while AT could
> unambiguously be worded as it is.
>
> But it isn't.
>
>> > As opposed to AT, which ends combat after the strike.
>>
>> You mean 'after the strike resolution'. Just because it doesn't happen
>> during strike resolution doesn't mean it's not part of the strike
>> (otherwise you couldn't dodge the press damage from Dagon's Call, to
>> use an example in this thread).
>
> ?
> After the strike resolution *is* after the strike.

There's Strike Declaration and Strike Resolution. For example, most people
will say they play Claws of the Dead after the strike, obviously meaning
the declaration. I just mentioned it for a question of clarity, I think
things are already muddled enough as it is. :-)


> Dagon's Call:
> You don't dodge the press damage - you dodge the "get hit with an
> effect that will damage you during the press step" effect - the effect
> which is done during the resolution of the strike. If you dodged, then
> there is no press damage to be concerned about.

I know, but that's the point: AT sets up an effect that ends combat after
strike resolution, but it's still part of the strike, obviously.

PE
Strike: effect that ends combat ->by burning 1 blood.

AT
Strike: effect that ends combat ->after strike resolution.


They don't seem that different, do they? They're both strikes that end
combat explicitly.

>> AT also 'ends combat as a strike', it just does it in a different
>> timing. Why should I not look at AT as a Strike: Combat Ends with a
>> different, explicit timing?
>
> If it did, then it would resolve before the damage it did could be
> inflicted and the "First Strike" designation would be meaninglinesss.
> [6.4.5]

No, because of explicit card text, which always takes precedence over the
rulesbook. If you have a card that says 'Strike: combat ends, all other
strike effects for the current pair of strikes still resolve', is it not a
S:CE card, despite the weird timing?
Or, if you used 'flee': 'Strike: make a hand strike with First Strike.
After strike resolution, flee.'
It's still a 'flee' strike, despite going against the (supposed)
definition in the rulesbook.
It's also pretty much the wording on AT, replacing 'Combat ends' with
'Flee'.

If we were ever to replace 'combat ends' with 'flee', why should we do so
for Preternatural Evasion and not for AT? What if AT was supposed to work
as a 'flee' (moot in this case, since you designed the card yourself ;-),
how could we distinguish it from 'non-flee' effects?

Flux

LSJ

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 5:27:06 PM12/10/01
to
Flux wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
> > As someone else suggested, it would be clearer if "S:CE" was more a
> > distinct term than it is in its current descriptive form.
>
> Actually, I suggested that myself. :-)

Good job. :-)



> > Dagon's Call:
> > You don't dodge the press damage - you dodge the "get hit with an
> > effect that will damage you during the press step" effect - the effect
> > which is done during the resolution of the strike. If you dodged, then
> > there is no press damage to be concerned about.
>
> I know, but that's the point: AT sets up an effect that ends combat after
> strike resolution, but it's still part of the strike, obviously.

The strike sets up the later effect.
The later effect that it sets up isn't the strike.

For instance, Dagon's Call's press-step damage isn't strike damage (and cannot
be prevented with Skin of Steel, for instance).

> PE
> Strike: effect that ends combat ->by burning 1 blood.
>
> AT
> Strike: effect that ends combat ->after strike resolution.

AT:
Strike: effect that sets up an effect which will end combat
after strike resolution.

> They don't seem that different, do they? They're both strikes that end
> combat explicitly.

One ends combat as a strike. The other doesn't.

> >> AT also 'ends combat as a strike', it just does it in a different
> >> timing. Why should I not look at AT as a Strike: Combat Ends with a
> >> different, explicit timing?
> >
> > If it did, then it would resolve before the damage it did could be
> > inflicted and the "First Strike" designation would be meaninglinesss.
> > [6.4.5]
>
> No, because of explicit card text, which always takes precedence over the
> rulesbook. If you have a card that says 'Strike: combat ends, all other
> strike effects for the current pair of strikes still resolve', is it not a
> S:CE card, despite the weird timing?
> Or, if you used 'flee': 'Strike: make a hand strike with First Strike.
> After strike resolution, flee.'
> It's still a 'flee' strike, despite going against the (supposed)
> definition in the rulesbook.
> It's also pretty much the wording on AT, replacing 'Combat ends' with
> 'Flee'.

Except that "flee" would be a strike and has no meaning after strike
resolution. Compare dodge.

> If we were ever to replace 'combat ends' with 'flee', why should we do so
> for Preternatural Evasion and not for AT? What if AT was supposed to work
> as a 'flee' (moot in this case, since you designed the card yourself ;-),
> how could we distinguish it from 'non-flee' effects?

