Confirmation needed about Garrote

Ankha wrote:

It's weird, because I posted an answer a few days ago...

inm8 wrote:

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.

Maybe a retemplating of the cards would avoid the question raised by this ruling ?

"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."

Ankha wrote:

Retemplating all the strike combat cards because of one ruling must be carefully considered.

I understand that and of course it's up to you but you yourself stated that you were not pleased with the way it works.

And we just had a discussion with several rule-savy people who had different opinions about the way it should be played. It shows that the distinction is not readily understandable and (*I* think) could be easily fixed with a very minor modification of those cards (actually, so minor that is is just the removing of 1 punctuation mark and the adding of a 3 letters word).

And it is a template already used on at least 1 card :Name: Ahriman's Demesne
[Gehenna:C, POD:DTC]
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 2 blood
Discipline: Obtenebration
Only usable at long range. Not usable during the first round of combat.
[obt] Strike: 1R aggravated damage.
[OBT] As above, and if the opposing vampire would go to torpor during the resolution of this strike, instead they are burned.
Artist: Monte Moore

EDIT : And after checking the number of cards with the template, I found that there is already 2 different templates used :

Name: Bollix
[AU:C]
Cardtype: Combat
Discipline: Celerity/Presence/Thaumaturgy
Requires an anarch.
[cel] Maneuver or press.

  Cancel the opposing minion's aim, frenzy, or grapple card as it is played, and its cost is not paid.

[tha] Strike: hand strike at +1 damage. This damage cannot be prevented by cards requiring Fortitude [for]. The opposing vampire's strikes with weapons inflict no damage on this vampire this round.

Artist: Tomáš "zelgaris" Zahradníček

 

 

Name: Soul Burn
[Sabbat:C, CE:PTr2, Third:C]
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Thaumaturgy
[tha] Strike: 1R damage. This damage cannot be prevented by cards that require Fortitude [for]. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage.
[THA] As above, but for 2R damage.
Artist: Craig Maher

Actually no : the 2 cards have strictly different effects (intentional ?) bollix doesn't forbid a weapon to kill a retainer ^^

The question is if the ruling  [LSJ 20040928]  is correctly categorizing the effect "If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage." of Soul Burn as being part of the strike???....i would argue that it is not.....for example when looking at Ahriman's Demesne effect "...if the opposing vampire would go to torpor during the resolution of this strike, instead they are burned." it clearly refers back to the strike itself making it undoubtedly part of the strike....this is not the case for Soul Burn. Garrote to me is correctly ruled to have an effect that can be used unrelated to the success of inflicting damage by the strike it provides but it is still dependent on the strike being used to be able to trigger the burn effect . Wether an effect is provided by an equipment or not or provided from a different type of card shouldn't affect the interpretation of the written word,. As far as i´m aware there is nothing in the rules that prevents a combat card that provides a strike to also be able to provide an additional unrelated effect which i would say cards like Soul Burn do.
What is it that makes the effect ""If the opposing vampire..." of Soul Burn part of the strike effect and therefore dodgeable???

Ankha post=102534A combat card that says: "Strike: X. And Y." is not the same as a weapon that says "Strike: X. And Y".
 

Why is it not the same if the wording of the cards are the same? What is the rationale behind making this distinction?

Ankha post=102534In the first case, X and Y are part of the strike effects.
 

Should only be part of the strike effect if explicitly written so, i.e. Ahriman's Demesne, but not by default...why would it be?

Ankha post=102534

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

The provision of temporary or permanent effects should be applicable to other cards as well if written so i.e. combat cards could provide an additional effect that are not part of the strike with the difference being that this would be a temporary effect instead of permanent one. 

Ankha post=102534For 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)
 

The fact that to wield the weapon Blade of Enoch one needs to use the strike it provides, which has the effect of boosting the damage of the strike, and only when using this strike it can trigger the effect of making that damage "by this weapon" aggravated if inflicted on a Brujah or Brujah antitribu... i would argue that that makes it part of the strike...its similar to i.e. Blood Rage (which prevents the usage of Fortitude to prevent damage) or Poker (resulting in the weapon being burnt if all damage is prevented with the help of Fortitude). They are all effects that affect the behavior and dealing of the damage or an additional effect but all bound to the strike itself....if that doesn't make it part of the strike then what is the definition of making something part of a strike? Something that can´t be triggered independently from the strike must be part of it by logic.

The frenzy card prevention part i agree with and is to me clearly not part of the strike but a permanent effect it provides to the minion equipped with the weapon.

Ankha post=102534On 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.

This doesn't seem right....the rules say "Dodge... protects the dodging minion and their possessions from the effects of the opposing strike."...not all effects provided by a combat card or all effects of a combat card that also provides a strike. I mean the fact that it is a combat card that provides a strike doesn't prevent it from also being able to provide additional effects.

Ankha as always thanks for the patience with us, our questions and for taking the time to gives us answers and knowledge.