Kemintiri ADV Paragon?
adam....@gmail.com
If not, how about if you bring out Kemintri original, next turn play
Gift of Experience and then Paragon on same turn? (Need two master
phase actions.)
LSJ
> When Kemintri merges can she get Paragon on her next turn?
Not unless she was moved to your ready region during your last influence phase.
> If not, how about if you bring out Kemintri original, next turn play
> Gift of Experience and then Paragon on same turn? (Need two master
> phase actions.)
Yes.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Emmit Svenson
adam....@gmail.com wrote:
> When Kemintri merges can she get Paragon on her next turn?
No. Nor can she become a Legendary Vampire the turn after merging.
> If not, how about if you bring out Kemintri original, next turn play
> Gift of Experience and then Paragon on same turn? (Need two master
> phase actions.)
Sure.
Alternately, if a merged Kementiri who went to the uncontrolled region
due to Banishment or Reality is influenced back out, she's a valid
target for Paragon on the next turn.
Michael
LSJ wrote:
> > When Kemintri merges can she get Paragon on her next turn?
>
> Yes.
>
But her card text has: "She can play cards that require Camarilla,
Ventrue, and/or a justicar title." Surely this means that only *she*
can play such minion cards, but *you* as Methuselah cannot play master
cards with those requirements?
Name: Paragon
Cardtype: Master
Clan: Ventrue
Unique master.
Put this card on a ready Ventrue who was moved into your ready region
during your last influence phase. This vampire gets 1 additional vote
in
referendums called by younger vampires. A younger vampire who
successfully
blocks this vampire burns 1 blood (before combat begins, if any).
Emmit Svenson
> [Kemitiri's] card text has: "She can play cards that require Camarilla,
> Ventrue, and/or a justicar title." Surely this means that only *she*
> can play such minion cards, but *you* as Methuselah cannot play master
> cards with those requirements?
Uh, yeah, that's right.
I've been making waaay too many bad calls on the rules in this group
recently. Must be showing my age. It's some consolation that LSJ
missed the same point, I guess.
Michael
thought Temptation of Greater Power would be an excellent inclusion :/
LSJ
>
> LSJ wrote:
>
>>>When Kemintri merges can she get Paragon on her next turn?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>
>
> But her card text has: "She can play cards that require Camarilla,
> Ventrue, and/or a justicar title." Surely this means that only *she*
> can play such minion cards, but *you* as Methuselah cannot play master
> cards with those requirements?
No. Her text box was simply too full already to accomodate the
extra verbiage. It means what the same.
Michael
LSJ
> How are we supposed to infer verbiage that is not on the card?
As others have indicated in this thread, it is intuitive.
Michael
Kemintiri : "She may play cards that require .... "
Mata Hari : "You and she may play cards that require ... "
The two phrases clearly have different meanings, which indicates that
no further inference is needed. I don't at all agree that it is
intuitive that these two phrases in fact mean the same thing.
James Coupe
<vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes:
>Michael wrote:
>> How are we supposed to infer verbiage that is not on the card?
>
>As others have indicated in this thread, it is intuitive.
Why is this case deserving of text being spontaneously imagined when so
many other rulings have deferred to actual card text instead of an
"intuitive" ruling? And how would you suggest a judge derive this
ruling in the absence of having read this thread?
How many other rulings will you reverse for the "intuitive" reading of
card text, following this ruling? (Answer: none. Question: Why not?)
By all means, if necessary issue errata to her. But this surely cannot
be supported by card text or ruling precedents being followed.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
LSJ
> By all means, if necessary issue errata to her. But this surely cannot
> be supported by card text or ruling precedents being followed.
See also the fact that she may play such cards "as if" she met the
requirements in question (also not explicitly stated on the card).
Frederick Scott
"Michael" <blacksh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121426115.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> But compare the following:
...
Could you PLEASE quote?!?
Without quotes, your posts are totally non-sensical and thus off-topic.
You shouldn't post as if threaded newsreaders were considered a requirement.
Fred
Daneel
wrote:
> James Coupe wrote:
>> By all means, if necessary issue errata to her. But this surely cannot
>> be supported by card text or ruling precedents being followed.
>
> See also the fact that she may play such cards "as if" she met the
> requirements in question (also not explicitly stated on the card).
So... does one omission make another one right? ;)
Anyway, I kind of agree with the problem. Sometimes a ruling/clarification
follows card text so closely that it appears to be grammatically hair-
splitting, and at least somewhat unintuitive; at other times, the ruling/
clarification interprets card text seemingly loosely, filling in any blanks
in an 'intuitive' way.
IMHO this removes at least a bit of clarity from VTES.
