Terminology and Mask 1K Faces
Jeffrey Endres
Is there a kill-file on me or something? Anyway here I go again;
I have a problem with one of the rulings in the Terminology section,
namely:
"During phase X, do Y" limits Y to once per phase X. [LSJ 970625] :T03:
This is a bit of a hack ruling, because of this you have had to say
Nephandus and Succubus Club are special cases while Shadow Court Satyr
follows this ruling.
Are there any other cards you have had to say, "No, this doesn't follow
this terminology..." like Nephandus and Succubus Club.
This ruling for Shadow Court Satyr is almost directly against what the
card states. If the effect was once per combat it would be explicitly
stated on the card.
Those of you that think this card is broken otherwise, I can think of
worse combos than a Shadow Court Satyr with Skin of Rock...
How is this ruling justified and who decided upon it? One person makes
an overall terminology ruling that currently effects 3 cards and 2 of
which have to have special counter rulings????
----
Another ruling that I initially thought was pretty cool, but am now
beginning to have second thoughts about is the one concerning Mask of
1000 Faces.
Skill requirements should be met, to rule otherwise is illogical. If I
am pretending to be someone with presence doesn't mean I can charm a
crowd with my Bewitching Oration unless I too have presence, or just
because I am pretending to be someone with fortitude doesn't mean I can
do a Force of Will... (In fact how would you rule on this, is being a
tapped minion a "type of minion" requirement? Would the original vamp
untap ala Freak Drive?)
A weenie obf, deck with a few guys with superior presence, or dom would
be nasty. Have the big guys do the bleeds at +whatever bleed and
+whatever stealth and then the little 2 blood vamp takes over, untapping
the big guy to do it again. Archon Investigation is a lot less scary.
Is this really the effect wanted from Mask? I can see the logic in not
being effected by minion type, but skill requirements???
--
Jeffrey Endres Undergrad B. Eng (Aerospace Avionics)
Queensland University of Technology
`We live in our minds, and existence is the attempt to bring that
into physical reality, to state it in gesture and form' -Ayn Rand
Jeffrey Endres
LSJ wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Endres wrote:
> > Is there a kill-file on me or something? Anyway here I go again;
>
> me since the 2nd of this month. Odd. Am I getting out to anybody?
> If anybody has the long version of my original reply, please re-post
> it for me. Thanks.
There wasn't any reply on the newsgroup, and this reply didn't make it
either.
Perhaps there is a problem with your server? I'll leave all of your
reply in for others just in case.
>
> > I have a problem with one of the rulings in the Terminology section,
> > namely:
> >
> > "During phase X, do Y" limits Y to once per phase X. [LSJ 970625] :T03:
> >
> > This is a bit of a hack ruling, because of this you have had to say
> > Nephandus and Succubus Club are special cases while Shadow Court Satyr
> > follows this ruling.
>
> Neither Nephandus nor Succubus Club are special cases. They do not
> fit the template being ruled on.
Why are there references to this terminology then?
>
> > Are there any other cards you have had to say, "No, this doesn't follow
> > this terminology..." like Nephandus and Succubus Club.
>
> No. Although Tremere Convocation has had errata issued on it to change
> it's text so that it no longer fits the template.
>
> > This ruling for Shadow Court Satyr is almost directly against what the
> > card states. If the effect was once per combat it would be explicitly
> > stated on the card.
>
> Try this: Put a 50 cent coupon from your hand on Joe. During lunch
> break, Joe can get a free soda as if you had paid 50 cents.
>
> Now, how many sodas can Joe get during a single lunch break?
There is one difference here, you use the singular, "a free soda" this
would limit Joe to one drink only. If Joe could use the ability of the
coupon, ie. get a free drink, he could get as many as he wanted,
provided he was not required to redeem the coupon.
Another food example: a bakery in the city near my campus is offering a
free muffin for students with every purchase if they present their
student card. There is no minimum requirement on the amount spent or
time between purchases, so in theory I could go and buy 6 bagels and get
6 muffins (I would feel greedy doing this though).
Having my student card is analogous to having a combat card put on me.
:) The ability of that card is to get a free muffin with every purchase.
The cost of a combat card is analogous to the cost of purchasing
something from the bakery. Now if there was no cost required to get the
free muffin, then I could go and get a free muffin whenever I felt
hungry. Or, skin of rock, whenever there was damage preventable by
fortitude.
>
> > Those of you that think this card is broken otherwise, I can think of
> > worse combos than a Shadow Court Satyr with Skin of Rock...
>
> This ruling is not in response to any perceived brokeness in any
> other interpretation. It is in response to the way the RT feels
> the card text operates.
>
> > How is this ruling justified and who decided upon it? One person makes
> > an overall terminology ruling that currently effects 3 cards and 2 of
> > which have to have special counter rulings????
>
> This comes from the RT. It is justified because it is uniform.
> Check PB: Chicago.
Ok, there are a few more cards...
There was no reference to the RT just you or just a reference to the
terminology section.
Re: PB: Chicago. There is an explicit singular. "you may move 1 blood".
There is no singular in the text for Shadow Court Satyr.
