Re: [DL] Miracles & Hexes

[Tifainé <pusifoot@pacbell.net>]

In our posse, we have played it that the Blessed takes the wound and then
the same wound is inflicted upon the one who inflicted the damage, so it
mirrors the damage, just as the spell.

Here is why:

The text of the miracle states:

"With Retribution, the blessed inflicts a wound on an opponent who has just
wounded hum.  The wound level suffered by the target is identical to the one
the targed inflicted on the blessed."

It further states:

"The blessed must first receive a wound from the target in order to use this
miracle.  He must also survive the wound in order to invoke the miracle."

If the character weren't going to take the damage, there would be no reason
for that stipulation.

The last reason is this:

"After the Blessed suffers the original wound, he must then use his
next-highest Action Card to invoke the miracle."

Hope this helps.

Tifainé

----- Original Message -----
From: Markus Finster <markus.finster@chello.at>
To: Deadlands-Liste <deadlands@gamerz.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 6:10 AM
Subject: [DL] Miracles & Hexes


> Hi Listers,

> And here is the point of discussion: Do the two really _transfer_ the
damage
> (so the player's character is unhurt) or do they just _mirror_ it?
> I think that in case of the hex the damage is mirrored (hence the name)
but
> the miracle is another matter.
> Since the miracle transfers (?) wounds, it's mighty sucessful, but the
Lord
> does keep a helping hand above his most loyal servants.
> But imagine a mojave-rattler doing four wounds to the guts to a priest who
> casts Retriubution - the priest is unscathed, the poor rattler at the
brink
> of death (my posse likes that interpretation, of course) with just 24
points
> of inflicted damage.
> I am a bit uncomfortable with that, so I can't really decide how to rule
> that. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Markus