Because PT's effect is a flee effect (since it is the strike). AT's effect is
not (since it happens after the strike).

Roger Carhult

unread,
Dec 10, 2001, 10:50:35 PM12/10/01
to

> > Since I'm in the business of asking questions today. If the strike is
dodged
> > does combat end? Or do dodged strikes, that are directed still resolve?
> > Paul
>
> Per <3C14C164...@white-wolf.com> in this thread, the dodge will not
> stop the AT from ending combat.

This is what really confuses me and makes no sense.

You state:
"Most strikes are effective only at close range. Unless the strike is
identified as ranged or does "R" damage (or is a defensive strike such as
dodge or combat ends), it is only effective at close range. Ranged strikes
and strikes that do "R" damage can be used at any range, close or long."

You also say AT's CE won't have effect at long range. I assume this is
because it's a part of the strike of AT. If not, then why could it not have
effect on long range? It's just an effect like the untap effect of Majesty
is, which can be used on long range.

Now if it's a part of a strike, and thus not ranged, then why can it not be
dodged?? You say the CE effect doesn't target the opposing minion so a dodge
won't cancel it. But how can Dagon's Call be considered to target the minion
then? As I see it, Dagon's Call's effect is environmental so it cannot be
dodged, just like CE cannot. The damage from DC is just an effect, just like
the CE from AT is! Why is it part of the strike in any different matter? Are
you saying DC's press-damage is inflicted from the striking minion and isn't
environmental?Because if it's environmental it shouldn't be possible to
dodge in the press step. If Majesty was dodgeable for example, the striking
minion would still be able to untap wouldn't it? The "targetting" is moot
since the damage from DC is environmental IMO... You cannot dodge Carrion
Crows...

I really don't understand why a) it cannot be used at range (since Majesty's
untap can) and b) why DC's damage can be dodged while AT's CE cannot be.

Roger


GreySeer

unread,
Dec 11, 2001, 6:09:32 AM12/11/01
to
> I really don't understand why a) it cannot be used at range (since
Majesty's
> untap can) and b) why DC's damage can be dodged while AT's CE cannot be.

Lately I've been getting the feeling that a lot of rulings ( and cards ) are
just making the more and more complicated, which is always bad for new
players.

After reading all the messages in this thread I think I can answer your
questions.

a) AT is not a ranged strike, nor is it a S:CE. It's a hand strike that sets
up a combat ending effect ( after stirke resolution ).
b) Current definition of dodge [6.4.5]
Dodge: A dodge strike deals no damage, but it protects the dodging minion
and his possessions from the effects of the opposing strike. Retainers are
not protected, however. A dodge is effective at any range. A dodge protects
even from the effects of a strike done with first strike. (A dodge is a
strike, even though it is solely defensive. It represents the activity of
the minion during that pair of strikes.)
DC's damage is something that directly affects you, so you are protected
from it.
AT's ending combat is not something that you can protect yourself from so
dodge doesn't stop it from ending combat.


Flux

unread,
Dec 11, 2001, 8:21:33 AM12/11/01
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
news:3C1536BA...@white-wolf.com:

> For instance, Dagon's Call's press-step damage isn't strike damage (and
> cannot be prevented with Skin of Steel, for instance).

..nor any other card, since it's unpreventable anyway. :-)

>> >> AT also 'ends combat as a strike', it just does it in a different
>> >> timing. Why should I not look at AT as a Strike: Combat Ends with a
>> >> different, explicit timing?
>> >
>> > If it did, then it would resolve before the damage it did could be
>> > inflicted and the "First Strike" designation would be
>> > meaninglinesss. [6.4.5]
>>
>> No, because of explicit card text, which always takes precedence over
>> the rulesbook. If you have a card that says 'Strike: combat ends, all
>> other strike effects for the current pair of strikes still resolve',
>> is it not a S:CE card, despite the weird timing?
>> Or, if you used 'flee': 'Strike: make a hand strike with First Strike.
>> After strike resolution, flee.'
>> It's still a 'flee' strike, despite going against the (supposed)
>> definition in the rulesbook.
>> It's also pretty much the wording on AT, replacing 'Combat ends' with
>> 'Flee'.
>
> Except that "flee" would be a strike and has no meaning after strike
> resolution. Compare dodge.

It could be easily interpreted as meaning that combat ended right after
strike resolution (like having 'Last Strike'), but it wouldn't be usable
against 'anti-flee' cards, like Dog Pack.


Dodge is different, because it doesn't have a timing by itself, it simply
negates whatever the other minion is throwing at you. A non-standard Dodge
would possibly look like this:

"Strike: Dodge, all aggravated damage from the opposing minion's strike
still hit this minion."

It doesn't negate the opposing minion's strike, just part of it, so it's
not what the rulesbook says a Dodge should be. Though it's still a Dodge
because it says so (and so can't be used when Dodge strikes are
restricted).


What about 'Hand Strike'? If you had a card say:

"Strike: 2R damage. This is a hand strike."

It would be a hand strike, despite breaking all the usual 'hand strike'
properties, because of explicit card text.


AT could likewise be a non-standard 'flee' strike.


Flux

LSJ

unread,
Dec 11, 2001, 8:30:48 AM12/11/01
to
Flux wrote:
> What about 'Hand Strike'? If you had a card say:
>
> "Strike: 2R damage. This is a hand strike."

We've been over this road before.
You can't say "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge".
Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes.
The above is paraphrased as "Strike: 2R damage. This is a non-ranged strike
that deals damage based on this minion's strength". It doesn't work.



> It would be a hand strike, despite breaking all the usual 'hand strike'
> properties, because of explicit card text.
>
> AT could likewise be a non-standard 'flee' strike.

Or, more probably, it would just end combat and not try to hammer
a strike effect into a non-strike usage.

Dog Pack restricts the S:CE (flee) not other EC effects (AT).

Flux

unread,
Dec 11, 2001, 4:43:52 PM12/11/01
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
news:3C160A88...@white-wolf.com:

> Flux wrote:
>> What about 'Hand Strike'? If you had a card say:
>>
>> "Strike: 2R damage. This is a hand strike."
>
> We've been over this road before.
> You can't say "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge".

Well, you could. I would interpret such a card as:

"Strike: avoid all effects the opposing minion's strike has on this
minion, even if they were done with First Strike. (This is not a Dodge)"

(it would also be less confusing to write this on the card to start with)

It has the effect of a Dodge, yet it's not a Dodge and could be played in
situations where Dodges are restricted.


> Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes.

Not according to the rulesbook, but any given card may open an exception
by explicit card text, which the above does.


> The above is paraphrased as "Strike: 2R damage. This is a non-ranged
> strike that deals damage based on this minion's strength". It doesn't
> work.

No, it says it is considered a Hand Strike for purposes of determining
what kind of strike it is, overruling the rulesbook's definition of a Hand
Strike.


Flux

LSJ

unread,
Dec 11, 2001, 5:32:15 PM12/11/01
to
Flux wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
> > You can't say "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge".
>
> Well, you could. I would interpret such a card as:
>
> "Strike: avoid all effects the opposing minion's strike has on this
> minion, even if they were done with First Strike. (This is not a Dodge)"

Yes, but no one else would.
Try to imagine the questions such a self-contradictory thing would cause.

> (it would also be less confusing to write this on the card to start with)

Exactly the point with AT.

> It has the effect of a Dodge, yet it's not a Dodge and could be played in
> situations where Dodges are restricted.

Then it isn't a dodge.



> > Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes.
>
> Not according to the rulesbook, but any given card may open an exception
> by explicit card text, which the above does.

No. See Kraken's Kiss.



> > The above is paraphrased as "Strike: 2R damage. This is a non-ranged
> > strike that deals damage based on this minion's strength". It doesn't
> > work.
>
> No, it says it is considered a Hand Strike for purposes of determining
> what kind of strike it is, overruling the rulesbook's definition of a Hand
> Strike.

That way lies madness.

Flux

unread,
Dec 12, 2001, 6:13:05 AM12/12/01
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in

> Flux wrote:
>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
>> > You can't say "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge".
>>
>> Well, you could. I would interpret such a card as:
>>
>> "Strike: avoid all effects the opposing minion's strike has on this
>> minion, even if they were done with First Strike. (This is not a
>> Dodge)"
>
> Yes, but no one else would.
> Try to imagine the questions such a self-contradictory thing would
> cause.

What, like a strike that ends combat but isn't a 'Strike: Combat Ends'?
:-P

>> (it would also be less confusing to write this on the card to start
>> with)
>
> Exactly the point with AT.

Yes, though AT's case is muddled due to the descriptive nature of 'S:CE'.
But we've been through that.