Re: Tremere Convocation. Another card where a ruling is required
unnecessarily, (except for the vampire to Tremere change) because of the
terminology ruling.
Re: Lambach. What, he can only do his built in Wolf's Claws once a
combat???? This is stupid, when compared to other specials for large
vamps.
So lets check the score; 6 cards related to the terminology ruling, 3
have been counter ruled basically, 3 follow the terminology.
By my argument, these could be fixed with _two_ rulings, put a "once
during combat" for Shadow Court Satyr, and Lambach if that is what you
want.
In my opinion, it is excessive card rulings that make this game less
interesting for new players. If players just followed card text with a
bit of common sense, the game _is_ playable, and perhaps more enjoyable.
I don't know if it is only local or not, but in Australia we have a
saying, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it.". (Say it out the corner of
your mouth, so the flys don't get in.:-)
>
> > ----
> > Another ruling that I initially thought was pretty cool, but am now
> > beginning to have second thoughts about is the one concerning Mask of
> > 1000 Faces.
> >
> > Skill requirements should be met, to rule otherwise is illogical. If I
> > am pretending to be someone with presence doesn't mean I can charm a
> > crowd with my Bewitching Oration unless I too have presence, or just
> > because I am pretending to be someone with fortitude doesn't mean I can
> > do a Force of Will... (In fact how would you rule on this, is being a
> > tapped minion a "type of minion" requirement? Would the original vamp
> > untap ala Freak Drive?)
>
> You are not alone in this sentiment. I'll pass it along to the RT (again).
>
> > A weenie obf, deck with a few guys with superior presence, or dom would
> > be nasty. Have the big guys do the bleeds at +whatever bleed and
> > +whatever stealth and then the little 2 blood vamp takes over, untapping
> > the big guy to do it again. Archon Investigation is a lot less scary.
> >
> > Is this really the effect wanted from Mask? I can see the logic in not
> > being effected by minion type, but skill requirements???
>
> This deck doesn't seem too scary: A crypt with a "few" big guys and
> the rest weenies would be subject to a large helping of chance.
Not really, 4 large vamps in a crypt of twelve, it is quite likely to
get at least one in the opening four, or at least as the next one.
>
> Plus, the ratio of Masks to stealth and bleed cards would be difficult
> to balance (preventing a clog of Masks or other stealth cards while
> keeping enough Masks and Bleeds in your hand to make it work).
This would be a problem, but hey, if you can get 5 large bleeds of 5 or
so a turn without fear of AI I wouldn't mind. And you can't really jam
on masks since you can play them whenever you are performing actions.
In our play group, I have found a ratio of 1/3 stealth, 1/3 bleed, 1/3
extras works quite well. (This was with my Setite and another guy's S&B)
>
> --
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com)
> Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
> (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
Miene Godt! this is a big post! I hope you sort out the troubles with
the postings.
Dave Green
Jeffrey Endres <j.en...@student.qut.edu.au> wrote:
: In my opinion, it is excessive card rulings that make this game less
: interesting for new players. If players just followed card text with a
: bit of common sense, the game _is_ playable, and perhaps more enjoyable.
: I don't know if it is only local or not, but in Australia we have a
: saying, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it.". (Say it out the corner of
: your mouth, so the flys don't get in.:-)
I agree. It's kind of hard to interest people in playing when
you have to say: Here's a pretty easy deck I built to get you
started, a rulebook which has most of the basic rules for the
game, and a 100 page book describing how you can or can't use
certain cards, how they are printed wrong, how some people
decided to change the cards, and which rules in the booklet are
totally wrong. I certainly wouldn't have started to play with
that kind of incentive. As you say, the rules and cards work
quite well together if you use a little common sense.
: > This deck doesn't seem too scary: A crypt with a "few" big guys and
: > the rest weenies would be subject to a large helping of chance.
: Not really, 4 large vamps in a crypt of twelve, it is quite likely to
: get at least one in the opening four, or at least as the next one.
I have an Assamite/weenie auspex deck which works quite well in
this setup. There are 5 or 6 big Assamites (some duplicates)
and another dozen or so weenies with auspex in some form (1's,
2's, and 3's). It works quite well, and if you get four
weenies at the start, well they all come out, provide a nice
defence, and get a pool factory started to help the big guys
along. I'd say the worst helping of chance involved is in
getting 3 or 4 of the big guys to start the game, not in
lacking them.
-Dave Green
LSJ (VtES Rep)
Jeffrey Endres wrote:
> Is there a kill-file on me or something? Anyway here I go again;
I remember replying to this, but dejanews doesn't have anything from
me since the 2nd of this month. Odd. Am I getting out to anybody?
If anybody has the long version of my original reply, please re-post
it for me. Thanks.
> I have a problem with one of the rulings in the Terminology section,
> namely:
>
> "During phase X, do Y" limits Y to once per phase X. [LSJ 970625] :T03:
>
> This is a bit of a hack ruling, because of this you have had to say
> Nephandus and Succubus Club are special cases while Shadow Court Satyr
> follows this ruling.
Neither Nephandus nor Succubus Club are special cases. They do not
fit the template being ruled on.
> Are there any other cards you have had to say, "No, this doesn't follow
> this terminology..." like Nephandus and Succubus Club.
No. Although Tremere Convocation has had errata issued on it to change
it's text so that it no longer fits the template.
> This ruling for Shadow Court Satyr is almost directly against what the
> card states. If the effect was once per combat it would be explicitly
> stated on the card.
Try this: Put a 50 cent coupon from your hand on Joe. During lunch
break, Joe can get a free soda as if you had paid 50 cents.
Now, how many sodas can Joe get during a single lunch break?
> Those of you that think this card is broken otherwise, I can think of
> worse combos than a Shadow Court Satyr with Skin of Rock...
This ruling is not in response to any perceived brokeness in any
other interpretation. It is in response to the way the RT feels
the card text operates.
> How is this ruling justified and who decided upon it? One person makes
> an overall terminology ruling that currently effects 3 cards and 2 of
> which have to have special counter rulings????
This comes from the RT. It is justified because it is uniform.
Check PB: Chicago.
> ----
> Another ruling that I initially thought was pretty cool, but am now
> beginning to have second thoughts about is the one concerning Mask of
> 1000 Faces.
>
> Skill requirements should be met, to rule otherwise is illogical. If I
> am pretending to be someone with presence doesn't mean I can charm a
> crowd with my Bewitching Oration unless I too have presence, or just
> because I am pretending to be someone with fortitude doesn't mean I can
> do a Force of Will... (In fact how would you rule on this, is being a
> tapped minion a "type of minion" requirement? Would the original vamp
> untap ala Freak Drive?)
You are not alone in this sentiment. I'll pass it along to the RT (again).
> A weenie obf, deck with a few guys with superior presence, or dom would
> be nasty. Have the big guys do the bleeds at +whatever bleed and
> +whatever stealth and then the little 2 blood vamp takes over, untapping
> the big guy to do it again. Archon Investigation is a lot less scary.
>
> Is this really the effect wanted from Mask? I can see the logic in not
> being effected by minion type, but skill requirements???
This deck doesn't seem too scary: A crypt with a "few" big guys and
the rest weenies would be subject to a large helping of chance.
Plus, the ratio of Masks to stealth and bleed cards would be difficult
to balance (preventing a clog of Masks or other stealth cards while
keeping enough Masks and Bleeds in your hand to make it work).
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
LSJ (VtES Rep)
Jeffrey Endres wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Jeffrey Endres wrote:
> > > I have a problem with one of the rulings in the Terminology section,
> > > namely:
> > >
> > > "During phase X, do Y" limits Y to once per phase X. [LSJ 970625] :T03:
> > >
> > > This is a bit of a hack ruling, because of this you have had to say
> > > Nephandus and Succubus Club are special cases while Shadow Court Satyr
> > > follows this ruling.
> >
> > Neither Nephandus nor Succubus Club are special cases. They do not
> > fit the template being ruled on.
>
> Why are there references to this terminology then?
Because the ruling was mis-applied by some to cards that didn't fit
the template. So a clarifying statement was added to some cards saying
basically "the card functions as printed". Adding such statements to
the list could lead to some people questioning why the statement was
added when it is obvious, so it was linked (footnoted) to the ruling
that led to the statement. Obviously, this leads to its own problems,
which I did not foresee.
> > > This ruling for Shadow Court Satyr is almost directly against what the
> > > card states. If the effect was once per combat it would be explicitly
> > > stated on the card.
> >
> > Try this: Put a 50 cent coupon from your hand on Joe. During lunch
> > break, Joe can get a free soda as if you had paid 50 cents.
> >
> > Now, how many sodas can Joe get during a single lunch break?
>
> There is one difference here, you use the singular, "a free soda" this
> would limit Joe to one drink only.
Satyr uses the singular "that card" and "the ability". No difference.
> If Joe could use the ability of the
> coupon, ie. get a free drink, he could get as many as he wanted,
> provided he was not required to redeem the coupon.
>
> Another food example: a bakery in the city near my campus is offering a
> free muffin for students with every purchase if they present their
> student card. There is no minimum requirement on the amount spent or
> time between purchases, so in theory I could go and buy 6 bagels and get
> 6 muffins (I would feel greedy doing this though).
>
> Having my student card is analogous to having a combat card put on me.
> :) The ability of that card is to get a free muffin with every purchase.
That is a "During Purchase, Get a muffin" effect. You only get one
muffin per bagel purchase.
> The cost of a combat card is analogous to the cost of purchasing
> something from the bakery.
It could be analogous, but it isn't.
Try this: put a Skin of Rock in your hand. Put a bunch of other cards
(not Skin of Rock) in your library and in the other slots in your
hand.
Now, in combat, play the Skin of Rock.
How many times can you use it?
Satyr can use the ability of that card in the same way (card text).
> There was no reference to the RT just you or just a reference to the
> terminology section.
All of my rulings either come from the RT, follow by card text, or
are marked with a "(*)". I am not empowered to make a ruling such as
the terminology ruling. I am listed in the credit bracket for the
ruling because it didn't come in a RTR.
> Re: PB: Chicago. There is an explicit singular. "you may move 1 blood".
> There is no singular in the text for Shadow Court Satyr.
Every reference to the card on Satyr and to its effect is singular.
Compare Blood of Acid.
> Re: Tremere Convocation. Another card where a ruling is required
> unnecessarily, (except for the vampire to Tremere change) because of the
> terminology ruling.
The ruling isn't really "required". Tremere Convocation could have been
left to the effect of its card text. But that isn't what was intended.
So errata was issued to make card text conform to the intended effect
of the card.
> Re: Lambach. What, he can only do his built in Wolf's Claws once a
> combat???? This is stupid, when compared to other specials for large
> vamps.
Debatable.
> So lets check the score; 6 cards related to the terminology ruling, 3
> have been counter ruled basically, 3 follow the terminology.
Official Score:
1 card errataed (Tremere Convocation).
2 cards don't work the way a few people thought they would (Lambach
and Satyr).
20+ cards work as intended (all HGs, Blood Doll, most PB, etc.)
> By my argument, these could be fixed with _two_ rulings, put a "once
> during combat" for Shadow Court Satyr, and Lambach if that is what you
> want.
The "Once During Combat" already exists as a clarifying statement
(aka "ruling") for the template. This covers both Satyr and Lambach
and all the rest of the cards (HG, PB, etc.) that fit the template.
> In my opinion, it is excessive card rulings that make this game less
> interesting for new players. If players just followed card text with a
> bit of common sense, the game _is_ playable, and perhaps more enjoyable.
"During X, Do Y means once during X" is not a card ruling.
It is a generl ruling designed to reduce the number of card-specfic
rulings needed.
If you like, I can delete all of the card-specific clarifications
that went along with this ruling. Reducing the redundancy would
decrease the size of the lists.
> I don't know if it is only local or not, but in Australia we have a
> saying, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it.". (Say it out the corner of
> your mouth, so the flys don't get in.:-)
It wasn't fixed. It worked to begin with. The terminology ruling
changed nothing in the official way of things - it just removed the
ambiguity from the english phrasing. In doing this, it changes the
way some people play (i.e., removes the misconception that has
led some players to play the cards incorrectly).
James Coupe
In article <5vjhnp$7...@news.wizards.com>, "LSJ (VtES Rep)"
<vte...@wizards.com> writes
>> ----
>> Another ruling that I initially thought was pretty cool, but am now
>> beginning to have second thoughts about is the one concerning Mask of
>> 1000 Faces.
>>
>> Skill requirements should be met, to rule otherwise is illogical. If I
>> am pretending to be someone with presence doesn't mean I can charm a
>> crowd with my Bewitching Oration unless I too have presence, or just
>> because I am pretending to be someone with fortitude doesn't mean I can
>> do a Force of Will... (In fact how would you rule on this, is being a
>> tapped minion a "type of minion" requirement? Would the original vamp
>> untap ala Freak Drive?)
>
>You are not alone in this sentiment. I'll pass it along to the RT (again).
Personally, I think *all* text on the card should be met - it makes life
far easier. This would mean all disciplines required, tapped/untapped,
clan, capacity, equipment or whatever else is introduced as new cards.
If a minion couldn't do that action anyway, looking like someone else
isn't going to help. Arika could call Wrath of the Inner Circle partly
because of who she is but also because of her political prowess from
disciplines like Dominate, Presence etc and also her own skills and
knowledge. Dimple, on the other hand, would have neither the position
of political power, the knowledge of procedures used in convening a
meeting of the Inner Circle, the power and influence to carry it off and
so on.
I believe there is errata to the effect of "If equipment is required for
this action and you don't have it at the end of the action, the action
fizzles" or whatever (say, you did something silly like used Heidelburg
to pull the Changeling Skin Mask off the person doing night moves - I
can't think of a proper example. SUGGESTIONS? Yes, that was meant to be
capitalised to get your attention). Surely, once you've unmasked
yourself you're not going to be able to pull it off unless you could
pull it off anyway. (Obviously, if you don't play Mask, it wasn't the
other vamp doing it).
Equipment only applies while in possession. If needed for an action,
the
action will fizzle if the acting minion doesn't possess the
equipment when
the action resolves. [RTR] :E01:
Personally, I think it would probably be best if the criteria for an
action were checked when performing the action (ie if I perform an equip
Femur of Toomler action, I have to be a Tzimisce when the action starts)
but also when the action finishes. It seems pretty bizarre otherwise.
Of course, such a check is redundant in every case except mask since the
capabilities of a vampire are very unlikely (can think of no examples)
to change during the performing of an action with one minion.
--
James Coupe (remove .nospam to reply by e-mail)
If you find you are falling into madness - dive
James Coupe
In article <5vjkcd$7...@news.wizards.com>, "LSJ (VtES Rep)"
<vte...@wizards.com> writes
>> So lets check the score; 6 cards related to the terminology ruling, 3
>> have been counter ruled basically, 3 follow the terminology.
>
>Official Score:
>1 card errataed (Tremere Convocation).
>2 cards don't work the way a few people thought they would (Lambach
>and Satyr).
>20+ cards work as intended (all HGs, Blood Doll, most PB, etc.)
How does this effect a few cards - Spwaning Pool, Wasserschloss Anif,
Heartblood of the Clan. Could you deal with each separately quoting the
necessary card texts? Thanx.
LSJ (VtES Rep)
> >1 card errataed (Tremere Convocation).
> >2 cards don't work the way a few people thought they would (Lambach
> >and Satyr).
> >20+ cards work as intended (all HGs, Blood Doll, most PB, etc.)
>
> Heartblood of the Clan. Could you deal with each separately quoting the
> necessary card texts? Thanx.
---
Spawning Pool, The
During your untap phase, you may move 1 blood from a ready Nosferatu
you control to this card. If a minion you control successfully blocks
a bleed against you and a second round of combat begins, tap this
card to inflict 1 damage to the acting minion for each blood on the
Spawning Pool. This damage cannot be prevented.
"During X, you {can} do Y".
X: your untap phase
Y: move 1 blood from a Ready Nos. to the Spawning Pool.
So, you can only move one blood to the Spawning Pool on each of your
untaps, no matter how many ready Nos. you have.
---
Wasserschloss Anif, Austria
During your master phase, you may move 1 blood from any Tremere you
control to this card. During your influence phase, you may tap this
card to move all counters on this card to a Tremere in your inactive
region. This card may be burned by any minion as a (D) action;
Malkavians get +1 stealth when attempting that action. If this card
is burned, all of the blood on it is lost.
"During X, you {can} do Y".
X: your master phase
Y: move 1 blood from any Tremere to Wass. Anif
So, you can only move one blood to Wass. Anif on each of your Master
phases, no matter how many Tremere you have.
---
Heartblood of the Clan
Any Assamite may take an action to move one blood from the blood
bank to this card. During your influence phase, you may move any
amount of blood from this card to any Assamite in your uncontrolled
region.
"During X, you {can} do Y"
X: your influence phase
Y: move any amount of blood from Heartblood to any unc. Assamite
So, you can move any amount of blood from Heartblood to an uncontrolled
Assamite only once during each influence phase, no matter how many
uncontrolled Assamites you have.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
ber...@cco.caltech.edu
> Wasserschloss Anif, Austria
> During your master phase, you may move 1 blood from any Tremere you
> control to this card. During your influence phase, you may tap this
> card to move all counters on this card to a Tremere in your inactive
> region. This card may be burned by any minion as a (D) action;
> Malkavians get +1 stealth when attempting that action. If this card
> is burned, all of the blood on it is lost.
>
> "During X, you {can} do Y".
> X: your master phase
> Y: move 1 blood from any Tremere to Wass. Anif
>
> So, you can only move one blood to Wass. Anif on each of your Master
> phases, no matter how many Tremere you have.
>
Well, this is the way I would normally read this card, but this makes it
completely inferior to Arcane Library.
However, Tremere is also plural. So if you read it as:
During your master phase you may move 1 blood from any ready Tremere(s)
you control to Wasserschloss Anif.
Then, I think you could move as much blood as you want, as long as you do
it at one time. To make this more clear, think of it as...
During your master phase you may move 1 blood from any ready cats you
control to Wasserschloss Anif.
In this case, I think you could move as much blood as you have cats
(Tremere). So maybe that's what it means.
X: master phase
Y: move 1 blood from any number of ready Tremere
-Chris
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jeffrey Endres
LSJ (VtES Rep) wrote:
>
> James Coupe wrote:
> > LSJ (VtES Rep) <vte...@wizards.com> writes
> > >Official Score:
> > >1 card errataed (Tremere Convocation).
> > >2 cards don't work the way a few people thought they would (Lambach
> > >and Satyr).
> > >20+ cards work as intended (all HGs, Blood Doll, most PB, etc.)
> >
> > How does this effect a few cards - Spwaning Pool, Wasserschloss Anif,
> > Heartblood of the Clan. Could you deal with each separately quoting the
> > necessary card texts? Thanx.
>
> ---
> Spawning Pool, The
> During your untap phase, you may move 1 blood from a ready Nosferatu
^^^^^^^
> you control to this card. If a minion you control successfully blocks
> a bleed against you and a second round of combat begins, tap this
> card to inflict 1 damage to the acting minion for each blood on the
> Spawning Pool. This damage cannot be prevented.
>
> "During X, you {can} do Y".
> X: your untap phase
> Y: move 1 blood from a Ready Nos. to the Spawning Pool.
>
> So, you can only move one blood to the Spawning Pool on each of your
> untaps, no matter how many ready Nos. you have.
>
> ---
> Wasserschloss Anif, Austria
> During your master phase, you may move 1 blood from any Tremere you
^^^^^^^
> control to this card. During your influence phase, you may tap this
> card to move all counters on this card to a Tremere in your inactive
> region. This card may be burned by any minion as a (D) action;
> Malkavians get +1 stealth when attempting that action. If this card
> is burned, all of the blood on it is lost.
>
> "During X, you {can} do Y".
> X: your master phase
> Y: move 1 blood from any Tremere to Wass. Anif
>
> So, you can only move one blood to Wass. Anif on each of your Master
> phases, no matter how many Tremere you have.
Arguments about Tremere being plural don't have much basis since you are
limited to one blood anyway.
>
> ---
> Heartblood of the Clan
> Any Assamite may take an action to move one blood from the blood
^^^^^^^^^
> bank to this card. During your influence phase, you may move any
> amount of blood from this card to any Assamite in your uncontrolled
> region.
Note "any Assamite" is singular implying one transfer, while "any
Assamites" would be plural and imply multiple transfers.
**The equivalent plural for Tremere would be "any of the Tremere".
>
> "During X, you {can} do Y"
> X: your influence phase
> Y: move any amount of blood from Heartblood to any unc. Assamite
>
> So, you can move any amount of blood from Heartblood to an uncontrolled
> Assamite only once during each influence phase, no matter how many
> uncontrolled Assamites you have.
>
As can be seen, all have limits, "one blood", "one pool" or "any
amount"...
The once per phase ruling is unnecessary and although it usually makes
sense it is sometimes counter to what is on the text.
During the daytime, you can jump in the air.
(I kind of like this one.) This is easy to understand, the action is
limited by daytime only, not by the number of times you can do it.
Once during the daytime, you can jump in the air.
Limited by daytime and number of times, once.
During the daytime, you can eat one biscuit.
Limited by daytime and number of times, once. I don't need to say:
Once during the daytime, you can eat one biscuit.
This obviously sounds silly, and is unnecessary repetition. Just like
the ruling.
Jeffrey Endres
LSJ (VtES Rep) wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Endres wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Jeffrey Endres wrote:
> > > > I have a problem with one of the rulings in the Terminology section,
> > > > namely:
> > > >
> > > > "During phase X, do Y" limits Y to once per phase X. [LSJ 970625] :T03:
> > > >
[clip factor max]
> > > Try this: Put a 50 cent coupon from your hand on Joe. During lunch
> > > break, Joe can get a free soda as if you had paid 50 cents.
> > >
> > > Now, how many sodas can Joe get during a single lunch break?
> >
> > There is one difference here, you use the singular, "a free soda" this
> > would limit Joe to one drink only.
>
> Satyr uses the singular "that card" and "the ability". No difference.
No these _are_ different. They do not imply a limit. If I say "during
the day, you can jump up in the air" it does not imply you can only do
this once a day. "the air" is not singular and implies no limit, this
is "the ability" part. "You" _is_ singular but implies no limit, this is
"that card" part.
The only limit is the "during the day" part.
[snip]
>
> > Having my student card is analogous to having a combat card put on me.
> > :) The ability of that card is to get a free muffin with every purchase.
>
> That is a "During Purchase, Get a muffin" effect. You only get one
> muffin per bagel purchase.
Yes, this perhaps wasn't so good as I used a singular "a muffin".
>
> > The cost of a combat card is analogous to the cost of purchasing
> > something from the bakery.
>
> It could be analogous, but it isn't.
>
> Try this: put a Skin of Rock in your hand. Put a bunch of other cards
> (not Skin of Rock) in your library and in the other slots in your
> hand.
>
> Now, in combat, play the Skin of Rock.
>
> How many times can you use it?
>
> Satyr can use the ability of that card in the same way (card text).
So you claim the cost also lies in the playing of the card, and that
Satyr doesn't get the card's ability, this would imply loosing the card
to the ash heap, (unless the card was a permenant(ugh sounds Magicky),
can't think of any permenant combat cards though...).
The "as if" is a let's pretend thing. Fall down to the ground as if I
punched you. (No real hostility here btw.:-) This is more for
clarification in my opinion.
[snip again]
My main argument is not about Satyr, but rather about unneccessary
rulings. If Satyr is meant to imply once, then it should say once or
have a limit in the text. The current text does not therefore without
the terminology ruling it would mean multiple times (this statement
makes a nice debate though).
>
> > Re: PB: Chicago. There is an explicit singular. "you may move 1 blood".
> > There is no singular in the text for Shadow Court Satyr.
>
> Every reference to the card on Satyr and to its effect is singular.
See "jump in the air" example.
>
> Compare Blood of Acid.
>
> > Re: Tremere Convocation. Another card where a ruling is required
> > unnecessarily, (except for the vampire to Tremere change) because of the
> > terminology ruling.
>
> The ruling isn't really "required". Tremere Convocation could have been
> left to the effect of its card text. But that isn't what was intended.
> So errata was issued to make card text conform to the intended effect
> of the card.
It is required to keep the card performing as writen, this is my
argument against the terminology.
>
> > Re: Lambach. What, he can only do his built in Wolf's Claws once a
> > combat???? This is stupid, when compared to other specials for large
> > vamps.
>
> Debatable.
See "jump in the air", during combat sets the limit on when he can burn
the blood, not the number of times. That is without the terminology
ruling....
>
> > So lets check the score; 6 cards related to the terminology ruling, 3
> > have been counter ruled basically, 3 follow the terminology.
>
> Official Score:
> 1 card errataed (Tremere Convocation).
> 2 cards don't work the way a few people thought they would (Lambach
> and Satyr).
> 20+ cards work as intended (all HGs, Blood Doll, most PB, etc.)
Tremere needed to be errated to change vampires to Tremere vamps.
Ok, two cards don't work the way they readand so need clarifications. Is
this good enough? Why do these cards need to be changed? It makes
learning the game more difficult if you have to remember what a card
_really_ says rather than just reading them.
The other cards you talk about, have limits in the text, "1 blood", "1
pool" etc.
>
> > By my argument, these could be fixed with _two_ rulings, put a "once
> > during combat" for Shadow Court Satyr, and Lambach if that is what you
> > want.
>
> The "Once During Combat" already exists as a clarifying statement
> (aka "ruling") for the template. This covers both Satyr and Lambach
> and all the rest of the cards (HG, PB, etc.) that fit the template.
>
> > In my opinion, it is excessive card rulings that make this game less
> > interesting for new players. If players just followed card text with a
> > bit of common sense, the game _is_ playable, and perhaps more enjoyable.
>
> "During X, Do Y means once during X" is not a card ruling.
> It is a generl ruling designed to reduce the number of card-specfic
> rulings needed.
A general ruling that leads to specific rulings unnecessarily.
>
> If you like, I can delete all of the card-specific clarifications
> that went along with this ruling. Reducing the redundancy would
> decrease the size of the lists.
>
> > I don't know if it is only local or not, but in Australia we have a
> > saying, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it.". (Say it out the corner of
> > your mouth, so the flys don't get in.:-)
>
> It wasn't fixed. It worked to begin with. The terminology ruling
> changed nothing in the official way of things - it just removed the
> ambiguity from the english phrasing. In doing this, it changes the
> way some people play (i.e., removes the misconception that has
> led some players to play the cards incorrectly).
>
It wasn't fixed? But there are rulings on this issue. Yes it did work to
begin with that is my point.
LSJ
> > control to this card. During your influence phase, you may tap this
> > card to move all counters on this card to a Tremere in your inactive
> > region. This card may be burned by any minion as a (D) action;
> > Malkavians get +1 stealth when attempting that action. If this card
> > is burned, all of the blood on it is lost.
> >
> > "During X, you {can} do Y".
> > X: your master phase
> > Y: move 1 blood from any Tremere to Wass. Anif
> >
> > So, you can only move one blood to Wass. Anif on each of your Master
> > phases, no matter how many Tremere you have.
> >
> completely inferior to Arcane Library.
No. Arcane Library does not allow you to save up blood to
transfer to a Tremere. (i.e., Wass. Anif allows you to delay
choosing which Tremere benefits from the transfers - even allowing
the transfers to ultimately be made to a Tremere who wan't
even in your uncontrolled region at the time the blood was placed
on Wass. Anif).
> However, Tremere is also plural. So if you read it as:
>
> During your master phase you may move 1 blood from any ready Tremere(s)
> you control to Wasserschloss Anif.
>
> Then, I think you could move as much blood as you want, as long as you
do
> it at one time. To make this more clear, think of it as...
>
> During your master phase you may move 1 blood from any ready cats you
> control to Wasserschloss Anif.
>
> In this case, I think you could move as much blood as you have cats
> (Tremere). So maybe that's what it means.
No, in this case you can still only move one blood (card text).
That the text indicates that the one blood could come from more
than one cat violates the logistics of blood movement should
indicate to the reader that this is not a correct parallel.
> X: master phase
> Y: move 1 blood from any number of ready Tremere
For it to work the way you want it to, it would need errata
changing the "any Tremere" to "any number of Tremere" (or more
correctly: "1 blood from each of as many of your Tremere as
you choose"). Such errata hasn't been (and won't be) issued.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
LSJ
In article <341F57...@student.qut.edu.au>,
Jeffrey Endres <j.en...@student.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> LSJ (VtES Rep) wrote:
> > > > > "During phase X, do Y" limits Y to once per phase X. [LSJ 970625]
>
> No these _are_ different. They do not imply a limit. If I say "during
> the day, you can jump up in the air" it does not imply you can only do
> this once a day.
> "the air" is not singular and implies no limit, this
> is "the ability" part. "You" _is_ singular but implies no limit, this is
> "that card" part.
No, the "You can jump" is the "Satyr may use" part. "up in the air" is a
prepositional phrase that has no equivalent in Satyr's card text
decribing where you can jump.
Likewise, the "the ability of that card" has no equivalent in your
example.
>
> The only limit is the "during the day" part.
Fine. But this has no parallel in any card text.
All of the cards have singular words, whereas your example (as you note)
does not (except for the subject: "you" or "Satyr").
> > > Having my student card is analogous to having a combat card put on me.
> > > :) The ability of that card is to get a free muffin with every purchase.
> >
> > That is a "During Purchase, Get a muffin" effect. You only get one
> > muffin per bagel purchase.
>
> Yes, this perhaps wasn't so good as I used a singular "a muffin".
And Satyr uses a singular "effect" and singular "card".
> > Try this: put a Skin of Rock in your hand. Put a bunch of other cards
> > (not Skin of Rock) in your library and in the other slots in your
> > hand.
> >
> > Now, in combat, play the Skin of Rock.
> >
> > How many times can you use it?
> >
> > Satyr can use the ability of that card in the same way (card text).