Quick question: if there was this following card:
Name: Superior Thaumaturgy
Type: Master
Requires: Thaumaturgy
Text: Put this card on a vampire. The minion with this card has Superior
Thaumaturgy.
...then could it be played on Talaq, the Immortal, for example?
--
Bye,
Daneel
James Coupe
<vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> By all means, if necessary issue errata to her. But this surely cannot
>> be supported by card text or ruling precedents being followed.
>
>See also the fact that she may play such cards "as if" she met the
>requirements in question (also not explicitly stated on the card).
That was explained in this post:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b
438fedccb8b4c73?hl=en&>
i.e. that has to happen, or else she couldn't play them because she has
to meet the requirements somehow. The card text is incomplete and needs
a ruling to clarify how it functions.
However, since her card text specifies *nothing* about her controlling
Methuselah being able to play cards (which Kemintiri doesn't play
herself), there is no need to spontaneously imagine card text to do
that.
I would ask that you refer this to the Rules Team for clarification as
it defies all explanation. Many dozens of rulings show that the
"intuitive" ruling is ignored in favour of what card text actually says.
Why is this card so special?
Michael
Frederick Scott wrote:
> Could you PLEASE quote?!?
Sorry. I don't post to newsgroups at all frequently. I'm not very
net-savvy.
> Without quotes, your posts are totally non-sensical and thus off-topic.
I'm sure most people are able to make sense of what I write.
Emmit Svenson
Michael wrote:
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> > Could you PLEASE quote?!?
>
> Sorry. I don't post to newsgroups at all frequently. I'm not very
> net-savvy.
That's OK. Net savvy is what we are helping you to become by giving you
friendly advice.
> > Without quotes, your posts are totally non-sensical and thus off-topic.
>
> I'm sure most people are able to make sense of what I write.
Most people could make sense of what you wrote if you wrote in pig
latin or used no vowels. But it would be a pain in the ass, so you'd
lose a lot of readers. Since the only reason people post around here is
to share ideas, it makes sense to make your posts as clear as possible.
James Coupe
Michael <blacksh...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Frederick Scott wrote:
>> Without quotes, your posts are totally non-sensical and thus off-topic.
>
>I'm sure most people are able to make sense of what I write.
If there is no compelling reason to read your post[0], many people will
simply skip over it without bothering.
Note that in any given thread, it could become hundreds of posts long.
Because of the threaded nature of Usenet discussions, one such sub-
thread could come right before your post. So by the time it gets round
to your post (which was responding to something many, many posts back),
are you talking about something in that sub-thread, or something else
entirely? These quickly leads to mis-understandings.
Brief relevant quotes (or possibly summaries of points, where
appropriate) remove the problem entirely.
[0] For instance, being the CEO of a major company or an official
moderator of a group, or somesuch; people may well put in the effort to
understand your post, even if it's badly put together, because they need
to understand it.
Frederick Scott
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> Without quotes, your posts are totally non-sensical and thus off-topic.
>
> I'm sure most people are able to make sense of what I write.
Only with a thread newsreader would anyone be able to make sense of your
quoteless posts - which is why I added the one line you neglected to include
in your last post:
# You shouldn't post as if threaded newsreaders were considered a requirement.
Without threading, a reader sees some completely out of the blue comment,
like:
"How are we supposed to infer verbiage that is not on the card?"
and think, well, gee, why would you need to infer verbiage that is not on
the card? And what card are you talking about? And who were you asking?
It was a completely bizarre post when looked at that way.
Fred
Mike
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:oN7JlRnD...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <RkWBe.11222$aY6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ
> <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes:
> >James Coupe wrote:
> >> By all means, if necessary issue errata to her. But this surely cannot
> >> be supported by card text or ruling precedents being followed.
> >
> >See also the fact that she may play such cards "as if" she met the
> >requirements in question (also not explicitly stated on the card).
>
> That was explained in this post:
>
> <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b
> 438fedccb8b4c73?hl=en&>
>
> i.e. that has to happen, or else she couldn't play them because she has
> to meet the requirements somehow. The card text is incomplete and needs
> a ruling to clarify how it functions.
>
>
> However, since her card text specifies *nothing* about her controlling
> Methuselah being able to play cards (which Kemintiri doesn't play
> herself), there is no need to spontaneously imagine card text to do
> that.
>
>
> I would ask that you refer this to the Rules Team for clarification as
> it defies all explanation. Many dozens of rulings show that the
> "intuitive" ruling is ignored in favour of what card text actually says.
> Why is this card so special?
I second that. AFAIK this is the first case in the history of the game where
we are expected to play a card differently from written without an official
errata to cover it.
Regards,
Mike Nudd
VEKN Prince of London
LSJ
> I second that. AFAIK this is the first case in the history of the game where
> we are expected to play a card differently from written without an official
> errata to cover it.
Ah, the melodrama is afoot.
Indeed, it is not even among the first ten such cards.
But, as per conversations on the PoB, reports of the intuitiveness of the
situation have apparently been greatly exaggerated, as well.
So: REVERSAL (to take effect 30 days from now, for constructed deck
tournaments). Merged Kemintiri doesn't enable you to play master cards,
it only enables her to play certain minion cards.
James Coupe
<vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes:
>But, as per conversations on the PoB, reports of the intuitiveness of the
>situation have apparently been greatly exaggerated, as well.
If intuition could kick in and resolve card problems, I'd dispute the
rulings (way back when) on The Sleeping Mind.
Reading card text (as with Kemintiri) tells you one thing but intuition
tells you what the card is trying to do (i.e. the express opposite of
what the legalistic ruling attempts to do).
Similarly, Tremere Convocation never needed to be changed. Intuitively,
you could see what it was trying to do, even though its card text said
something different.
"Intuition" is not a good metric for abandoning card text, in general.
Many hundreds of questions to the newsgroup show that perfectly ordinary
card text can be intuited in dozens of different ways. Whilst card text
can be distributed to players via the website, it is extremely hard to
tell players:
a) what the proper intuition is
b) which cards it applies to and which cards it doesn't.
This is, so far as I can tell, why we errata cards that don't do what
they are intended to do. Players know that the most up-to-date card
text is what they are supposed to play. If there is no change to the
card text, they don't have to try to intuit some missing card text or a
counter-face-value reading.
LSJ
> In message <42DEEC83...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>, LSJ
> <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes:
>
>>But, as per conversations on the PoB, reports of the intuitiveness of the
>>situation have apparently been greatly exaggerated, as well.
>
>
> If intuition could kick in and resolve card problems, I'd dispute the
> rulings (way back when) on The Sleeping Mind.
Kemintiri hardly reached the level of "needing to be cut down in the
face of intuition" (not that, apparently it flew in the face of intuition
as much as originally reported) as Sleeping Mind.
> Reading card text (as with Kemintiri) tells you one thing but intuition
> tells you what the card is trying to do (i.e. the express opposite of
> what the legalistic ruling attempts to do).
As you wish.
> "Intuition" is not a good metric for abandoning card text, in general.
Like for Cats' Guidance?
That's the problem with black and white in a gray world -- there are
always exceptions.
In Kem's case, the players apparently have intuition enough to follow
the letter of card text. My initial impression of the general player's
intuition was mistaken. Therefore the reversal.
Mike
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:D3LDe.2352$6f....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> James Coupe wrote:
>
> > In message <42DEEC83...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>, LSJ
> > <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes:
> >
> >>But, as per conversations on the PoB, reports of the intuitiveness of
the
> >>situation have apparently been greatly exaggerated, as well.
> >
> >
> > If intuition could kick in and resolve card problems, I'd dispute the
> > rulings (way back when) on The Sleeping Mind.
>
> Kemintiri hardly reached the level of "needing to be cut down in the
> face of intuition" (not that, apparently it flew in the face of intuition
> as much as originally reported) as Sleeping Mind.
>
> > Reading card text (as with Kemintiri) tells you one thing but intuition
> > tells you what the card is trying to do (i.e. the express opposite of
> > what the legalistic ruling attempts to do).
>
> As you wish.
>
> > "Intuition" is not a good metric for abandoning card text, in general.
>
> Like for Cats' Guidance?
>
> That's the problem with black and white in a gray world -- there are
> always exceptions.
>
> In Kem's case, the players apparently have intuition enough to follow
> the letter of card text. My initial impression of the general player's
> intuition was mistaken. Therefore the reversal.
In the case of Kementiri I don't think the text implies the wider
interpretation originally proscribed, particularly when compared to Mata
Hari where the additional function is explicit, as Michael kindly pointed
out earlier.
Having said that, I think Kementiri would be a lot cooler if she *did* also
permit players to play cards requiring Ventrue or Justicars too. But I think
that for the sake of sanity that would require formal errata, and hopefully
a subsequent corrected printing of her in a future card set.
As far as intuition goes, my first thought was that Kementiri was perhaps
*supposed* to have been printed like Mata Hari but there had been an error
or cock-up at the printing stage. If this had been given as the reason for
the original ruling, I think people might have been slightly less perplexed.
Players of course use their intuition all the time when playing the game,
but in the absence of already-announced rulings and errata, the card text
itself
does have to take precedence. To suggest that players should feel free to
add their own spins on cards could lead to very wild and unsettling
variations of play, and this is something I'm sure we are all keen to avoid.
Jozxyqk
> Mike wrote:
> > I second that. AFAIK this is the first case in the history of the game where
> > we are expected to play a card differently from written without an official
> > errata to cover it.
> Ah, the melodrama is afoot.
> Indeed, it is not even among the first ten such cards.
> But, as per conversations on the PoB, reports of the intuitiveness of the
> situation have apparently been greatly exaggerated, as well.
> So: REVERSAL (to take effect 30 days from now, for constructed deck
> tournaments). Merged Kemintiri doesn't enable you to play master cards,
> it only enables her to play certain minion cards.
30 days from this ruling is August 19th.
This means that Kemintiri-Adv will work one way at at the Last Chance
Qualifier, and differently during the NAC. Just thought I'd point that
out :)
jeff...@pacbell.net
> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:D3LDe.2352$6f....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > face of intuition" (not that, apparently it flew in the face of intuition
> > as much as originally reported) as Sleeping Mind.
> >
> > the letter of card text. My initial impression of the general player's
> > intuition was mistaken. Therefore the reversal.
>
> In the case of Kementiri I don't think the text implies the wider
> interpretation originally proscribed, particularly when compared to Mata
> Hari where the additional function is explicit, as Michael kindly pointed
> out earlier.
>
> Having said that, I think Kementiri would be a lot cooler if she *did* also
> permit players to play cards requiring Ventrue or Justicars too. But I think
> that for the sake of sanity that would require formal errata, and hopefully
> a subsequent corrected printing of her in a future card set.
Just so we all know, is Kementiri still on the Rules Team list for
discussion? It seems design intent was to allow for the Methuselah also
to play Masters, similar to Mata Hari. I agree that she'd be pretty
sweet if this were the case and hopefully she'll be that way in the
near future.
Jeff
LSJ
> Just so we all know, is Kementiri still on the Rules Team list for
> discussion? It seems design intent was to allow for the Methuselah also
> to play Masters, similar to Mata Hari. I agree that she'd be pretty
> sweet if this were the case and hopefully she'll be that way in the
> near future.
No. She ain't broke (overly powerful), so errata isn't warranted.
Daneel
wrote:
> jeff...@pacbell.net wrote:
>> Just so we all know, is Kementiri still on the Rules Team list for
>> discussion? It seems design intent was to allow for the Methuselah also
>> to play Masters, similar to Mata Hari. I agree that she'd be pretty
>> sweet if this were the case and hopefully she'll be that way in the
>> near future.
>
> No. She ain't broke (overly powerful), so errata isn't warranted.
There is a handful of cards that do not currently do exactly what the
design intent was with them. Are these anywhere near priority for
reviewing? I'm asking out of sheer curiousity...
(On a similar note, are there any cards currently on review for being
possibly 'broken'?)
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
If they ain't breaking the game, they ain't on the list for possible
errata.
Mike
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> jeff...@pacbell.net wrote:
> > Just so we all know, is Kementiri still on the Rules Team list for
> > discussion? It seems design intent was to allow for the Methuselah also
> > to play Masters, similar to Mata Hari. I agree that she'd be pretty
> > sweet if this were the case and hopefully she'll be that way in the
> > near future.
>
> No. She ain't broke (overly powerful), so errata isn't warranted.
>
I hope I'm not the only one who finds it strange that previously it was
claimed that she had greater utility, and now that greater utility is being
denied on the basis that she is overly powerful already? *scratches head*
Regards,
Mike
de...@hell.is
>> No. She ain't broke (overly powerful), so errata isn't warranted.
> I hope I'm not the only one who finds it strange that previously it was
> claimed that she had greater utility, and now that greater utility is being
> denied on the basis that she is overly powerful already? *scratches head*
I think you are misunderstanding the sentence.
"She ain't broke (overly powerful) "
chould be read as "She is not overly powerful and therefore not broken"
Mike
<de...@hell.is> wrote in message
news:1122380310....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
True, my mistake. So that *does* leave it open to the possibility of
correcting the card to match the original ruling then? *still scratching
head*
Regards,
Mike
James Coupe
<mi...@vekn.org.uk> writes:
>True, my mistake. So that *does* leave it open to the possibility of
>correcting the card to match the original ruling then? *still scratching
>head*
No, the point is:
- errata is typically issued when a card is overly powerful
- Kemintri (ADV) is not overly powerful
- therefore errata will not be issued for her.
Weak cards are sometimes upgraded when a change is necessitated for
other reasons - for instance, if a weak card has an ambiguity in it, a
ruling or clarification (or potentially errata, if required) may cause
the card to become better.
However, errata is typically not used to (for example) upgrade
wall-paper (or make a good card better), unless there is some other
reason for the errata being issued in the first place.
Some cards are, however, altered (upgraded, specifically) on re-print.
Some of the crapper cards for the Independent clans from Dark Sovereigns
/ Ancient Hearts would probably be the obvious examples.