What happens if I put blood oath on a character with Quake and I attack the target of blood oath using quake and the result of the dice roll it's doubles...


The penetrating damage applies to all characters affected by quake or just the target of the blood oath?!?!

As I said in the Leapfrog thread, it helps to post the rules text in question:

BLOOD OATH

Prerequisites: Battle Fury or Blades/Claws/Fangs or Willpower

Choose a character. Before the beginning of the first turn, choose an opposing character. The character modifies its attack value by +1 when attacking the chosen opposing character.

When the character makes a successful close combat attack against the chosen opposing character and the attack roll is doubles, you can choose to treat the damage from the attack as penetrating damage. If you do, remove this feat from the game after the attack resolves.

I bolded the relevant part.

Basically, since it specifies "damage from the attack" and not "damage dealt to the chosen opposing character", I'd rule that all characters hit by the Quake would be dealt penetrating damage.

There is certainly room for interpretation here, and I wouldn't be surprised if the RA or GD decide otherwise, but there it is.

i would say it would follow all the other things like if u get +1 att vs a single opponent and you multi target you only get the +1 to that target.
Also like thorbusters damage he gets+2 damage when targeting an Asgardian or Deity but that +2 damage must go to the Asgardian/Diety if you target one Asgardian and a nonasgardian.

The +1 to AV part would only apply to the chosen character, sure. This isn't any different than using the HYDRA TA to get a boost to AV with a character with multiple , but the HYDRA guy only has LOF to one of the targets.


The penetrating damage part, though, as I pointed out specifies that the damage from the attack (the whole attack) is penetrating. Normally this isn't an issue since close combat attacks can usually only target a single character, but Quake allows one attack to hit/damage multiple characters. Since the penetrating verbage in Blood Oath does not specific that the chosen character only is affected by this penetrating damage, it can be applied to the whole attack.


As I stated, though, this may not have been the intention. I would not be surprised if it is ruled otherwise. But for now, we go with the wording we've got available to us.

I would agree with Maraud's thought being the intention on this one, though I'd agree with you that the wording doesn't support that.

Of course, the wording of Ultimate X-Men doesn't support the ruling either.

Like I indicated earlier, I am not really convinced that GD meant for it to work this way, either, but barring clarification indicating their intent, eh, whatcha gonna do?

I am not quite sure what you are driving at here...

Professor X (12...11 base attack...UXM TA) has chosen Magneto.

He makes an attack targeting Magneto, Sabretooth, and Toad.

We know that he only gets a 12 attack against Magneto, but the wording of the TA states otherwise. There is nothing documented anywhere to support this, but that's how it is.

I would imagine that this would work the same way.

In other words, we do have a precedent for judges to make a ruling which would go against what's actually stated.

How are we sure that he only gets the 12 attack against Magneto? I agree that the wording on the Ultimate X-men is a similar situation to Blood Oath, but what makes you come to the conclusion that the 12 attack in this case doesn't apply to the other targets as well. The team Prof X is playing against may have two different Magnetos on it. The TA wording specifies that the Prof. will only get the bonus when he targets the chosen Magneto, but if the same attack also targets other figs, I can see how it might be ruled that he gets the bonus for all targets.

I agree with Normalview on the way he interpreted Blood Oath and I would interpret Ultimate X-men the same way. If we were going on intended meaning then Harpua has a point. I guess it depends on if you are a strict constructionist of the written rules or if you prefer to rule on the designers intentions (which is a lot trickier if you can't speak directly to the designers). I can be persuaded either way as long as you are consistent in your rulings, and not a flip-flopper.

We know this because of the way 2000 A.D. and Alpha Flight work, plus rulings and reinforcement over the years. But, as he pointed out, there is nothing currently in the wording that makes it obvious... that was what we was trying to tell me with his original post (and I just was too dim to realize where he was going with it ).

In the case of Ultimate X-men, while a person could go with a strict interpretation of the TA and still be correct, we've got a lot of precedent and anecdotal evidence to the contrary; a judge could rule either way at his or her event and be "correct" (and honestly I am not sure why this was never addressed in the player's guide). Blood Oath, though somewhat similar in its wording, has no precedent so we pretty much have to go with the wording as is until GD says otherwise.

I hear what your saying, and I get it. I just have a hard time agreeing that you should interpret Blood Oath by strict wording, and not interpret Ultimate X-Men strictly, even though it's worded in almost the same way. I don't mind being enlightened about the rules, but if I can't read it in some official context, and if I just have to take someones word for it, that's usually not good enough for me. No offense intended. I'm just weird that way.

Simple answer?

Because we know what the intent of Ultimate X-men was (thanks mostly to the fact that it has been around awhile... though, as I mentioned, I don't know why it was never officially clarified) but we don't know what the intent of Blood Oath was.


It could be that GD meant for Blood Oath to work this way, or maybe not. Since we don't know for sure, go with the way it was written. If it was meant to work differently, we'll hear about it sooner or later.

Yeah, I'm with the rules guys here.

It sounds like it becomes penetrating damage against everyone, but I won't be surprised if the official line is that it becomes penetrating damage against the chosen character only.

The latter seems to fall in line with the usual "intent".

Though this does make me wonder... If feats are going to be online only, maybe they could update and change feats on line rather than just keep up the "wrong" ones and tell us to look at the errata.
Granted, we would still need errata...