1. Forum
  3. V:TES Discussion
  5. Rules Questions
  7. Strikes at long range

file Strikes at long range

02 Dec 2011 00:26 #16719 by AaronC
Replied by AaronC on topic Re: Strikes at long range
I see what you mean. Maybe instead of saying "Strikes resolve normally at close range", it would be more obvious to say, "A strike only affects an opposing minion (or its attached cards) at close range unless it is designated as "ranged" or dealing "R" damage. A strike designated as "ranged" or dealing "R" damage affects an opposing minion (or its attached cards) at either close or long range."

Some examples like you've mentioned can't hurt. The problem comes from those cards that are strikes but whose range is not self-evident (Coma vs. Undead Strength) like you've mentioned. The answer is already in the rules, I think, but maybe it takes some extra smarts and/or time to figure it out if you're a newbie.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Dec 2011 08:34 #16745 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Strikes at long range

As jamesatzephyr pointed it out, for instance this question has already been answered at [LSJ 20010630] and is covered by the rulebook 6.4.3 "Unless the strike is identified as ranged or does "R" damage (or is a defensive strike such as dodge or combat ends), it is only effective at close range"

What more could you wish for?


I would wish for a rulebook wording that doesn't leave so many questions unanswered. Problems I can see in the current wording:

1) I'm not clear whether the parenthetical text is actually part of this rule, or is a reminder of an implication of another part of the rules.

It is both. See 6.4.5 "A dodge is effective at any range." But I don't see what is unclear in repeting the rule where appropriate.

2) It leaves the behavior of a "defensive" strike with a side effect ambiguous. (The wording implies that a strike is entirely "effective" or entirely "not effective".)

It doesn't cover the case where the strike is defensive (combat ends) *and* offensive (put this card or deal 1 damage), true.

3) The word "effective" could be replaced with something more clear.

Effective = that has an effect. You can choose another word, but it won't be clearer than effective.
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Dec 2011 08:36 #16746 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Strikes at long range

It's only examples, but I believe it will cover common misconception (you would be surprised by the number of people that think that coma work at a range)

People that don't read the rules in the first place won't read the extra examples you could add...
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Dec 2011 19:06 #16856 by finbury
Replied by finbury on topic Re: Strikes at long range

2) It leaves the behavior of a "defensive" strike with a side effect ambiguous. (The wording implies that a strike is entirely "effective" or entirely "not effective".)

It doesn't cover the case where the strike is defensive (combat ends) *and* offensive (put this card or deal 1 damage), true.

3) The word "effective" could be replaced with something more clear.

Effective = that has an effect. You can choose another word, but it won't be clearer than effective.


I guess it's not the word, it's the way it seems to be used. Say a vampire at long range uses Lam Into at vic:

Requires an anarch. Do not replace until after combat. Strike: hand strike or use a melee weapon strike. vic: This strike is at +1 damage, with an optional press. If another round of combat occurs, range is automatically close.

My understanding is that you'd still get the press here, and the effect for the additional round. I would not use the phrase "the strike is not effective" to describe this situation. But I could be wrong about this.

... one thing to note: it might make things simpler to equate the resolution of a dodged strike with the resolution of a close strike used at range. As I understand it, the bits that are effective vs not-effective are the same.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 Apr 2012 22:20 #27448 by Chaitan
Replied by Chaitan on topic Re: Strikes at long range
Sorry about digging up an old thread like this but we had a discussion about dodge vs oubliette during a game but it seemed like the best place continue. :)

It is pretty clear from the above discussion that the burn blood part of oubliette will not happen if opposing minion is dodging (just like catatonic fear).

Is it correct?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Apr 2012 10:25 #27458 by Klaital
Replied by Klaital on topic Re: Strikes at long range
That is correct.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Pascal Bertrand

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: Ankha, Kraus
  1. Forum
  3. V:TES Discussion
  5. Rules Questions
  7. Strikes at long range
Time to create page: 0.162 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum