Ang grupo na iyong pinagpapaskilan ay isang grupo ng Usenet. Ang mga mensaheng naipaskil sa grupong ito ay gagawing nakikita ang iyong email address sa sinuman sa Internet.
LSJ, In a semi-recent decision (I think it was about a month ago) you said that the opposing minion is considered to have "caused" the damage of cards played (in relation to "burning" a minion I think it was).
So, from that ruling and the text on the cards... is this legal? If not, please give more than a "no" answer.
Vamp A plays Carrion Crows (or some other environmental effect) + Handstrike for 1 Vamp B plays no cards in combat + Handstrike for 1.
Is it now legal for Vamp A to play Street Cred?
Or more generally: What effects count as "a vampire inflicting damage"?
Name: Street Cred [LotN:C] Cardtype: Combat Cost: 1 blood Discipline: Potence Only usable at the end of a round of combat in which ***this vampire successfully inflicted more damage than the opposing minion.*** [pot] Move 1 blood from the blood bank to a younger vampire in your uncontrolled region. A vampire can play only 1 Street Cred each turn. [POT] As above, but move 2 blood
Juggernaut1981 wrote: > LSJ, > In a semi-recent decision (I think it was about a month ago) you said > that the opposing minion is considered to have "caused" the damage of > cards played (in relation to "burning" a minion I think it was).
Those two are not the same. Environmental damage is not considered to have been "caused" by a minion.
> So, from that ruling and the text on the cards... is this legal? If > not, please give more than a "no" answer.
> Vamp A plays Carrion Crows (or some other environmental effect) + > Handstrike for 1 > Vamp B plays no cards in combat + Handstrike for 1.
> Is it now legal for Vamp A to play Street Cred?
No.
> Or more generally: What effects count as "a vampire inflicting > damage"?
Xer strikes (and as otherwise given in explicit card text).
> Name: Street Cred > [LotN:C] > Cardtype: Combat > Cost: 1 blood > Discipline: Potence > Only usable at the end of a round of combat in which ***this vampire > successfully inflicted more damage than the opposing minion.*** > [pot] Move 1 blood from the blood bank to a younger vampire in your > uncontrolled region. A vampire can play only 1 Street Cred each turn. > [POT] As above, but move 2 blood
LSJ wrote: > Juggernaut1981 wrote: >> LSJ, >> In a semi-recent decision (I think it was about a month ago) you said >> that the opposing minion is considered to have "caused" the damage of >> cards played (in relation to "burning" a minion I think it was).
> Those two are not the same. Environmental damage is not considered to > have been "caused" by a minion.
To help clarify, maybe, I'm pretty sure the ruling was something like:
A and B are in combat. B burns. A is considered to be the opposing minion who burned B.
The ruling said nothing about who caused damage from where. Environmental damage is still environmental, and not considered to be inflicted by either combatant.
-- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
> LSJ wrote: > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > >> LSJ, > >> In a semi-recent decision (I think it was about a month ago) you said > >> that the opposing minion is considered to have "caused" the damage of > >> cards played (in relation to "burning" a minion I think it was).
> > Those two are not the same. Environmental damage is not considered to > > have been "caused" by a minion.
> To help clarify, maybe, I'm pretty sure the ruling was something like:
> A and B are in combat. B burns. A is considered to be the opposing > minion who burned B.
> The ruling said nothing about who caused damage from where. > Environmental damage is still environmental, and not considered to be > inflicted by either combatant.
> -- > salem > (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Salem, To play devil's advocate, if A burned B then A (directly or indirectly) caused the damage to B. So it does make logical sense that if A is the minion burning B, then A is the minion damaging B either by Strikes, Secondary Effects (e.g. vamp text such as Aeron & The Blood Red Tears) or Environmental Damage. The cause of each form of damage is A.
> On Nov 4, 10:09 pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > LSJ wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > >> LSJ, > > >> In a semi-recent decision (I think it was about a month ago) you said > > >> that the opposing minion is considered to have "caused" the damage of > > >> cards played (in relation to "burning" a minion I think it was).
> > > Those two are not the same. Environmental damage is not considered to > > > have been "caused" by a minion.
> > To help clarify, maybe, I'm pretty sure the ruling was something like:
> > A and B are in combat. B burns. A is considered to be the opposing > > minion who burned B.
> > The ruling said nothing about who caused damage from where. > > Environmental damage is still environmental, and not considered to be > > inflicted by either combatant.
> > -- > > salem > > (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
> Salem, > To play devil's advocate, if A burned B then A (directly or > indirectly) caused the damage to B. So it does make logical sense > that if A is the minion burning B, then A is the minion damaging B > either by Strikes, Secondary Effects (e.g. vamp text such as Aeron & > The Blood Red Tears) or Environmental Damage. The cause of each form > of damage is A.
To continue to play devil's advocate for you:
Minion B burns during a combat with Minion A, who has a Wolf Companion. Minion A's strike choice is "Dodge" (granted to him by a Treasured Samadji that he was given via a CI'ed Reg Driscoll earlier in the game), yet minion B (an ally with one life) burns. Furthermore, Minion A never played the Wolf Companion in the first place, but recieved it via a Malkavian Time Auction played by an entirely different player (who had recruited the Wolf with Minion C.)
So how - speaking strictly logically - does this equate to "Minion A is the cause of the damage that burned me", when minion A did not make a damaging strike, did not have a secondary effect, did not play the card that caused the environmental damage, and in fact may not have played any cards or caused any damage at all in the entire game? Logically speaking, the "cause" of the damage is 'the wolf companion', not 'Minion A'; Minion A has done nothing all game but dodge dodge dodge at every opportunity.
So as far as the game is concerned, minion A cannot Street Cred or otherwise gain blood for having 'done more damage' than minion B, because he hasn't done any damage at all all game, even though minion B actually took damage and burned while in combat with minion A.
(Simpler case: Minion B cannot street cred if Mariel Lady Thunder is tapped to do damage to both combatants while Minion B has an Ex Nihilo: Minion A took a point from Mariel, not from Minion B, who by card text deals zero damage himself.)
> On Nov 4, 3:21 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 10:09 pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > >> LSJ, > > > >> In a semi-recent decision (I think it was about a month ago) you said > > > >> that the opposing minion is considered to have "caused" the damage of > > > >> cards played (in relation to "burning" a minion I think it was).
> > > > Those two are not the same. Environmental damage is not considered to > > > > have been "caused" by a minion.
> > > To help clarify, maybe, I'm pretty sure the ruling was something like:
> > > A and B are in combat. B burns. A is considered to be the opposing > > > minion who burned B.
> > > The ruling said nothing about who caused damage from where. > > > Environmental damage is still environmental, and not considered to be > > > inflicted by either combatant.
> > > -- > > > salem > > > (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
> > Salem, > > To play devil's advocate, if A burned B then A (directly or > > indirectly) caused the damage to B. So it does make logical sense > > that if A is the minion burning B, then A is the minion damaging B > > either by Strikes, Secondary Effects (e.g. vamp text such as Aeron & > > The Blood Red Tears) or Environmental Damage. The cause of each form > > of damage is A.
> To continue to play devil's advocate for you:
> Minion B burns during a combat with Minion A, who has a Wolf > Companion. Minion A's strike choice is "Dodge" (granted to him by a > Treasured Samadji that he was given via a CI'ed Reg Driscoll earlier > in the game), yet minion B (an ally with one life) burns. Furthermore, > Minion A never played the Wolf Companion in the first place, but > recieved it via a Malkavian Time Auction played by an entirely > different player (who had recruited the Wolf with Minion C.)
> So how - speaking strictly logically - does this equate to "Minion A > is the cause of the damage that burned me", when minion A did not make > a damaging strike, did not have a secondary effect, did not play the > card that caused the environmental damage, and in fact may not have > played any cards or caused any damage at all in the entire game? > Logically speaking, the "cause" of the damage is 'the wolf companion', > not 'Minion A'; Minion A has done nothing all game but dodge dodge > dodge at every opportunity.
> So as far as the game is concerned, minion A cannot Street Cred or > otherwise gain blood for having 'done more damage' than minion B, > because he hasn't done any damage at all all game, even though minion > B actually took damage and burned while in combat with minion A.
> (Simpler case: Minion B cannot street cred if Mariel Lady Thunder is > tapped to do damage to both combatants while Minion B has an Ex > Nihilo: Minion A took a point from Mariel, not from Minion B, who by > card text deals zero damage himself.)
> -John Flournoy
Minion A brought the Wolf, if Minion A burned the opposing vampire (say via a Dawn Op + Wolf situation) A would still be considered as "burning" B even though the Wolf caused the damage which burned B. If A brings a Murder of Crows, they are still the "cause" of the damage, it's their bunch of birds they brought to the combat. If A summons the air support (Carrion Crows) it is caused by A, but not a strike.
If A has 2 ghoul retainers armed with Flamethrowers, A still brought the Ghouls to the fight, it might not be "strike damage". If A plays a S:D, the opposing minion takes Agg from the Ghouls w/ Flamers but A gets the credit for burning Vamp B. Why should A not also be credited with causing the damage?
Mariel is a third vampire causing an effect on both. This damage is not "caused" by Vampire A, since the minion causing the effect is not in combat. A furfy in this situation because I don't think Mariel's card text would ever cause a burning of a vampire during combat.
> On Nov 5, 11:06 am, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 3:21 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 10:09 pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > > >> LSJ, > > > > >> In a semi-recent decision (I think it was about a month ago) you said > > > > >> that the opposing minion is considered to have "caused" the damage of > > > > >> cards played (in relation to "burning" a minion I think it was).
> > > > > Those two are not the same. Environmental damage is not considered to > > > > > have been "caused" by a minion.
> > > > To help clarify, maybe, I'm pretty sure the ruling was something like:
> > > > A and B are in combat. B burns. A is considered to be the opposing > > > > minion who burned B.
> > > > The ruling said nothing about who caused damage from where. > > > > Environmental damage is still environmental, and not considered to be > > > > inflicted by either combatant.
> > > > -- > > > > salem > > > > (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
> > > Salem, > > > To play devil's advocate, if A burned B then A (directly or > > > indirectly) caused the damage to B. So it does make logical sense > > > that if A is the minion burning B, then A is the minion damaging B > > > either by Strikes, Secondary Effects (e.g. vamp text such as Aeron & > > > The Blood Red Tears) or Environmental Damage. The cause of each form > > > of damage is A.
> > To continue to play devil's advocate for you:
> > Minion B burns during a combat with Minion A, who has a Wolf > > Companion. Minion A's strike choice is "Dodge" (granted to him by a > > Treasured Samadji that he was given via a CI'ed Reg Driscoll earlier > > in the game), yet minion B (an ally with one life) burns. Furthermore, > > Minion A never played the Wolf Companion in the first place, but > > recieved it via a Malkavian Time Auction played by an entirely > > different player (who had recruited the Wolf with Minion C.)
> > So how - speaking strictly logically - does this equate to "Minion A > > is the cause of the damage that burned me", when minion A did not make > > a damaging strike, did not have a secondary effect, did not play the > > card that caused the environmental damage, and in fact may not have > > played any cards or caused any damage at all in the entire game? > > Logically speaking, the "cause" of the damage is 'the wolf companion', > > not 'Minion A'; Minion A has done nothing all game but dodge dodge > > dodge at every opportunity.
> > So as far as the game is concerned, minion A cannot Street Cred or > > otherwise gain blood for having 'done more damage' than minion B, > > because he hasn't done any damage at all all game, even though minion > > B actually took damage and burned while in combat with minion A.
> > (Simpler case: Minion B cannot street cred if Mariel Lady Thunder is > > tapped to do damage to both combatants while Minion B has an Ex > > Nihilo: Minion A took a point from Mariel, not from Minion B, who by > > card text deals zero damage himself.)
> > -John Flournoy
> Minion A brought the Wolf, if Minion A burned the opposing vampire > (say via a Dawn Op + Wolf situation) A would still be considered as > "burning" B even though the Wolf caused the damage which burned B. If > A brings a Murder of Crows, they are still the "cause" of the damage, > it's their bunch of birds they brought to the combat. If A summons > the air support (Carrion Crows) it is caused by A, but not a strike.
> If A has 2 ghoul retainers armed with Flamethrowers, A still brought > the Ghouls to the fight, it might not be "strike damage". If A plays > a S:D, the opposing minion takes Agg from the Ghouls w/ Flamers but A > gets the credit for burning Vamp B. Why should A not also be credited > with causing the damage?
Ah, so your point is that if environmental damage hits the opposing minion, the minion in combat should count as having caused it? See below.
> Mariel is a third vampire causing an effect on both. This damage is > not "caused" by Vampire A, since the minion causing the effect is not > in combat. A furfy in this situation because I don't think Mariel's > card text would ever cause a burning of a vampire during combat.
Mariel can certainly burn allies, however - her special isn't limited to vampires. In which case the minion is burned in combat and the opposing minion most definitely does not 'cause' the burning to happen.
And again, here's the issue with Mariel:
You apparently want some sort of 'logic' based rule that says that environmental damage to a minion in combat counts as being caused by the opposing minion.
Yet there are several ways, Mariel included, for minions to recieve environmental damage (i.e. not damage from the opposing minion's strike) and even be burned in combat - by sources that are _clearly_ not logically the opposing minion. Such as Mariel's or Alejandro's specials.
In fact, it's been ruled/noted in the past that if Alejandro happens to get True Faith on him, his special does actually do aggravated damage if one of the minions in combat is a Baali, because he is the source of the damage - and not the opposing minion.
Here's another logic issue for you:
Your minion and mine are in combat. My minion uses a Bomb as his strike. Your minion is Mictlantecuhlti, who is immune to weapon damage. Mictlantecuhlti dodges. Did Mictlantecuhlti do the 5 damage to me? It's environmental damage, right?
Or are you suggesting that the game needs to be further bogged down by trying to differentiate who is 'responsible' for every point of environmental damage, because some of them will count as being caused by the opposing minion and some of them will not?
For that matter, a more basic question: What effects in the game care if the opposing minion is burned (not damaged) _by_ the opposing minion in combat as opposed to 'while in combat with them'? (Seriously, I can't think of any offhand.)
> On Nov 4, 6:25 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 11:06 am, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 3:21 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 4, 10:09 pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > > > >> LSJ, > > > > > >> In a semi-recent decision (I think it was about a month ago) you said > > > > > >> that the opposing minion is considered to have "caused" the damage of > > > > > >> cards played (in relation to "burning" a minion I think it was).
> > > > > > Those two are not the same. Environmental damage is not considered to > > > > > > have been "caused" by a minion.
> > > > > To help clarify, maybe, I'm pretty sure the ruling was something like:
> > > > > A and B are in combat. B burns. A is considered to be the opposing > > > > > minion who burned B.
> > > > > The ruling said nothing about who caused damage from where. > > > > > Environmental damage is still environmental, and not considered to be > > > > > inflicted by either combatant.
> > > > > -- > > > > > salem > > > > > (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
> > > > Salem, > > > > To play devil's advocate, if A burned B then A (directly or > > > > indirectly) caused the damage to B. So it does make logical sense > > > > that if A is the minion burning B, then A is the minion damaging B > > > > either by Strikes, Secondary Effects (e.g. vamp text such as Aeron & > > > > The Blood Red Tears) or Environmental Damage. The cause of each form > > > > of damage is A.
> > > To continue to play devil's advocate for you:
> > > Minion B burns during a combat with Minion A, who has a Wolf > > > Companion. Minion A's strike choice is "Dodge" (granted to him by a > > > Treasured Samadji that he was given via a CI'ed Reg Driscoll earlier > > > in the game), yet minion B (an ally with one life) burns. Furthermore, > > > Minion A never played the Wolf Companion in the first place, but > > > recieved it via a Malkavian Time Auction played by an entirely > > > different player (who had recruited the Wolf with Minion C.)
> > > So how - speaking strictly logically - does this equate to "Minion A > > > is the cause of the damage that burned me", when minion A did not make > > > a damaging strike, did not have a secondary effect, did not play the > > > card that caused the environmental damage, and in fact may not have > > > played any cards or caused any damage at all in the entire game? > > > Logically speaking, the "cause" of the damage is 'the wolf companion', > > > not 'Minion A'; Minion A has done nothing all game but dodge dodge > > > dodge at every opportunity.
> > > So as far as the game is concerned, minion A cannot Street Cred or > > > otherwise gain blood for having 'done more damage' than minion B, > > > because he hasn't done any damage at all all game, even though minion > > > B actually took damage and burned while in combat with minion A.
> > > (Simpler case: Minion B cannot street cred if Mariel Lady Thunder is > > > tapped to do damage to both combatants while Minion B has an Ex > > > Nihilo: Minion A took a point from Mariel, not from Minion B, who by > > > card text deals zero damage himself.)
> > > -John Flournoy
> > Minion A brought the Wolf, if Minion A burned the opposing vampire > > (say via a Dawn Op + Wolf situation) A would still be considered as > > "burning" B even though the Wolf caused the damage which burned B. If > > A brings a Murder of Crows, they are still the "cause" of the damage, > > it's their bunch of birds they brought to the combat. If A summons > > the air support (Carrion Crows) it is caused by A, but not a strike.
> > If A has 2 ghoul retainers armed with Flamethrowers, A still brought > > the Ghouls to the fight, it might not be "strike damage". If A plays > > a S:D, the opposing minion takes Agg from the Ghouls w/ Flamers but A > > gets the credit for burning Vamp B. Why should A not also be credited > > with causing the damage?
> Ah, so your point is that if environmental damage hits the opposing > minion, the minion in combat should count as having caused it? See > below.
> > Mariel is a third vampire causing an effect on both. This damage is > > not "caused" by Vampire A, since the minion causing the effect is not > > in combat. A furfy in this situation because I don't think Mariel's > > card text would ever cause a burning of a vampire during combat.
> Mariel can certainly burn allies, however - her special isn't limited > to vampires. In which case the minion is burned in combat and the > opposing minion most definitely does not 'cause' the burning to > happen.
> And again, here's the issue with Mariel:
> You apparently want some sort of 'logic' based rule that says that > environmental damage to a minion in combat counts as being caused by > the opposing minion.
> Yet there are several ways, Mariel included, for minions to recieve > environmental damage (i.e. not damage from the opposing minion's > strike) and even be burned in combat - by sources that are _clearly_ > not logically the opposing minion. Such as Mariel's or Alejandro's > specials.
> In fact, it's been ruled/noted in the past that if Alejandro happens > to get True Faith on him, his special does actually do aggravated > damage if one of the minions in combat is a Baali, because he is the > source of the damage - and not the opposing minion.
> Here's another logic issue for you:
> Your minion and mine are in combat. My minion uses a Bomb as his > strike. Your minion is Mictlantecuhlti, who is immune to weapon > damage. Mictlantecuhlti dodges. Did Mictlantecuhlti do the 5 damage to > me? It's environmental damage, right?
> Or are you suggesting that the game needs to be further bogged down by > trying to differentiate who is 'responsible' for every point of > environmental damage, because some of them will count as being caused > by the opposing minion and some of them will not?
> For that matter, a more basic question: What effects in the game care > if the opposing minion is burned (not damaged) _by_ the opposing > minion in combat as opposed to 'while in combat with them'? > (Seriously, I can't think of any offhand.)
> -John Flournoy
It's less about who is burning who.
It's a step from "If B is burned in combat, A is the minion doing it" to debate if "If B is hurt by damage during combat, then it must be done by A".
If Mariel is used and she does more damage, then she should be able to Street Cred (if she has the Fist for it).
If you bring the bomb, the damage it does is your's. Ergo, the environmental you do to yourself was your own damage. Your gun, your dogs, your crows, your bomb... your damage.
On Nov 5, 12:04 am, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's less about who is burning who.
> It's a step from "If B is burned in combat, A is the minion doing it" > to debate if "If B is hurt by damage during combat, then it must be > done by A".
Right. Except that - as we both seemingly agree - it is possible for B to be hurt by damage during combat that is not coming from the opposing minion (either from his own bomb, or mariel's special, etc.)
So "If B is hurt by damage during combat, it must be done by A" is demonstrably not accurate.
> If Mariel is used and she does more damage, then she should be able to > Street Cred (if she has the Fist for it).
Except, of course, that she can't play Street Cred even if she has Potence, because she cannot play a combat card without specific text allowing a minion not in the combat to do so (and furthermore, there is no minion opposing her to compare damage amounts with.)
> If you bring the bomb, the damage it does is your's. Ergo, the > environmental you do to yourself was your own damage. > Your gun, your dogs, your crows, your bomb... your damage.
Right. So again, if your own bomb damages yourself, that's not damage done by the opposing minion, so 'if B is damaged in combat it must have been done by A' fails.
> On Nov 5, 12:04 am, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's less about who is burning who.
> > It's a step from "If B is burned in combat, A is the minion doing it" > > to debate if "If B is hurt by damage during combat, then it must be > > done by A".
> Right. Except that - as we both seemingly agree - it is possible for B > to be hurt by damage during combat that is not coming from the > opposing minion (either from his own bomb, or mariel's special, etc.)
> So "If B is hurt by damage during combat, it must be done by A" is > demonstrably not accurate.
> > If Mariel is used and she does more damage, then she should be able to > > Street Cred (if she has the Fist for it).
> Except, of course, that she can't play Street Cred even if she has > Potence, because she cannot play a combat card without specific text > allowing a minion not in the combat to do so (and furthermore, there > is no minion opposing her to compare damage > amounts with.)
> > If you bring the bomb, the damage it does is your's. Ergo, the > > environmental you do to yourself was your own damage. > > Your gun, your dogs, your crows, your bomb... your damage.
> Right. So again, if your own bomb damages yourself, that's not damage > done by the opposing minion, so 'if B is damaged in combat it must > have been done by A' fails.
> -John Flournoy
Going back to Street Cred, which is the specific card I'm debating (since Disarm, Taste of Vitae, et al all have an additional qualifier that clears this issue up)... Examples below should cover the concept and show you that what I'm suggesting is simple, clear and covers "who owns what damage" for Street Cred or other cards that don't specify things such as "from strikes" (Disarm) or "blood lost due to damage" (Theft of Vitae).
If Mariel does her thing, then none of the minions IN THE COMBAT can play Street Cred because nobody did damage to the OTHER minion (either directly or indirectly).
If Pug Jackson turns up with a bomb to fight Krid, blows it up then Pug did 5 damage to Krid, and Krid did 1 damage to Pug (Pug's own bomb damage doesn't count as Krid damage because it is Pug's Bomb). Pug 5 v Krid 1.
Cailean brings a Murder of Crows to a combat with Martin Frankel. Cailean uses Carrion Crows and makes a Hand Strike at range for 0 damage (2 Carrion + 1 Murder) and Martin strikes with Burst of Sunlight. Cailean brought the Murder, used the Carrion Crows & the Lid for a total of 3 damage. Martin dealt Cailean AND HIMSELF 1 agg damage. So Cailean did more damage to Martin than Martin did to Cailean (3 vs 1), so Cailean could Street Cred on his way to Torpor.
Joaquina Amaya brings a Zip Gun to a combat with Theo Bell. Joaquina uses the Zip Gun to go to long, shoots at Theo and is hurt by her Zip Gun for 1 damage. Theo plays a Sideslip to Dodge. Joaquina has dealt 0 damage to Theo; he dodged. Theo has dealt 0 damage to Joaquina; he dodged. Joaquina dealt herself 1 damage by using the Zip Gun; it is not damage dealt by Theo.
Hopefully that gives you what I mean in a clear and unambiguous way. It works with the existing cards and makes Street Cred relatively viable in something other than "I punch for you lots, many many times" combat.
On Nov 5, 1:57 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hopefully that gives you what I mean in a clear and unambiguous way. > It works with the existing cards and makes Street Cred relatively > viable in something other than "I punch for you lots, many many times" > combat.
What you are striving for is a change in the rules that adds nothing (just changes something already working) and has the same amount of 'problems':
Street Cred cannot be used if I hit you hands for 2, play a Skin of Steel, and you do hands with Carrion Crows, 2 to 2. This kind of example can go on and on. While opening some other uses for Street Cred you have also closed some. Also Ex Nihilo environmental damage tricks no longer work since you do no damage in combat. Good thing Left For Dead was banned since your enviro damage would do nothing to allies (which is how I beat up Alex Harmon's Salt Lake City TWD when he brought it back to L.A.!). Just isn't worth the trouble.
> On Nov 5, 1:57 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hopefully that gives you what I mean in a clear and unambiguous way. > > It works with the existing cards and makes Street Cred relatively > > viable in something other than "I punch for you lots, many many times" > > combat.
> What you are striving for is a change in the rules that adds nothing > (just changes something already working) and has the same amount of > 'problems':
> Street Cred cannot be used if I hit you hands for 2, play a Skin of > Steel, and you do hands with Carrion Crows, 2 to 2. This kind of > example can go on and on. While opening some other uses for Street > Cred you have also closed some. Also Ex Nihilo environmental damage > tricks no longer work since you do no damage in combat. Good thing > Left For Dead was banned since your enviro damage would do nothing to > allies (which is how I beat up Alex Harmon's Salt Lake City TWD when > he brought it back to L.A.!). Just isn't worth the trouble.
Robert, I'm not changing "environmental" to be anything other than what it is basically now. The only difference is that environmental would allow Street Cred to trigger, but would not change Disarm (non strike damage), Taste of Vitae (blood lost from damage dealt), Ecstatic Agony (damage successfully inflicted), etc.
Regarding Ex Nihilo, isn't the clear intention of that card that Strikes deal no damage? (Don't see why that wasn't written that way anyway).
On Nov 5, 5:53 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not changing "environmental" to be anything other than what it is > basically now.
Except you want it to come from a source other than the environment, hence a change.
>The only difference is that environmental would allow > Street Cred to trigger,
And not to trigger as per my earlier example (from the opposing minion).
> Regarding Ex Nihilo, isn't the clear intention of that card that > Strikes deal no damage? (Don't see why that wasn't written that way > anyway).
I don't know that it was the clear intention of the card or not. Fun tricky combo's help make a game like Jyhad more intresting. If I found out an interesting combo that was not necessarily intended (but not broken) why should it need fixing? Maybe Ex was even designed to see if people would find out you could use it this way. Hell, the weird burn clause even sets off a Soul Gem type combo for no apparent reason. It could've just stated that if the vamp can't pay then the Ex burns, but why the vamp, since it could never happen on accident? I'm not assuming anything, but I do know that you are wanting to trade an effect for an equal effect in that it takes as much as it gives, if not more.
> Going back to Street Cred, which is the specific card I'm debating > (since Disarm, Taste of Vitae, et al all have an additional qualifier > that clears this issue up)... Examples below should cover the concept > and show you that what I'm suggesting is simple, clear and covers "who > owns what damage" for Street Cred or other cards that don't specify > things such as "from strikes" (Disarm) or "blood lost due to > damage" (Theft of Vitae).
Disarm doesn't say "from strikes", though. It has a restriction (only at close range).
So the changes you are suggesting are needed for Street Cred would in fact also apply to Disarm as well, as long as the range didn't end up at long.
Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Salem, > To play devil's advocate, if A burned B then A (directly or > indirectly) caused the damage to B. So it does make logical sense > that if A is the minion burning B, then A is the minion damaging B > either by Strikes, Secondary Effects (e.g. vamp text such as Aeron & > The Blood Red Tears) or Environmental Damage. The cause of each form > of damage is A.
In addition to what everyone else is saying, burning is not the same as damaging. There are plenty of cards and effects that 'burn' things, including minions, without dealing damage.
-- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
On Nov 5, 8:53 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not changing "environmental" to be anything other than what it is > basically now. The only difference is that environmental would allow > Street Cred to trigger, but would not change Disarm (non strike > damage), Taste of Vitae (blood lost from damage dealt), Ecstatic Agony > (damage successfully inflicted), etc.
If all you want is Street Cred to be a better card, why not ask for an errata to it, rather than a change to one of the underlying rules of the game?
On Nov 6, 9:55 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If all you want is Street Cred to be a better card, why not ask for an > errata to it, rather than a change to one of the underlying rules of > the game?
Yeah, like it should be free and usable more than once a turn. Then it would be, well, usable.
|
