Damage Caused by the Other Minion

Ankha's, Robert's and Mael's answers are correct.

Robert wrote:

Well, in plain English a sentence must have a subject. If no subject is grammatically within the sentence than the subject is implied. An imperative sentence (which covers the matter that is being referred to now) implies the subject 'you':

Wash the car
Go to the store
Inflict 2 damage

All the other examples from the cards you cite have the subject 'the opposing minion' which, since the subject is not 'you' does not come directly from the other minion. In this game that translates to environmental damage, not damage from the minion. An exception can occur:

'You' make a hand strike, if it is successful the opposing minion takes an additional 2 damage.

But, as can be seen, the subject is still implied as the 'other minion', hence not environmental.

Actually, the agent is implied in these sentences. They could all easily read "The opposing minion takes 2 damage [from this minion]" Since it is not an explicit agent within the sentences. I would have no problem at all if there was a damage category "environmental" and Carrion Crows for example said "The opposing minion takes 2 environmental damage". With the creation of a damage class of 'environmental damage' there is then a clear reason (not requiring a ruling) for why this damage could NOT come from the 'minion playing the card'.

I understand that the current rulings state that Crows et al. are considered to not come from the opposing minion, but without the ruling there seems to be no particular reason why the damage is not coming from the opposing minion.

I would have thought it would seem obvious from a "story" point of view if I begin combat with another vampire and suddenly the entire place is filled with crows circling and attempting to peck my eyes out. It would seem a touch obvious that 'the other guy did it'. And with cards such as Street Cred, it also makes "story" sense that being able to summon down flocks of angry birds could lend you some significant Street Cred.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

I would have thought it would seem obvious from a "story" point of view if I begin combat with another vampire and suddenly the entire place is filled with crows circling and attempting to peck my eyes out. It would seem a touch obvious that 'the other guy did it'. And with cards such as Street Cred, it also makes "story" sense that being able to summon down flocks of angry birds could lend you some significant Street Cred.

Abandon story - it's only going to get you in trouble if you try to use it to justify how this game works. VTES isn't a roleplaying game.

I'm not trying to use it as a primary argument. But if the only argument is "Because its been ruled that way", I think there should be an "environmental" keyword that gets around this situation permanently.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Actually, the agent is implied in these sentences. They could all easily read "The opposing minion takes 2 damage [from this minion]" Since it is not an explicit agent within the sentences.

That's not using agents. That's qualifying the damage. If you want to use agents, use passive voice:
"2 damage are inflicted by this minion to the opposing minion" (rather than "inflict 2 damage to the opposing minion")

Juggernqut1981 wrote:

I would have no problem at all if there was a damage category "environmental" and Carrion Crows for example said "The opposing minion takes 2 environmental damage". With the creation of a damage class of 'environmental damage' there is then a clear reason (not requiring a ruling) for why this damage could NOT come from the 'minion playing the card'.

Well, this "class" of damage already exists. It is the class of damage that is inflicted when the source isn't your minion in combat. And the only time when minions inflict damage in combat are with damaging strikes or with cards that read "inflict ..."

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

I understand that the current rulings state that Crows et al. are considered to not come from the opposing minion, but without the ruling there seems to be no particular reason why the damage is not coming from the opposing minion.

Let's not call it a ruling. It's cardtext.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

I'm not trying to use it as a primary argument. But if the only argument is "Because its been ruled that way", I think there should be an "environmental" keyword that gets around this situation permanently.

Sure, I know that you had an actual rules question based on cardtexts rather than backstory considerations. My suggestion is that you don't bother bringing up story-related justifications in the context of rules questions, ever, for any reason, as they'll do nothing but muddy the waters. Any time you write the word "story" in this subforum, go back and delete that section of your post before posting.