First Strike vs Blood Fury

Pascal wrote:

I don't get the part where you involve retroactivity.
Is it the "attempts to strike" wording that would cause it?

I agree "attempts" is unclear. My understanding of that word is that a minion "attempts to do X" between the moment he declares he's doing / he'll be doing X, and the moment when "doing X" is over. Applied here, that is: any moment from when the strike is declared till the strike is resolved, that minion is attempting to strike.

See how you don't say "any moment from when the strike is declared till the strike is resolved, that minion attempts to strike"? "is attempting" and "attempts" are different.

The way it sounds to me as a (sorry) native English-speaker is that the attempt is an act that happens at one moment in time. This is important for "if"-clauses as I showed in the example of the Sniper Rifle.

A QUESTION OF GRAMMAR
"I strike with a Baseball Bat."
"I strike with Blood Fury. If you attempt to strike with a weapon, you deal no damage. Do you attempt to strike with a weapon?"
"I thought I already had."

For the "if"-clause of Blood Fury to relate back to an act that has already happened, the text should use the perfect aspect of the verb. That means the text would say "If the opposing vampire has attempted to strike with a weapon..." This feels the best to me, but it's less succinct than the current version since you would still have to keep text to cover additional strikes with a weapon.

If you feel that "to attempt" covers the span of time between declaration and resolution, then you could use the progressive aspect of the verb: "If the opposing vampire is attempting to strike with a weapon this round..."

However, I think the use of the word "attempt" to describe the act of striking in VTES combat should be reconsidered. Unlike an action or a block attempt, an "attempted" strike cannot fail, and likewise, it cannot succeed. How can you attempt something that can neither fail nor succeed?

Once declared and not cancelled, a strike generates an effect. That effect may change before it resolves. That effect might not happen because it is dodged or because combat ends before it resolves. Regardless of the outcome, we do not speak in terms of the strike's success or failure, simply of its effect and whether or not the effect occurs.

AaronC wrote:

A QUESTION OF GRAMMAR
"I strike with a Baseball Bat."
"I strike with Blood Fury. If you attempt to strike with a weapon, you deal no damage. Do you attempt to strike with a weapon?"
"I thought I already had."

I don't know what inspired you this, but it seem to not be how it is actually resolved.

The correct order is :

"I declare my strike is a baseball bat hit"
"I declare my strike is a blood fury"
Then, both attempt to strike at the same time. So no retroactivity, or at least not in the sense you say.

Uhh. No. I know my post was long, but you obviously did not read the whole thing and I feel a little insulted. The point I brought up that you failed to explicitly address is that it is not logically possible to attempt something that can neither fail nor succeed. You are presuming that the text of Blood Fury, Blood Rage, et al. means that strike resolution is the same thing as "attempting to strike". Please think it over.

I was taking some creative license, so I'll do it technically correctly.

Strike declaration
"My strike is 2 damage with the Baseball Bat".
"My strike is 3 hand damage with superior Blood Fury for one blood. This damage cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude. If you, an opposing vampire, attempt to strike with a weapon this round, you do no damage."

Strike resolution
"Damage from Blood Fury cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude. If you, an opposing vampire, attempt to strike with a weapon this round, you do no damage."
"Luckily I already have!"

Damage resolution
"I take 3"/"I take 0".
"Huh?"/"Yeah."

AaronC wrote:

Uhh. No. I know my post was long, but you obviously did not read the whole thing and I feel a little insulted.

I did read it, but everything fall apart once thing are done simultaneously and not sequentially, so I just take the important part. I do not say that in a bad way, but more in a "if everything is resolved at the same time, there no reason to use a different time"

AaronC wrote:

The point I brought up that you failed to explicitly address is that it is not logically possible to attempt something that can neither fail nor succeed. You are presuming that the text of Blood Fury, Blood Rage, et al. means that strike resolution is the same thing as "attempting to strike". Please think it over.

What would be the problem with that ?

It's a serious question. I don't see in the rule a gap between attempting a strike and resolving it, and I don't see card that work on the assumption of such a gap. The only thing I see is that resolution is simultaneous.

AaronC wrote:

me as a (sorry) native English-speaker

Ah! Now they feel guilty about speaking English... my evil schemes work perfectly.

AaronC wrote:

The way it sounds to me as a (sorry) native English-speaker is that the attempt is an act that happens at one moment in time. This is important for "if"-clauses as I showed in the example of the Sniper Rifle.

The "if" clause of Sniper Rifle applies to a vampire successfully blocking, not to a vampire who successfully blocked - that is, the "bonus" of being able to set the range in the pre-range step is awarded on successful block, rather than during the pre-range step, checking if the minion has successfully blocked. Hence the ruling about Concealed Weapon not allowing you to disguise a range-setting Sniper Rfile.

AaronC wrote:

A QUESTION OF GRAMMAR
"I strike with a Baseball Bat."
"I strike with Blood Fury. If you attempt to strike with a weapon, you deal no damage. Do you attempt to strike with a weapon?"
"I thought I already had."

For the "if"-clause of Blood Fury to relate back to an act that has already happened, the text should use the perfect aspect of the verb. That means the text would say "If the opposing vampire has attempted to strike with a weapon..." This feels the best to me, but it's less succinct than the current version since you would still have to keep text to cover additional strikes with a weapon.

Two things:
First, you do realise that, if put the other way around (Carna is acting, Lazverinus is reacting)
Carna - "I strike with Blood Fury, do you attempt to strike with a weapon"
Lazverinus - "Well, then, I won't choose that Basebal Bat of mine"
would have, per your reading, a different effect than
Lazverinus , acting - "I strike with Baseball Bat"
Carna, reacting - "Well, I strike with Blood Fury, do you attempt to strike with a weapon?"
Lazverinus - "I kindly decline playing Primal Instincts on that Brute Force in my hand."

You are making Blood Fury / Blood Rage work differently whether the minion playing it *declares* their strike first or second (acting / reacting). (You're also making it extremely weak, but that's irrelevent).

Also, but as far as I know, English grammar is quite flexible on that one, if we're using present tense with "attempts", we can't be referring to a future-world event (strike declaration of the reacting minion, which, as we know, is NOT simultaneous with the strike declaration of the acting minion), but should be using some future tense form ("will attempt") or some time indicators ("later").


I'll mark this topic red, and add for myself a reminder: change the "attempts" word on Blood Fury / Blood Rage / ... as it could be misleading.