>> It has the effect of a Dodge, yet it's not a Dodge and could be played
>> in situations where Dodges are restricted.
>
> Then it isn't a dodge.

Right. It says so on the card: 'This is not a Dodge'.

The way I see it, it's like taking a certain strike, defined in the
rulesbook, and adding or removing certain properties to it. In this case,
you remove it's identity as a Dodge.

>> > Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes.
>>
>> Not according to the rulesbook, but any given card may open an
>> exception by explicit card text, which the above does.
>
> No. See Kraken's Kiss.

Kaken's Kiss says 'strength+1 ranged damage', it does not say explicitly
that it is a Hand Strike, therefore it isn't (because it is ranged). It's
not what I'm talking about.

>> > The above is paraphrased as "Strike: 2R damage. This is a non-ranged
>> > strike that deals damage based on this minion's strength". It
>> > doesn't work.
>>
>> No, it says it is considered a Hand Strike for purposes of determining
>> what kind of strike it is, overruling the rulesbook's definition of a
>> Hand Strike.
>
> That way lies madness.

Why should the rulesbook have the final say on what is or isn't a Hand
Strike (or Dodge, or S:CE), when it claims that cardtext will always
overrule it?

Isn't _that_ a major contradiction?
"The cards take precedence, except when they don't"

What if you did want to have a strike that was to be considered a Hand
Strike and yet be ranged ('Puppet Hands', or something like that)?
You're saying it's not possible, I say it should be. The rulesbook should
ease the reading of the card's effect (so you don't have to play with A4
cards), not determine it.


Flux

LSJ

unread,
Dec 12, 2001, 6:26:22 AM12/12/01
to
Flux wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
> > Flux wrote:
> >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
> >> > You can't say "Strike: dodge. This is not a dodge".
> >>
> >> Well, you could. I would interpret such a card as:
> >>
> >> "Strike: avoid all effects the opposing minion's strike has on this
> >> minion, even if they were done with First Strike. (This is not a
> >> Dodge)"
> >
> > Yes, but no one else would.
> > Try to imagine the questions such a self-contradictory thing would
> > cause.
>
> What, like a strike that ends combat but isn't a 'Strike: Combat Ends'?
> :-P

Something like that, yeah. Good thing we don't have any of those.

Just look at the questions something like AT generates, though, when
it approaches that sort of self-contradiction (with a combat ends
effect that isn't a strike).

> >> > Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes.
> >>
> >> Not according to the rulesbook, but any given card may open an
> >> exception by explicit card text, which the above does.
> >
> > No. See Kraken's Kiss.
>
> Kaken's Kiss says 'strength+1 ranged damage', it does not say explicitly
> that it is a Hand Strike, therefore it isn't (because it is ranged). It's
> not what I'm talking about.

Yes, it is. Ranged strikes are not hand strikes. Period.

Try this: "(D) enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat."

GreySeer

unread,
Dec 12, 2001, 7:04:57 AM12/12/01
to

> > >> > Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes.
> > >>
> > >> Not according to the rulesbook, but any given card may open an
> > >> exception by explicit card text, which the above does.
> > >
> > > No. See Kraken's Kiss.
> >
> > Kaken's Kiss says 'strength+1 ranged damage', it does not say explicitly
> > that it is a Hand Strike, therefore it isn't (because it is ranged).
It's
> > not what I'm talking about.
>
> Yes, it is. Ranged strikes are not hand strikes. Period.
>
> Try this: "(D) enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat."

Not that I want to drag this on, god knows it's long enough.

I agree with Flux that you could do the kind of thing that he's talking
about since card text can always override rules but to do things like.

Strike: Dodge, this is not considered a dodge.
or
(D) Enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat

Would just be asking for trouble.

I think we're better off using the AT-style template. For example, a dodge
that isn't a Strike: Dodge
"Strike: This minion and it's possessions are protected from the effects of
the opposing minion's strike."
It does the same thing as dodge but isn't actually Strike: Dodge and so
could be used when dodges are restricted.

LSJ

unread,
Dec 12, 2001, 7:38:01 AM12/12/01
to
GreySeer wrote:
> I agree with Flux that you could do the kind of thing that he's talking
> about since card text can always override rules but to do things like.

It's not a rule. It's a definition.

> Strike: Dodge, this is not considered a dodge.
> or
> (D) Enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat
>
> Would just be asking for trouble.

Exactly. Definitions shouldn't be transmutable.



