((LSJ)) Target Retainer

[Juggernaut1981]

LSJ,
Situation turned up in JOL.

Vamp A is blocked by Vamp B and combat begins. Moves through to
strikes. Vamp A plays a Strike w/ Target:Retainer but targets the
strike at Vamp B, not Vamp B's retainer (using the "may" in the first
sentence). Does the second sentence still function on the vampire?
If this strike does deal damage to the vampire, is there an additional
damage provided by the second sentence?

Name: Target Retainer
[KoT:R]
Cardtype: Combat
Aim. Play when choosing a strike.
You may target a retainer on the opposing minion with this strike
(instead of the opposing minion). Or you may target him or her
directly as usual, but if any damage from this strike is successfully
inflicted, this strike inflicts an additional damage. The opposing
minion may discard two combat cards [COMBAT] to cancel this card. A
minion may play only one aim each strike.

[Vincent]

I don't see the problem at all, so I may answer the wrong question.

Either you use the first sentence to strike at a retainer etc.
Either you use the second sentence to strike at the opposing minion,
and it would then deal 1 additional damage if etc.

In both case, the opposing may cancel the card by discarding two
combat cards.

[LSJ]

On Jan 5, 6:23 pm, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 jan, 00:12, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > LSJ,
> > Situation turned up in JOL.
>
> > Vamp A is blocked by Vamp B and combat begins.  Moves through to
> > strikes.  Vamp A plays a Strike w/ Target:Retainer but targets the
> > strike at Vamp B, not Vamp B's retainer (using the "may" in the first
> > sentence).  Does the second sentence still function on the vampire?
> > If this strike does deal damage to the vampire, is there an additional
> > damage provided by the second sentence?
>
> > Name: Target Retainer
> > [KoT:R]
> > Cardtype: Combat
> > Aim. Play when choosing a strike.
> > You may target a retainer on the opposing minion with this strike
> > (instead of the opposing minion). Or you may target him or her
> > directly as usual, but if any damage from this strike is successfully
> > inflicted, this strike inflicts an additional damage. The opposing
> > minion may discard two combat cards [COMBAT] to cancel this card. A
> > minion may play only one aim each strike.
>
> I don't see the problem at all, so I may answer the wrong question.
>
> Either you use the first sentence to strike at a retainer etc.

> [or] you use the second sentence to strike at the opposing minion,

> and it would then deal 1 additional damage if etc.
>
> In both case, the opposing may cancel the card by discarding two
> combat cards.

Correct. The second sentence only ever functions on the opposing
minion.

[ira...@gmail.com]

aha. My confusion was regarding the "him or her directly as usual" in
the second sentence. I thought that "him or her" referred to the
retainer (because you were at long range and could target the retainer
as usual at long range).

Thanks for the clarification!

[Meej]

I'm pretty sure the whole point of the card was to let you punch
someone in the bird at close range. (Which I'm also pretty sure Ira
knew. I just wanted to say "punch someone in the bird.")

- D.J.

[Juggernaut1981]

Meej,
Yes the entire point is to Pushing the Limit the Ghoul Retainer, or
Lucky Blow the Raven Spy...

BUT when you want to cycle the damned thing out of your hand, will it
have any effect on the vampire? Could you basically use T:R to give
your +1 damage if it's not going to help you otherwise? Answer =
Yes. :D

[Meej]

Oh, sure. Totally agreed, and it's a very good thing the clause was
on there; keeps the card playable.

And even though you didn't mention punching someone in the bird for
its pun value, you did mention blowing a raven, so that's worth
something.

- D.J.