Dam the Heart's River and Target Vitals

Oh, wow. So it sounds like Target Vitals DOES get a boost from DtHR then, since it is, by card text, an effect that explicitly inflicts damage. That was not the answer I was expecting, thanks.
(I thought the answer would be that effects that augment existing damage do not count as damage dealing effects.)

It's also worth noting that this may overturn the current LSJ ruling:
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/_IwgQEvViWQ/m/1g36C5Y2BSoJ?pli=1

Since Target Vitals counts as a damage dealing card under Ankha's new ruling, that would imply that Nephandus's special reduces the damage from TV.

Name: Nephandus
AKA: Nephandus (Mage)
Cardtype: Ally
Clan: Tremere antitribu
Cost: 2 pool
Mage with 2 life. 0 strength, 1 bleed.
Nephandus can strike: 1R damage. Nephandus gets 1 optional press each combat. Nephandus can burn a vampire in torpor to gain 1 life as a action. Each strike or damaging effect made by the opposing minion against Nephandus in combat inflicts 1 less damage.

Killiam wrote:

Oh, wow. So it sounds like Target Vitals DOES get a boost from DtHR then, since it is, by card text, an effect that explicitly inflicts damage. That was not the answer I was expecting, thanks.
(I thought the answer would be that effects that augment existing damage do not count as damage dealing effects.)

I don´t understood this way, the damaging effect will be the strike fromthe vampire with .. that will doing +1 damage because of DtHR, let´s say hand strike for 2 (1+1), the blocking nephandus reduce to 1 by his special text, the quietus vampire play target vitals for +2 damage and no press, nephandus don´t cancel but on the heal and prevention step play a glancing blow wasting the target vital because all damage was prevented, correct?

target vital isn´t a damaging effect, is a enhancer, alone don´t do any damage, so not affected by DtHR

Killiam wrote:

Oh, wow. So it sounds like Target Vitals DOES get a boost from DtHR then, since it is, by card text, an effect that explicitly inflicts damage. That was not the answer I was expecting, thanks.
(I thought the answer would be that effects that augment existing damage do not count as damage dealing effects.)

How do you come to this conclusion? The card text of Target Vitals says

"If any damage from this strike is successfully inflicted on the opposing minion, they take +2 damage from this strike,

Killiam wrote:

It's also worth noting that this may overturn the current LSJ ruling:
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/_IwgQEvViWQ/m/1g36C5Y2BSoJ?pli=1

Since Target Vitals counts as a damage dealing card under Ankha's new ruling, that would imply that Nephandus's special reduces the damage from TV.

It does not count as a damage-dealing effect, it makes the opposing minion take +2 damage from the strike post its resolution (damage handling inlcuded) if the strike enhanced with Target Vitals successfully inflicted any damage on the opposing minion.

Note that it doesn´t say "inflict 2 damage".

Ankha´s answer doesn´t support your statements.

Ankha wrote:

"damaging effect": an effect that inflicts damage.
It includes effect that inflict damage explicitly (by card text) or implicitly (for instance a strike).

Killiam wrote:

It's also worth noting that this may overturn the current LSJ ruling:
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/_IwgQEvViWQ/m/1g36C5Y2BSoJ?pli=1

Since Target Vitals counts as a damage dealing card under Ankha's new ruling, that would imply that Nephandus's special reduces the damage from TV.

Name: Nephandus
AKA: Nephandus (Mage)
Cardtype: Ally
Clan: Tremere antitribu
Cost: 2 pool
Mage with 2 life. 0 strength, 1 bleed.
Nephandus can strike: 1R damage. Nephandus gets 1 optional press each combat. Nephandus can burn a vampire in torpor to gain 1 life as a action. Each strike or damaging effect made by the opposing minion against Nephandus in combat inflicts 1 less damage.

Please don't jump to conclusions as there's been no reversals made to existing rulings in the reply and per ANK 20230825 "BTW, all LSJ/Floppy rulings are valid, unless there's a more recent official ruling saying otherwise. I'm not sure why we would need a further confirmation."

If you wish to see what reversal looks like, see www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/80984-haqim-s-law-retribution-efect-during-combat?start=12#109917 for reversal of answer and www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/78568-the-capuchin-burns-temporary-control?start=18#99620 for reversal of a ruling.

Now the point of rules questions is to get quick answers to questions and as Ankha is the one who can issue the reversal of the previous LSJ ruling you linked before his answer on this thread and chose *not* to do it, should be obvious answer to whether or not there is a reversal. I could even be so bold as to claim there's really nothing to be gained by further discussion.

More seriously speaking, I respect your aim at getting clear and short answer for tidy topic but I disaprove the twisting done during the interpretation of said short answer afterwards. I hope this reply with links shows why I feel that way and if you've done it unintentionally no harm no foul.

Now if Ankha decides to make reversals after this reply, I'm all in for the crazy train that follows, get a leg up by just searching cardlist.txt for "from this" to see how many cards will see changes...

If some of my previous posts came off as caustic, please accept my apologies. I was, in fact, off my meds. That said, I think my conclusions are reasonable -- here is my reasoning:

Akha's ruling defines the "damaging effect" game term as follows:
"damaging effect": an effect that inflicts damage.
It includes effect that inflict damage explicitly (by card text) or implicitly (for instance a strike).

So the strike is a damaging effect; that's not in dispute. Target Vitals is/has an effect; that's not in dispute. Is the effect of Target Vitals one that inflicts damage, either explicitly or implicitly? That's the question to answer, based on the ruling.

in·flict /inˈflik(t)/
verb
cause to be suffered by someone or something

So if Target Vitals causes the +2 damage that is added to the strike and the damage is suffered, then Target Vitals has inflicted damage. That is unambiguous in the English language.

Looking at the explicit card text of Target Vitals, I strongly believe it creates two damage that gets suffered. It's not like Fists of Death, which creates additional strength. The card says damage, explicitly. It's damage that wouldn't be there without playing the card, so if anything created the damage, I would say it was the effect of the card. By the dictionary definition of "inflict," the damage is "inflicted" by X if X both creates the damage and if the damage is suffered by someone or something.

So by my reading, Target Vitals unambiguously meets the criteria for inflicting damage, hence my honest interpretation of Ankha's ruling. I'm glad to hear if there is some slip in my reasoning (it wouldn't be the first time).

Inm8 makes an interesting point by emphasizing the phrase "from this strike" on Target Vitals. I think that what they are reading is that if the damage is "from" the strike, then it cannot also be "from" Target Vitals. As such, it might be read that the strike is still what counts as "creating" the +2 damage. I think that's a compelling interpretation and would set a reproducible (and useful) precedent if Ankha weighs in that we should read it that way.

Kilrauko makes a great point that ruling reversals must be explicit, so nothing has been overturned. Whether or not a reversal falls out of this ruling has yet to be seen. Thank you for that!

With respect to whether or not a crazy-town-level chain of rulings might fall from my interpretation of this one, it's worth noting that only four cards currently use the term "damaging effect". It's enough to warrant an in-game definition of the term, but probably won't make huge waves just yet. Those four cards are: Dam the Heart's River, Nephandus, Valerie Diaz (Antigen Commander), and Walks-With-Might. Cheers!

Best,
-Billy