file Confirmation needed about Garrote

12 Jun 2021 20:01 #102471 by Timo
Ok. And aside from "LSJ said so". Why is it handled differently  for blood rage ?
And what about Arhiman's Demesne sup ?

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

More
13 Jun 2021 09:47 - 13 Jun 2021 09:48 #102474 by Ankha

I think now what we need is for Ankha to give an official answer.

Because even if yes, for garrote (or sup Arhiman's Demesne for that matter) the 2 parts of the text seems to be separated, it could be argued (and it is !) that the second effect is part of the strike effect and therefore would be dodged.

And it has been ruled like that by LSJ for Blood Rage/Blood Fury (groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/GBcR6aNjIk4/m/DXPyqBM1R8kJ)

I can't see anything in the ruling you link demonstrating your assertion.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 13 Jun 2021 09:48 by Ankha.

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

More
14 Jun 2021 07:54 #102477 by inm8
I think what is being asked and that i also wonder about is why does the dodging minion get to disregard/protection against the secondary effect (ie. if the opposing vampire..) of cards like Ahriman's Demesne, Blood Fury, Blood Rage, Soul Burn etc. but not from Garrote´s secondary effect when it is worded the same? Per the ruling linked LSJ says "Dodge protects the dodger from all effects of the strike." when talkng about Soul Burn, meaning that the "if the opposing vampire..." effect is also part of the strike itself. In regards of Garrote LSJ says "It's something that can be done if something else (opposing vampire to torpor) happens during the resolution of the strike." which means that it seems these two rulings are contradicting if there isnt something we are/I am missing. Is the difference justified by that Garrote is an equipment/a weapon and not a combat card?

Ahriman's Demesne


Blood Fury


Blood Rage



Soul Burn


Garrote




 
 
The following user(s) said Thank You: Timo

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

More
14 Jun 2021 08:16 - 14 Jun 2021 08:22 #102478 by Timo

I think now what we need is for Ankha to give an official answer.

Because even if yes, for garrote (or sup Arhiman's Demesne for that matter) the 2 parts of the text seems to be separated, it could be argued (and it is !) that the second effect is part of the strike effect and therefore would be dodged.

And it has been ruled like that by LSJ for Blood Rage/Blood Fury (groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/GBcR6aNjIk4/m/DXPyqBM1R8kJ)

I can't see anything in the ruling you link demonstrating your assertion.

 

> 2. If soul burn is dodged, does the "weapon inflict no damage" thing
> take effect or not ? (i believe not)

"Not" is correct. Dodge protects the dodger from all effects of the
strike.


This part. (aggreed he doesn't speak about Blood Rage/Blood Fury in this part but about Soul Burn)

But if you think that both rulings contradict each other (*I* think so ^^), you could easily revert the Soul Burn one ^^.

Or for clarity, Soul Burn and other similar :tha: strike cards could be reworded like that :

"This damage cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude [for] and if the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage."
Last edit: 14 Jun 2021 08:22 by Timo.

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

More
21 Jun 2021 10:17 - 21 Jun 2021 10:18 #102529 by inm8

I think what is being asked and that i also wonder about is why does the dodging minion get to disregard/protection against the secondary effect (ie. if the opposing vampire..) of cards like Ahriman's Demesne, Blood Fury, Blood Rage, Soul Burn etc. but not from Garrote´s secondary effect when it is worded the same? Per the ruling linked LSJ says "Dodge protects the dodger from all effects of the strike." when talkng about Soul Burn, meaning that the "if the opposing vampire..." effect is also part of the strike itself. In regards of Garrote LSJ says "It's something that can be done if something else (opposing vampire to torpor) happens during the resolution of the strike." which means that it seems these two rulings are contradicting if there isnt something we are/I am missing. Is the difference justified by that Garrote is an equipment/a weapon and not a combat card?

Ahriman's Demesne


Blood Fury


Blood Rage



Soul Burn


Garrote




 


 

Ankha an explanation please.
Last edit: 21 Jun 2021 10:18 by inm8.

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

More
21 Jun 2021 13:20 - 21 Jun 2021 13:22 #102534 by Ankha
It's weird, because I posted an answer a few days ago...

Is the difference justified by that Garrote is an equipment/a weapon and not a combat card?

Indeed, though I'm not really pleased with the distinction; still, it makes sense.

A combat card that says: "Strike: X. And Y." is not the same as a weapon that says "Strike: X. And Y".

In the first case, X and Y are part of the strike effects.
In the second case, the weapon provide a strike (X). It also provides some permanent effect (Y) which is not part of the strike.

For instance, Blade of Enoch reads: "Strike: strength+1 damage. Damage inflicted by this weapon on a Brujah or Brujah antitribu is aggravated. Frenzy cards cannot be played on this vampire with capacity 6 or more."

The fact that the damage inflicted is aggravated and that frenzy cards cannot be played are not effects from the strike provided by the weapon (even if it refers to the strike: Garrote)

On the other hand, any effect on the dodging minion provided by "strike" combat card (the strike itself, or the fact that his or her weapons inflict no damage in the case of Blood Rage) are ignored.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 21 Jun 2021 13:22 by Ankha.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ruiza97, Yomyael

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.150 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum