LSJ: rules questions (various)
Joshua Duffin
bleed you."
This clearly implies that you cannot Redirect the bleed of an ally,
right? It seems obvious on reading the card closely (in this
much-heavier-ally environment that I've been seeing lately), but I
never noticed it before.
Elder Impersonation: You indicated on 20010608 that the "untap the
blocking minion" should not be there and would be changed in the WW
card list; this does not seem to have happened yet. Is it still
scheduled to happen? (The errata that you don't untap the blocker but
the blocker instead "remains untapped" is in the errata list as RTR
19960708, but the cardlist still doesn't agree with it.)
Chas Giovanni Tello: Is there an order in which Methuselahs should
either cancel his action or decline to do so (e.g. clockwise from his
controller), or is it freeform?
Pier 13, Port of Baltimore; Path of Bone; Baleful Doll: A Giovanni
equipping with Baleful Doll via Pier 13 still pays 1 less blood for
it, right?
thanks,
Josh
the 'questions every time we play' prince of washington dc
The Lasombra
news:59b20daa.01070...@posting.google.com...
> Redirection: "Only usable when a younger vampire is attempting to
> bleed you."
>
> This clearly implies that you cannot Redirect the bleed of an ally,
> right?
Correct.
> Pier 13, Port of Baltimore; Path of Bone; Baleful Doll: A Giovanni
> equipping with Baleful Doll via Pier 13 still pays 1 less blood for
> it, right?
Baleful Doll is Unique.
You cannot use the Pier to acquire copies of the Doll.
If it were possible, the answer should be no. The vampire is not playing
the card brought into play by the Pier, so cannot gain benefit from the
Path,
as that is the requirement of the Path.
"Giovanni burn 1 less blood when playing cards that require Necromancy."
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
Joshua Duffin
> > Redirection: "Only usable when a younger vampire is attempting to
> > bleed you."
> >
> > This clearly implies that you cannot Redirect the bleed of an ally,
> > right?
>
> Correct.
Lovely. At two disadvantages, Redirection's 0-blood cost doesn't look
so attractive. Guess I'll be rebalancing the Redirect/Deflect mix to
pretty-much-all-Deflect in most of my decks...
> > Pier 13, Port of Baltimore; Path of Bone; Baleful Doll: A Giovanni
> > equipping with Baleful Doll via Pier 13 still pays 1 less blood for
> > it, right?
>
> Baleful Doll is Unique.
> You cannot use the Pier to acquire copies of the Doll.
Boh! Me am stupid. Forget relevant portion of card yet again. Seems
like someone asks a question forgetting that just about every month,
too...
given that, I think the deck concept I was thinking of is a lot less
good. Being able to Carlotta/Pier13 would have been much better than
having to Carlotta/act-to-equip every turn.
> If it were possible, the answer should be no. The vampire is not playing
> the card brought into play by the Pier, so cannot gain benefit from the
> Path,
> as that is the requirement of the Path.
>
> "Giovanni burn 1 less blood when playing cards that require Necromancy."
Really? I thought the vampire was still playing the card with Pier 13.
"During your influence phase this minion may equip [...]" - normally
a minion "equipping" is indeed playing the equipment card, yes?
Josh
i went all the way to baltimore and all i got was this lousy .44
LSJ
>"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If it were possible, the answer should be no. The vampire is not playing
>> the card brought into play by the Pier, so cannot gain benefit from the
>> Path,
>> as that is the requirement of the Path.
>>
>> "Giovanni burn 1 less blood when playing cards that require Necromancy."
>
>Really? I thought the vampire was still playing the card with Pier 13.
>
>"During your influence phase this minion may equip [...]" - normally
>a minion "equipping" is indeed playing the equipment card, yes?
Since you "pay cost as normal", the cost is reduced by Path.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
LSJ
> Redirection: "Only usable when a younger vampire is attempting to
> bleed you."
>
> This clearly implies that you cannot Redirect the bleed of an ally,
> right? It seems obvious on reading the card closely (in this
> much-heavier-ally environment that I've been seeing lately), but I
> never noticed it before.
Right.
> Elder Impersonation: You indicated on 20010608 that the "untap the
> blocking minion" should not be there and would be changed in the WW
> card list; this does not seem to have happened yet. Is it still
> scheduled to happen? (The errata that you don't untap the blocker but
> the blocker instead "remains untapped" is in the errata list as RTR
> 19960708, but the cardlist still doesn't agree with it.)
Right. The card list is now updated.
> Chas Giovanni Tello: Is there an order in which Methuselahs should
> either cancel his action or decline to do so (e.g. clockwise from his
> controller), or is it freeform?
Clockwise from his controller.
> Pier 13, Port of Baltimore; Path of Bone; Baleful Doll: A Giovanni
> equipping with Baleful Doll via Pier 13 still pays 1 less blood for
> it, right?
Yes.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to rulebook, card text, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Halcyan 2
>> equipping with Baleful Doll via Pier 13 still pays 1 less blood for
>> it, right?
>
>Yes.
???
But you can't equip Baleful Doll via Pier 13 b/c it's unique, right? So...
Halcyan 2
Tom, Mad&Co
> > equipping with Baleful Doll via Pier 13 still pays 1 less blood for
> > it, right?
>
> Yes.
Isn't the Balefull doll Unique equipment???? I thought you could only equip
with non-unique equipment via Pier 13...
Tom,Mad&Co
James Coupe
writes:
>duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
>>"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> If it were possible, the answer should be no. The vampire is not playing
>>> the card brought into play by the Pier, so cannot gain benefit from the
>>> Path,
>>> as that is the requirement of the Path.
>>>
>>> "Giovanni burn 1 less blood when playing cards that require Necromancy."
>>
>>Really? I thought the vampire was still playing the card with Pier 13.
>>
>>"During your influence phase this minion may equip [...]" - normally
>>a minion "equipping" is indeed playing the equipment card, yes?
>
>Since you "pay cost as normal", the cost is reduced by Path.
Woo, following up on five and a half year old posts.
LSJ just reversed this on IRC. The relevant snippet:
<LSJ> No. Path won't work through pier.
<jrsc2> reversal?
<LSJ> If I said otherwise before, yes.
With much consultation of card texts and this post. In the hope that
people searching on Google pick up on this: Baleful Doll Pier 13 Path of
Bone
The question arose from a discussion of Magazine and Powerbase: Tshwane,
the upshot being that you can't use Powerbase: Tshwane to reduce the
cost of Caseless Rounds.
Everyone on the same page? Good...
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Joshua Duffin
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Qb2LMlsu...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <3B75...@MailAndNews.com>, LSJ <vte...@MailAndNews.com>
> writes:
>>duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
>>>"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> If it were possible, the answer should be no. The vampire is not
>>>> playing
>>>> the card brought into play by the Pier, so cannot gain benefit from the
>>>> Path,
>>>> as that is the requirement of the Path.
>>>>
>>>> "Giovanni burn 1 less blood when playing cards that require
>>>> Necromancy."
>>>
>>>Really? I thought the vampire was still playing the card with Pier 13.
>>>
>>>"During your influence phase this minion may equip [...]" - normally
>>>a minion "equipping" is indeed playing the equipment card, yes?
>>
>>Since you "pay cost as normal", the cost is reduced by Path.
>
> Woo, following up on five and a half year old posts.
You're killing me here. Killing me. :-)
> LSJ just reversed this on IRC. The relevant snippet:
>
> <LSJ> No. Path won't work through pier.
> <jrsc2> reversal?
> <LSJ> If I said otherwise before, yes.
>
> With much consultation of card texts and this post. In the hope that
> people searching on Google pick up on this: Baleful Doll Pier 13 Path of
> Bone
>
> The question arose from a discussion of Magazine and Powerbase: Tshwane,
> the upshot being that you can't use Powerbase: Tshwane to reduce the
> cost of Caseless Rounds.
Maybe I'm off-base here, but I kind of wish that new rulings wouldn't be
given (or reversed) on IRC. What ever happened to specific RTR postings
that would happen at semi-regular intervals? And didn't go into effect
until 30 days later so that people would know what rules had changed? I
think VTES could still benefit from that approach.
This 'Powerbase: Tshwane vs Magazine' and 'Path vs Pier 13' ruling seems
reasonable enough in relation to other current rulings about using
additional effects (i.e. you generally can't) on cards not played in the
normal manner. However, it does seem to make Black Cat even lonelier with
her personal exception to that rule (that is, she still reduces the cost of
3-pool weapons she wants to bring into play with Concealed Weapon, or 3-pool
items she wants to equip via Pier 13). Unless she is now going to be
altered as well?
> Everyone on the same page? Good...
I thought we all were, but now I'm wondering if this is Moncrieff, or the
new Penguin version...?
Josh
in search of lost rulings
XZealot
> The question arose from a discussion of Magazine and Powerbase: Tshwane,
> the upshot being that you can't use Powerbase: Tshwane to reduce the
> cost of Caseless Rounds.