> I think we're better off using the AT-style template. For example, a dodge
> that isn't a Strike: Dodge
> "Strike: This minion and it's possessions are protected from the effects of
> the opposing minion's strike."
> It does the same thing as dodge but isn't actually Strike: Dodge and so
> could be used when dodges are restricted.

Um. Right. That's what I've been saying.

GreySeer

unread,
Dec 12, 2001, 8:40:18 AM12/12/01
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C174FA9...@white-wolf.com...

> GreySeer wrote:
> > I agree with Flux that you could do the kind of thing that he's talking
> > about since card text can always override rules but to do things like.
>
> It's not a rule. It's a definition.
>
> > Strike: Dodge, this is not considered a dodge.
> > or
> > (D) Enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat
> >
> > Would just be asking for trouble.
>
> Exactly. Definitions shouldn't be transmutable.
>
> > I think we're better off using the AT-style template. For example, a
dodge
> > that isn't a Strike: Dodge
> > "Strike: This minion and it's possessions are protected from the effects
of
> > the opposing minion's strike."
> > It does the same thing as dodge but isn't actually Strike: Dodge and so
> > could be used when dodges are restricted.
>
> Um. Right. That's what I've been saying.

And I'm agreeing with you :P


Shaun McIsaac

unread,
Dec 12, 2001, 2:24:30 PM12/12/01
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C149F1A...@white-wolf.com>...

> Halcyan 2 wrote:
> > I just wanted to make sure exactly what Anesthetic Touch is:
> >
> > Anesthetic Touch
> > Only usable at close range
> > <aus> Strike: dodge.
> > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the resolution
> > of this strike.
> > <OBE> As above, with First Strike.
> No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat before
> any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5]. AT doesn't qualify.
>

If I play AT at obe level, and my opponent strikes hands for 1, do I
take the 1 damage?

Flux

unread,
Dec 12, 2001, 4:27:13 PM12/12/01
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
news:3C173EDE...@white-wolf.com:

> Flux wrote:
>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
>> > Flux wrote:
>> >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in

>> >> > Similarly, ranged strikes are not hand strikes.
>> >>
>> >> Not according to the rulesbook, but any given card may open an
>> >> exception by explicit card text, which the above does.
>> >
>> > No. See Kraken's Kiss.
>>
>> Kaken's Kiss says 'strength+1 ranged damage', it does not say
>> explicitly that it is a Hand Strike, therefore it isn't (because it is
>> ranged). It's not what I'm talking about.
>
> Yes, it is. Ranged strikes are not hand strikes. Period.

No, it isn't. It doesn't say 'This is a hand strike', which is what I was
talking about. Kraken's Kiss is not a hand strike just like Theft of Vitae
is not a Hand Strike: it doesn't fit the definition of a Hand Strike,
_and_ it doesn't have any explicit text to override that definition
either.

> Try this: "(D) enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat."

That would be asking for trouble, since it would be hard to judge what you
can or can't do based on the definition of 'combat', but I could still
make a guess. It would be rather pointless though, because there are too
many effects dependent on the definition of combat (combat cards, etc).

However, there are situations where you might want to use a 'Strike: X
ranged. This is a Hand Strike', yet that is impossible because you say the
rulesbook definitions are unbreakable.


Flux

The Computer

unread,
Dec 12, 2001, 4:32:38 PM12/12/01
to
"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in

> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>> GreySeer wrote:
>> > I agree with Flux
<snip>

> And I'm agreeing with you :P

According to the rulebook definition of 'agreeing', you're in
contradiction to yourself. Please present yourself to the Elimination
Chamber RU-1337 as soon as possible. The Computer wishes you a nice day,
Citizen.

;-)

Flux

Flux

unread,
Dec 12, 2001, 4:35:20 PM12/12/01
to
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
news:3C174FA9...@white-wolf.com:
> GreySeer wrote:
>> Strike: Dodge, this is not considered a dodge.
>> or
>> (D) Enter combat with a ready minion. This isn't combat
>>
>> Would just be asking for trouble.
>
> Exactly. Definitions shouldn't be transmutable.

I think they should be, but I agree that we should avoid those situations
if possible.


Flux

James Coupe

unread,
Dec 12, 2001, 8:13:55 PM12/12/01
to
In message <Xns9175DB7EDA...@130.133.1.4>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt>
writes:

>>Definitions shouldn't be transmutable.
>
>I think they should be

Erm, if you want something that violates the definition, just set up
something else entirely instead. Don't shoe-horn it into something it
very clearly isn't.

