Enchanted Blade

[tsuruki 197]

And they are very impressive indeed

[tsuruki 197]

On 4/23/2019 at 12:26 AM, Krysmo said:

Hey there, is there an official ruling on this in the FAQ? I'm just geared to read FFG's text as non-favourable to the player:)

The text says you get +1 to hit, and if you use a charge, you get +1 to hit and +1 Damage. 

If it gives a total of +2 to hit from using a charge, I'd expect it to explicitly say you get +2 to hit and +1 damage (it didn't say "an extra +1 to hit" etc. etc..)

 

This is absolutely clear, the bonuses are not mutually exclusive since the second bonus to hit does not specifically replace the first.

[Faranim 63]

It is a bit odd though.  Prior to TCU, all of these such cards would use a quantifier such as:

• If you do...you get +2 [COMBAT] instead...
• If you do...you get an additional +1 [COMBAT]....

Enchanted Blade is the first card to not use the word instead or additional and I guess the word additional is implied.

[PJimo 41]

9 hours ago, Faranim said:

It is a bit odd though.  Prior to TCU, all of these such cards would use a quantifier such as:

• If you do...you get +2 [COMBAT] instead...
• If you do...you get an additional +1 [COMBAT]....

Enchanted Blade is the first card to not use the word instead or additional and I guess the word additional is implied.

I can see the argument. But it's basically the same as Meat Cleaver.

Fight. You get +1  for this attack (+2  instead if you have 3 or fewer remaining sanity). If this attack defeats an enemy, you may heal 1 horror. As an additional cost to initiate this ability, you may take 1 horror to have this attack deal +1 damage.

[Allonym 954]

10 hours ago, Faranim said:

It is a bit odd though.  Prior to TCU, all of these such cards would use a quantifier such as:

• If you do...you get +2 [COMBAT] instead...
• If you do...you get an additional +1 [COMBAT]....

Enchanted Blade is the first card to not use the word instead or additional and I guess the word additional is implied.

Not really how I see it; since the empowerment ability is separate and distinct from the main attack ability, it's just like any other bonus, it just happens to be printed on the same card. It's not like Physical Training has the word "additional" on it, but using it will still stack with the Combat bonus from using the action on Knife or whatever. It's entirely unambiguous in terms of how the rules function, but certainly could seem a little counter-intuitive for newer players unused to how the rules syntax works. 

They could have worded it in a completely distinct way, probably by having a second Fight ability that spends resources (kind of like Knife) but the card is already really dense with text so it's a readability issue with no right answer. 

[rsdockery 537]

55 minutes ago, Allonym said:

They could have worded it in a completely distinct way, probably by having a second Fight ability that spends resources (kind of like Knife) but the card is already really dense with text so it's a readability issue with no right answer. 

Plus, they wanted to create some consistency with the upgraded versions. A second fight action wouldn't have worked with the Mystic or Guardian versions (not without being far more awkward than the current L0 version).

[Faranim 63]

4 hours ago, PJimo said:

I can see the argument. But it's basically the same as Meat Cleaver.

Fight. You get +1  for this attack (+2  instead if you have 3 or fewer remaining sanity). If this attack defeats an enemy, you may heal 1 horror. As an additional cost to initiate this ability, you may take 1 horror to have this attack deal +1 damage.

Okay, so why doesn't Meat Cleaver just say:

Quote

=> Fight.  You get +1 [COMBAT] for this attack (+1 [COMBAT] if you have 3 or fewer remaining sanity).

So the cleaver works exactly the same way with this wording, which is how the Enchanted Blade (0) is worded.

Or, for example Roland's .38 Special:

Quote

=> Fight.  You get +1 [COMBAT] for this attack (+2 [COMBAT] if there is a clue at your location).

But, none of the other cards in the game are worded that way.  They always said "Your get +X [STAT].  But If [CONDITION] you get +Y [STAT] instead."  Or I guess in the case of Lupara, it says "If Lupara entered play this turn, this attack gains an additional +1 [COMBAT] and deals +1 damage"

 

I don't really have a problem with any of the way the cards are worded, but in my opinion it is inconsistent.  I fully understand why someone might argue that when you spend a Charge from Enchanted Blade (0) it only gets +1 COMBAT And +1 damage, and not +2 COMBAT bonus in total.  Because no other weapon in the game is worded that way, and implies that if you spend the charge, you use some alternate version of the ability and the original bonus is ignored.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Faranim
spelling of the word 'inconsistent'

[PJimo 41]

I'm confused what you're saying. The Meat Cleaver does say what you inserted. It was just a copy/paste images thing on my part. And the relevant bit is the second sentence anyways.

As an additional cost to initiate this ability, you may take 1 horror to have this attack deal +1 damage.
which is worded exactly the same as the Enchanted Blade
As an additional cost to initiate this ability, you may spend 1 charge to empower the blade. If you do, you get +1 [COMBAT] and deal +1 damage for this attack.

I agree that it isn't consistent with how they've done it in the past.

E.g., Fire Axe:  [Fast Action] During an attack using Fire Axe, spend 1 resource: You get +2  for this skill test. (Limit three times per attack.)
M1918:  Action: Spend 1-5 ammo: Fight. You get +X  [Combat] for this attack. Instead of its standard damage, this attack deals X damage. X is the amount of ammo spent as part of this ability's cost.

But the Cleaver and the Enchanted Blade from TCU are certainly consistent with each other.