Dam the Heart's River and Catatonic Fear

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Ankha wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Ankha wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Is there a reason why Catatonic Fear doesn't say "this strike inflicts 1 damage after combat ends if this strike was made at close range"?

What difference would you see?

That the damage is from the strike. In the current text, it's unclear who or what is inflicting damage.

" Strike: combat ends.

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

Superior effect is a strike (you can replace the "As above" part by "Strike: combat ends"), so it's clear the damage is inflicted by the strike.

I hear what you are saying. But I think it's still necessary to clarify that the strike is inflicting the damage. Making a strike in combat and then inflicting the damage after combat is a really unique situation, and having as much clarity as possible is not a bad thing in this case.

It is clear. It says Strike: Combat ends, and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once combat ends if the range is close
Don't know why you would need the word strike repeated before the damage bit as the strike is obviously what is causing the damage

Why not repeat it for clarity? It's an unusual situation, no? Why wouldn't it follow the same template as other cards?

Mercy for Seth
[nec] Strike: put this card on the opposing minion. If this minion is a mortal, he or she is burned. During his or her untap phase, the minion with this card takes 1 unpreventable damage. The minion with this card may burn it as a +1 stealth action.
[NEC] As above, and this strike inflicts 1 damage as well.

Because mercy for seth would not make grammatical sense if it did not have the word 'strike' in there.
pre: Strike: combat ends.
PRE: As above, and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once combat ends if the range is close.

At PRE, you read that as:Strike: combat ends and inflict 1 damage to the opposing minion once combat ends if the range is close.

What else could possibly be causing that damage?
Compare that to
Strike: put this card on the opposing minion. If this minion is a mortal, he or she is burned. During his or her untap phase, the minion with this card takes 1 unpreventable damage. The minion with this card may burn it as a +1 stealth action and this strike inflicts 1 damage as well.

leaving out the word strike changes it to stating: Strike: put this card on the opposing minion. If this minion is a mortal, he or she is burned. During his or her untap phase, the minion with this card takes 1 unpreventable damage. The minion with this card may burn it as a +1 stealth action and inflicts 1 damage as well.

See the difference now?

I wasn't suggesting to remove language from Mercy of Seth. Way to prove something nobody was arguing. Also, you're kind of proving my argument.

Blooded wrote:

Because mercy for seth would not make grammatical sense if it did not have the word 'strike' in there.

Catatonic Fear has the exact same grammar issue you allude to. "Strike: Combat Ends, and inflict one damage on the opposing minion..." The inferior and superior effect, when combined, are two independent clauses, and the subject is not stated in the second (superior) independent clause. Is the vampire inflicting the damage? Is it environmental damage that is inflicted? Is it the strike inflicting the damage? Mercy of Seth states the subject in both the inferior and superior clauses. and you're correct that removing the subject from the superior clause would make it not make sense. I'm arguing that not including the subject in the superior clause of Catatonic Fear makes it not make sense. You may disagree with my argument, but the fact remains there is a grammar issue on Catatonic Fear.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I wasn't suggesting to remove language from Mercy of Seth. Way to prove something nobody was arguing. Also, you're kind of proving my argument.

Blooded wrote:

Because mercy for seth would not make grammatical sense if it did not have the word 'strike' in there.

Catatonic Fear has the exact same grammar issue you allude to. "Strike: Combat Ends, and inflict one damage on the opposing minion..." The inferior and superior effect, when combined, are two independent clauses, and the subject is not stated in the second (superior) independent clause. Is the vampire inflicting the damage? Is it environmental damage that is inflicted? Is it the strike inflicting the damage? Mercy of Seth states the subject in both the inferior and superior clauses. and you're correct that removing the subject from the superior clause would make it not make sense. I'm arguing that not including the subject in the superior clause of Catatonic Fear makes it not make sense. You may disagree with my argument, but the fact remains there is a grammar issue on Catatonic Fear.

Sorry mate, but I am becoming unsure as to whether you are just trolling or actually trying to understand the issue.

CF does not have the same grammatical issue, as it states Strike, effects a,b and c. The subject is right there, and has no other syntactical elements between the subject and what is happening due to said subject.

Lastly, I was trying to show you WHY the word strike is necessary in MfS, as removing it makes it have a completely different meaning, which is patently not the case for CF.
MfS has Strike, other actions ad interactions, strike effect c.
This is in no way the same.

Definitely not trolling. You think the language on catatonic fear doesn't lend itself to confusion, and that by using the logic you outline, the card text is clear. I disagree and believe there is a grammar issue that lends itself to confusion. I am not convinced by your argument, but I found our discussion to be fun. Sorry you think differently.