Flux

unread,
Dec 13, 2001, 5:45:42 AM12/13/01
to
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in
news:ZV9iedCT...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk:

> In message <Xns9175DB7EDA...@130.133.1.4>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt>
> writes:
>>>Definitions shouldn't be transmutable.
>>
>>I think they should be
>
> Erm, if you want something that violates the definition, just set up
> something else entirely instead. Don't shoe-horn it into something it
> very clearly isn't.

Ah, but some effects depend on those definitions (Dog Pack, IG, Skin Trap,
etc). If, for example, you want a ranged strike that is usable under IG
and affected by Claws, the simplest and obvious way to do it would be to
make it a Hand Strike.

The same thing happens with Stutter-Step, but in reverse: it was written
as if it wasn't a Hand Strike, but since it fit the definition it had to
be changed to work as intended. I think you could achieve a similar effect
by simply adding 'This is not considered a Hand Strike', for example.


Flux

LSJ

unread,
Dec 13, 2001, 5:52:57 AM12/13/01
to
Flux wrote:
>
> James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in
> news:ZV9iedCT...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk:
>
> > In message <Xns9175DB7EDA...@130.133.1.4>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt>
> > writes:
> >>>Definitions shouldn't be transmutable.
> >>
> >>I think they should be
> >
> > Erm, if you want something that violates the definition, just set up
> > something else entirely instead. Don't shoe-horn it into something it
> > very clearly isn't.
>
> Ah, but some effects depend on those definitions (Dog Pack, IG, Skin Trap,
> etc). If, for example, you want a ranged strike that is usable under IG
> and affected by Claws, the simplest and obvious way to do it would be to
> make it a Hand Strike.

Or make it "playable if you can play a hand strike and this damage can be
modified by effects that modify hand damage". And avoid all the unecessary
contradictions.

> The same thing happens with Stutter-Step, but in reverse: it was written
> as if it wasn't a Hand Strike, but since it fit the definition it had to

It was written as if it were a hand strike.
The problem was that it was written as if IG restricted dodges, which is
not true.

> be changed to work as intended. I think you could achieve a similar effect
> by simply adding 'This is not considered a Hand Strike', for example.

No. That would lose the Claws modification ability.

James Coupe

unread,
Dec 13, 2001, 3:23:33 PM12/13/01
to
In message <Xns91766D59AA...@130.133.1.4>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt>
writes:

>> Erm, if you want something that violates the definition, just set up
>> something else entirely instead. Don't shoe-horn it into something it
>> very clearly isn't.
>
>Ah, but some effects depend on those definitions (Dog Pack, IG, Skin Trap,
>etc).

Then include text akin to the errata on Stutter Step, as one example.
(That is, apply similar restrictions or whatever.)

James Coupe

unread,
Dec 19, 2001, 5:20:08 PM12/19/01
to
In message <8f507d2e.01121...@posting.google.com>, Shaun

McIsaac <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> writes:
>> > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the resolution
>> > of this strike.
>> > <OBE> As above, with First Strike.
>> No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat before
>> any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5]. AT doesn't qualify.
>>
>
>If I play AT at obe level, and my opponent strikes hands for 1, do I
>take the 1 damage?

Yes. Strike Resolution includes the whole damage preventing bit.

GreySeer

unread,
Dec 19, 2001, 5:56:39 PM12/19/01
to

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:70R6WyAY...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...

> In message <8f507d2e.01121...@posting.google.com>, Shaun
> McIsaac <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> writes:
> >> > <obe> Strike: make a hand strike. Combat ends immediately after the
resolution
> >> > of this strike.
> >> > <OBE> As above, with First Strike.
> >> No. It is a hand strike (card text), but not a S:CE. S:CE ends combat
before
> >> any strike resolution damage (or other effects) occur [6.4.5]. AT
doesn't qualify.
> >>
> >
> >If I play AT at obe level, and my opponent strikes hands for 1, do I
> >take the 1 damage?
>
> Yes. Strike Resolution includes the whole damage preventing bit.

But not if the AT is done with First Strike since your strike resolves first
and combat then ends before your opponent's strike resolves. It's the
ultimate end combat strike since you can play it even if IGed and you won't
take damage ( unless your opponent also has First Strike )


Reyda

unread,
Dec 21, 2001, 12:01:38 PM12/21/01
to
(snip all the fuss)

answer :
anesthetic touch is a somewhat cool card created by the design team to
confuse player, thus justifying and maintaining the job of our rulemonger =)

it's imho also the best defense against crazy grapplers =)
reyda

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages