Does "during strike resolution" effect works vs combat ends?
17 Apr 2016 08:14 #76468
by Ankha
You're using a syllogism: "Normal strikes resolve at the same time. Both combat ends resolve at the same time. Therefore, combat ends resolve like normal strikes."
It's wrong.
Other strikes are not described as resolving at a different time, they resolve during the "normal" strike resolution.
Replied by Ankha on topic Does "during strike resolution" effect works vs combat ends?
All strikes resolve at the same time (rulebook) "except for a few special cases (see Strike Effects, sec 6.4.5)".
The rulebook describe in the sec. 6.4.5 the exceptions. A strike resolution that isn't an exception is a "normal" strike resolution per definition. You can also call it "regular" or whatever.
1.) "All strikes resolve at same time, except the exceptions". The problem is that its not defined very well when that time occurs. Using this definition: player B plays carrion crows. Then player A plays strike:combat ends, player B plays strike: combat ends. These strikes resolve at same time. Are they now normal strikes and thus crows would trigger?
You're using a syllogism: "Normal strikes resolve at the same time. Both combat ends resolve at the same time. Therefore, combat ends resolve like normal strikes."
It's wrong.
Better for your understanding maybe, but the rules work well explicitely creating a step for everything.note; it would be better if "normal strike resolution" would be defined a step and anything happening outside that step would not count as normal strike, but thats just imo.
Of course they are defined, resolution-wise:2.) The section 6.4.5. does NOT list exceptions, it lists ALL strike effects among other things hand strikes. It does not mention which of the list items are 'exceptions'.
6.4.5. Strike Effects
<snip>
First Strike. A strike done with first strike is resolved before a normal strike. Thus, if the opposing minion is burned or sent to torpor by a strike done with first strike, his strike will not be resolved at all. If the opposing minion was striking with a weapon that is stolen or destroyed with first strike, then the opposing minion simply loses his strike altogether. If both minions strike with first strike, then the strikes are resolved simultaneously. A strike done with first strike will still not resolve before a combat ends effect (which always resolves first), and a dodge still cancels the effects of a strike done with first strike (see below).
Combat Ends. This effect ends combat immediately. This type of strike is always the first to resolve, even before a strike done with first strike, and it ends combat before other strikes or other strike resolution effects are resolved. Combat ends is effective at any range. Combat ends is not affected by a dodge, since dodge only cancels effects that are directed at the dodging minion.
Other strikes are not described as resolving at a different time, they resolve during the "normal" strike resolution.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
29 Apr 2016 16:48 - 29 Apr 2016 16:51 #76708
by Ankha
Or the other way round: first strike and combat ends don't resolve normally. Additional strikes are, well, additional, not normal.
There is indeed a lexicon in the rulings/clarifications, but it can be inferred from the rulebook with simple logic. It's meant to be a simple shortcut to something existing.
I don't remember seeing anyone confused by the "Normal strike resolution" sentence. The OP misquoted the Dark Steel cardtext, skipping the "normal" word. The card wasn't properly read.
1/ is the Carrion Crow damage inflicted by the minion? If the player is in doubt (because it doesn't say that the minion inflicts the damage, but who then?), he or she can check the rulings for that card that indicate "Carrion Crows does "1R each round" to the opposing minion (card text)." which is pretty clear.
2/ then you can have a look to the Rotschreck rulings, but you must keep in mind that all combos between two or more cards can't be described. Carrion Crows isn't explicitely described so there's nothing much to say, but the Carrion Crow ruling should be enough.
The principle behind the rulebook is to keep things simple. As long as there's no error in it, it's fine.
The principle behind the errata is to amend the cardtext because there's something wrong with it.
The principle behind the rulings is to amend the cardtext because there's something logically unclear with it.
The principle behind the clarification is to explain how a card behaves regarding to the rules.
I'm all in favor of addign more clarifications, but not polluting the rulebook.
Replied by Ankha on topic Does "during strike resolution" effect works vs combat ends?
Precisely: it's the normal resolution (opposed to special resolutions such as first strike or combat ends) of the initial strike (opposed to additional strikes that don't happen normally).Thanks for explaining what "normal strike resolution" means, but you had been inadvertently causing confusion by using this term. I understand that "normal strike resolution" means resolution of an initial strike (as opposed to resolution of additional strikes).
Or the other way round: first strike and combat ends don't resolve normally. Additional strikes are, well, additional, not normal.
Indeed, you won't find the sequence of words "normal strike resolution", because explaining a general rule and saying that it's the normal rule is redundant. Everything is "normal", unless there is an exception to the general rule. So it's clear (though not redundantly explicit).Of course, the rulebook doesn't define "normal strike resolution" clearly.
What's happening in this thread is you are using a certain lexicon that has been used for a very long time by players and designers of VTES but has not been incorporated into the rulebook sufficiently. This lexicon creates confusion for new players. "Normal strike resolution" is one example.
There is indeed a lexicon in the rulings/clarifications, but it can be inferred from the rulebook with simple logic. It's meant to be a simple shortcut to something existing.
I don't remember seeing anyone confused by the "Normal strike resolution" sentence. The OP misquoted the Dark Steel cardtext, skipping the "normal" word. The card wasn't properly read.
If you take things in order:To outline the problem of using different terminology for rulings than what appears in the rulebook, let's follow the steps of what happens when a new player attempts the combo Carrion Crows, Dawn Operation, and Rotschrek (card texts are below for reference). From the card texts, the player has few clues indicating that this is an illegal combination. (Rotschrek does say "when an opposing minion attempts to inflict aggravated damage," but this is fairly nonintuitive in my opinion considering the minion did play Carrion Crows). It is not until we read a ruling on Rotschrek that we have solid evidence that this combination does not work. That ruling is: "Cannot be played in response to aggravated damage done from "environmental" sources." Even if the new player were wise to the fact that they could not play this combo, they probably would not understand why from reading this ruling and using the rulebook as a guide. The rulebook simply does not explain that "environmental damage" is damage from a source other than a strike, and therefore Rotschrek cannot be used in response to the damage from Carrion Crows made aggravated by Dawn Operation because Carrion Crows does not say "Strike:" This is a lot of information for a new player to process, and having a rulebook that doesn't explain the language used in rulings is not helping matters.
1/ is the Carrion Crow damage inflicted by the minion? If the player is in doubt (because it doesn't say that the minion inflicts the damage, but who then?), he or she can check the rulings for that card that indicate "Carrion Crows does "1R each round" to the opposing minion (card text)." which is pretty clear.
2/ then you can have a look to the Rotschreck rulings, but you must keep in mind that all combos between two or more cards can't be described. Carrion Crows isn't explicitely described so there's nothing much to say, but the Carrion Crow ruling should be enough.
The principle behind the rulebook is to keep things simple. As long as there's no error in it, it's fine.
The principle behind the errata is to amend the cardtext because there's something wrong with it.
The principle behind the rulings is to amend the cardtext because there's something logically unclear with it.
The principle behind the clarification is to explain how a card behaves regarding to the rules.
I'm all in favor of addign more clarifications, but not polluting the rulebook.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.098 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Rules Questions
- Does "during strike resolution" effect works vs combat ends?