Since you abbreviated the whole conversatin, and I was not privy to any
of it.
Can you use Powerbase: Tshwane to reduce the pool cost of Caseless
Rounds as it is played? Yes?
Can you use Powerbase: Tshwane to reduce the pool cost of Caseless
Rounds played on a magazine?
I believe there are two answers here.
Is it "Yes, you can use it on the intial play from your hand?"
And Is it "No, can not use it on the subsequent uses of Caseless Rounds
empowered through the use of Magazines card text?"
Is this correct?
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
James Coupe
XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes:
>Can you use Powerbase: Tshwane to reduce the pool cost of Caseless
>Rounds as it is played? Yes?
If you play Caseless Rounds normally (without Magazine being involved),
yes, as normal.
If you're talking about the "Play Magazine and put an ammo card on it"
bit, moot. You're not required to pay the cost of the ammo card you put
on it - it's just a "put an ammo card from your hand on this card"
effect.
>Can you use Powerbase: Tshwane to reduce the pool cost of Caseless
>Rounds played on a magazine?
When you're using the effect of the Caseless Rounds from the magazine,
no.
>Is it "Yes, you can use it on the intial play from your hand?"
Not relevant. There isn't an initial play, there's a "put".
>And Is it "No, can not use it on the subsequent uses of Caseless Rounds
>empowered through the use of Magazines card text?"
Right.
James Coupe
MO...@SPAM.gmail.com> writes:
>Maybe I'm off-base here, but I kind of wish that new rulings wouldn't be
>given (or reversed) on IRC.
It's not particularly different to LSJ discovering a new interaction, or
finding he's altered card text accidentally in a reprint, while judging
at a tournament, and then just enforcing the rules. Which would
probably be unfair to one player whichever way you went - the one who
used the old ruling, or the one who read the real text.
That is, he didn't set out to issue a reversal. It's just he gave the
Caseless Rounds ruling, citing that it wasn't "played", and I brought up
the Pier 13 example (in this post) where "Pay cost as normal" was
treated as sufficient to get in under the Path of Bone, even though the
card wasn't played.
End result: LSJ said neither qualified, because neither were "played"
(in the normal fashion). This therefore was a reversal.
>However, it does seem to make Black Cat even lonelier with
>her personal exception to that rule (that is, she still reduces the cost of
>3-pool weapons she wants to bring into play with Concealed Weapon, or 3-pool
>items she wants to equip via Pier 13). Unless she is now going to be
>altered as well?
She states she reduces the cost of "equipping" and both Concealed Weapon
and Pier 13 "equip" her, by card text.
The weirder anomoly is the one I cited in <http://groups.google.com/grou
p/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b9a5d29c4564377f>, which means that
Alastor works with her. That stems from a very old ruling, however,
cited in the thread following on from <http://groups.google.com/group/re
c.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b909a8e3ece85f24>, which is that the
cost of equipment actually already on Black Cat is lower (for e.g. Peace
Treaty), and since the order of Alastor is move to Black Cat, then pay
cost...
>> Everyone on the same page? Good...
>
>I thought we all were, but now I'm wondering if this is Moncrieff, or the
>new Penguin version...?
Sorry, I'm still on the first edition hardback.
LSJ
> Maybe I'm off-base here, but I kind of wish that new rulings wouldn't be
> given (or reversed) on IRC.
Why not?
If that's where the question first gets asked, it seems natural to give the
answer there at the time rather than say: I'd like to tell you, but that would
frustrate some player somewhere, so wait five minutes for me to post both the
question and the answer on the newsgroup and wait for it to appear on google so
I can post a link to the new ruling on IRC.
So long as the ruling is disseminated, it should pose no peculiar problem
originating on IRC vs. r.g.t-c.j vs. WW forum vs. email vs. PoB vs. Presence vs.
Ash Heap vs. Shadownessence vs. &c.
> What ever happened to specific RTR postings
> that would happen at semi-regular intervals?
The stream of issues that required RT review dried up.
> And didn't go into effect
> until 30 days later so that people would know what rules had changed?
As with all reversals, this one doesn't go into effect for V:EKN tournaments for
30 days.
> I
> think VTES could still benefit from that approach.
It still does.
Jozxyqk
> > What ever happened to specific RTR postings
> > that would happen at semi-regular intervals?
> The stream of issues that required RT review dried up.
Isn't the "Allies playing Torn Signpost/Mata Hari playing Raking Talons" issue
still on the RT list for review?
LSJ
Yes.
Joshua Duffin
> In message <4q7b8gF...@individual.net>, Joshua Duffin <joshduffin.RE
> MO...@SPAM.gmail.com> writes:
>>However, it does seem to make Black Cat even lonelier with
>>her personal exception to that rule (that is, she still reduces the cost
>>of
>>3-pool weapons she wants to bring into play with Concealed Weapon, or
>>3-pool
>>items she wants to equip via Pier 13). Unless she is now going to be
>>altered as well?
>
> She states she reduces the cost of "equipping" and both Concealed Weapon
> and Pier 13 "equip" her, by card text.
Right. It's just not really intuitive (I think) that Black Cat (and Marie
Faucigny presumably, as she's phrased the same way - "Non-weapon equipment
cards cost her 1 less blood or pool to equip") can apply their cost
reductions in all situations, but other cost reductions (Baldesar
Rossellini, Powerbase: Tshwane, etc) *cannot* be used with Concealed Weapon,
Pier 13, Delivery Truck, Filchware's Pawn Shop, and so on.
Which category does Ravnos Cache fall into - always usable, or only on cards
played from hand as normal? Cache text: "When equipping a minion, you may
tap this card to use the blood counters on it to pay some or all of
the -{pool or blood}- cost of the equipment."
> The weirder anomoly is the one I cited in <http://groups.google.com/grou
> p/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b9a5d29c4564377f>, which means that
> Alastor works with her. That stems from a very old ruling, however,
> cited in the thread following on from <http://groups.google.com/group/re
> c.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b909a8e3ece85f24>, which is that the
> cost of equipment actually already on Black Cat is lower (for e.g. Peace
> Treaty), and since the order of Alastor is move to Black Cat, then pay
> cost...
Yeah, it's too bad that the 10th Anniversary reprint didn't take the
opportunity to align Black Cat with the rest of the VTES universe. :-)
Josh
handbook of the vtes universe, volume 1?
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:njI%g.2871$T_1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> Maybe I'm off-base here, but I kind of wish that new rulings wouldn't be
>> given (or reversed) on IRC.
>
> Why not?
> If that's where the question first gets asked, it seems natural to give
> the answer there at the time rather than say: I'd like to tell you, but
> that would frustrate some player somewhere, so wait five minutes for me to
> post both the question and the answer on the newsgroup and wait for it to
> appear on google so I can post a link to the new ruling on IRC.
>
> So long as the ruling is disseminated, it should pose no peculiar problem
> originating on IRC vs. r.g.t-c.j vs. WW forum vs. email vs. PoB vs.
> Presence vs. Ash Heap vs. Shadownessence vs. &c.
You've put your finger on it - it's not that I object to the medium per se,
but that IRC rulings frequently seem not to get distributed in the
traditional way, i.e. getting archived on r.g.t-c.j. The Faceless
Night/Form of Mist ruling, for example, I heard about in person after it was
(I think) ruled on IRC, but it still does not seem to exist on r.g.t-c.j.
>> What ever happened to specific RTR postings that would happen at
>> semi-regular intervals?
>
> The stream of issues that required RT review dried up.
OK. I'd still REALLY appreciate seeing summaries every month, or every
three months, or something, of all the reversals and new rulings that have
been issued in that time-span. Clarifications and restatements don't need
to be highlighted, of course, but actual rulings are significant, right?
>> And didn't go into effect until 30 days later so that people would know
>> what rules had changed?
>
> As with all reversals, this one doesn't go into effect for V:EKN
> tournaments for 30 days.
I don't think that's well-known - people know that about RTR postings, but I
don't think people know (I certainly didn't know until you just said so)
that on-the-spot reversals don't take effect for 30 days - it seems to me
you've only on fairly rare occasion highlighted that fact for the
more-important rulings you've issued on the newsgroup.
>> I think VTES could still benefit from that approach.
>
> It still does.
Excellent! :-)
Josh
omnivarious
LSJ
>
> Right. It's just not really intuitive (I think) that Black Cat (and Marie
> Faucigny presumably, as she's phrased the same way - "Non-weapon equipment
> cards cost her 1 less blood or pool to equip") can apply their cost
> reductions in all situations, but other cost reductions (Baldesar
> Rossellini, Powerbase: Tshwane, etc) *cannot* be used with Concealed Weapon,
> Pier 13, Delivery Truck, Filchware's Pawn Shop, and so on.
However, it is intuitive that "play" means "play" (and all that that implies)
and "equip" means "equip" (and all that that implies).
It's just a matter of approaching it from the right angle.
Note that Black Cat's reduction doesn't apply in all situations, either. It only
applies as allowed by card text: namely equipping. So it wouldn't reduce the
cost of equipment moved by, say, Kiss of Lachesis (if Black Cat gets superior
TEM). Nor does her ability reduce her cost to play Fast Hands.
Similarly, the rules for agg damage don't match intuition when approached from
the wrong angle (like equating blood with hit points: damage = blood loss).
> Which category does Ravnos Cache fall into - always usable, or only on cards
> played from hand as normal? Cache text: "When equipping a minion, you may
> tap this card to use the blood counters on it to pay some or all of
> the -{pool or blood}- cost of the equipment."
It doesn't say play, so it doesn't mean play.
It says equipping, so it means equipping.
>> The weirder anomoly is the one I cited in <http://groups.google.com/grou
>> p/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b9a5d29c4564377f>, which means that
>> Alastor works with her. That stems from a very old ruling, however,
>> cited in the thread following on from <http://groups.google.com/group/re
>> c.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b909a8e3ece85f24>, which is that the
>> cost of equipment actually already on Black Cat is lower (for e.g. Peace
>> Treaty), and since the order of Alastor is move to Black Cat, then pay
>> cost...
The Alastor-Black Cat ruling is an error.
Since Alastor isn't "equipping", Black Cat's ability doesn't apply.
(Reversal)
Similarly for Repo Man-Black Cat (no reduction from Black Cat, since she isn't
equipping).
Standard 30-days for reversals, and all that.
> Yeah, it's too bad that the 10th Anniversary reprint didn't take the
> opportunity to align Black Cat with the rest of the VTES universe. :-)
Or perhaps it's a good time to just fix the rulings/wordings on cost reduction
to have them apply whenever cost is paid/inspected.
"Equipment costs Black Cat 1 less blood or pool" instead of "Equipping costs
Black Cat 1 less blood or pool" and "Cards that require Chimerstry cost Ravnos 1
less blood" rather than "Ravnos burn 1 less blood when playing cards that
require Chimerstry" and so on.
Intuition and all that.
LSJ
> OK. I'd still REALLY appreciate seeing summaries every month, or every
> three months, or something, of all the reversals and new rulings that have
> been issued in that time-span.
Salem
also the vtes-rulings yahoo group?
--
salem
(I also didn't know reversals had a 30-day adjustment period until now)
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>>
>> Right. It's just not really intuitive (I think) that Black Cat (and
>> Marie Faucigny presumably, as she's phrased the same way - "Non-weapon
>> equipment cards cost her 1 less blood or pool to equip") can apply their
>> cost reductions in all situations, but other cost reductions (Baldesar
>> Rossellini, Powerbase: Tshwane, etc) *cannot* be used with Concealed
>> Weapon, Pier 13, Delivery Truck, Filchware's Pawn Shop, and so on.
>
> However, it is intuitive that "play" means "play" (and all that that
> implies) and "equip" means "equip" (and all that that implies).
> It's just a matter of approaching it from the right angle.
The problem (to me) with that particular intuition is that when you say
"play" you mean "play from hand as normal". To me, "play" on its own
implies all that the word "play" normally embodies - and cards played in
nonstandard ways are still "played" in the usual sense of the phrase "play a
card". If you see what I mean. :-)
The "equip" means "equip" part is more intuitive, I think, since that's
easily understandable as a keyword specific to VTES.
>> Yeah, it's too bad that the 10th Anniversary reprint didn't take the
>> opportunity to align Black Cat with the rest of the VTES universe. :-)
>
> Or perhaps it's a good time to just fix the rulings/wordings on cost
> reduction to have them apply whenever cost is paid/inspected.
>
> "Equipment costs Black Cat 1 less blood or pool" instead of "Equipping
> costs Black Cat 1 less blood or pool" and "Cards that require Chimerstry
> cost Ravnos 1 less blood" rather than "Ravnos burn 1 less blood when
> playing cards that require Chimerstry" and so on.
>
> Intuition and all that.
Sounds good to me!
Josh
infp
Joshua Duffin
Cool, but doesn't include any of the last couple days' discussed reversals.
Is that intentional because they won't go in there until their 30 days are
up?
Josh
a minute to learn, several lifetimes to master
LSJ
No. It's a function of the "current as of..." date at the top of that page.
Rulings (including reversals) made after the date on which the page was last
edited don't show up on that page.
XZealot
> handbook of the vtes universe, volume 1?
or "The Lexicon of Legerdemain."