>
> So you claim the cost also lies in the playing of the card, and that
> Satyr doesn't get the card's ability, this would imply loosing the card
> to the ash heap, (unless the card was a permenant(ugh sounds Magicky),
> can't think of any permenant combat cards though...).
No. I claim that card text on the Satyr specifically parallels the effect
of playing the card which is on him.
> The "as if" is a let's pretend thing. Fall down to the ground as if I
> punched you. (No real hostility here btw.:-) This is more for
> clarification in my opinion.
Yes, it clarifies the way in which Satyr uses the effect of the card.
This clarification also yields a singular use of the card's effect.
(And I only fall once. :-)
> My main argument is not about Satyr, but rather about unneccessary
> rulings. If Satyr is meant to imply once, then it should say once or
> have a limit in the text. The current text does not
It does. The limit is implicit in the template.
> therefore without
> the terminology ruling it would mean multiple times (this statement
> makes a nice debate though).
It *could* mean multiple times without the ruling.
The ruling removes the ambiguity.
It does so in a way consistenet with the rest of the cards which
have similar texts.
> > > Re: PB: Chicago. There is an explicit singular. "you may move 1 blood".
> > > There is no singular in the text for Shadow Court Satyr.
> >
> > Every reference to the card on Satyr and to its effect is singular.
>
> See "jump in the air" example.
If you want card text to allow you to be able to jump in the air more
than once, then PB card text you would have to be able to move blood
from the PB to your pool more than once.
That is obviously not the way it works, and the behind-the-scenes
reason why you can't move blood more than once is the way "during X,
do Y" works in the game.
> > Compare Blood of Acid.
No response here?
> > > Re: Tremere Convocation. Another card where a ruling is required
> > > unnecessarily, (except for the vampire to Tremere change) because of the
> > > terminology ruling.
Sorry I missed this the first time around:
Tremere Convocation's errata does not change "vampire" to "Tremere".
It only changes the template from the "once during combat" template to
the "any time during combat" template.
> >
> > The ruling isn't really "required". Tremere Convocation could have been
> > left to the effect of its card text. But that isn't what was intended.
> > So errata was issued to make card text conform to the intended effect
> > of the card.
>
> It is required to keep the card performing as writen, this is my
> argument against the terminology.
As written, it allows the Tremere with inferior Thaumturgy only one use
of a superior Thaumaturgy card. This was not the intended effect, so the
text was changed with official (RTR) errata.
> > > Re: Lambach. What, he can only do his built in Wolf's Claws once a
> > > combat???? This is stupid, when compared to other specials for large
> > > vamps.
> >
> > Debatable.
>
> See "jump in the air", during combat sets the limit on when he can burn
> the blood, not the number of times. That is without the terminology
> ruling....
No, I mean the statement that preceded my "debatable" remark is debatable.
The debatable statement is "This is stupid..." (such statement are almost
always debatable).
> > > So lets check the score; 6 cards related to the terminology ruling, 3
> > > have been counter ruled basically, 3 follow the terminology.
> >
> > Official Score:
> > 1 card errataed (Tremere Convocation).
> > 2 cards don't work the way a few people thought they would (Lambach
> > and Satyr).
> > 20+ cards work as intended (all HGs, Blood Doll, most PB, etc.)
>
> Tremere needed to be errated to change vampires to Tremere vamps.
No, it didn't. And even if it did, this could not be attributed to the
ruling in question by any stretch of the imagination.
> Ok, two cards don't work the way they read and so need clarifications.
They do work the way they read - just not the way you read them.
> Is this good enough? Why do these cards need to be changed?
They are not being changed. The mis-reading of the card text is being
corrected.
> It makes
> learning the game more difficult if you have to remember what a card
> _really_ says rather than just reading them.
>
> The other cards you talk about, have limits in the text, "1 blood", "1
> pool" etc.
"Move 1 blood." vs. "use the ability"
If you can use the ability more than once during the time specified,
then what stops you from moving a blood more than once?
(A: nothing)
> > > In my opinion, it is excessive card rulings that make this game less
> > > interesting for new players. If players just followed card text with a
> > > bit of common sense, the game _is_ playable, and perhaps more enjoyable.
> >
> > "During X, Do Y means once during X" is not a card ruling.
> > It is a generl ruling designed to reduce the number of card-specfic
> > rulings needed.
>
> A general ruling that leads to specific rulings unnecessarily.
It doesn't lead to specific rulings. Players will always ask about
specific cases even when they are told the general rule. Regardless
of what the general rule is. General rules are still prefered over
card-specific rules, which is what you want for Satyr (and Lambach).
> > > I don't know if it is only local or not, but in Australia we have a
> > > saying, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it.". (Say it out the corner of
> > > your mouth, so the flys don't get in.:-)
> >
> > It wasn't fixed. It worked to begin with. The terminology ruling
> > changed nothing in the official way of things - it just removed the
> > ambiguity from the english phrasing. In doing this, it changes the
> > way some people play (i.e., removes the misconception that has
> > led some players to play the cards incorrectly).
>
> It wasn't fixed? But there are rulings on this issue. Yes it did work to
> begin with that is my point.
The ruling that you can't play Bonding on a non-bleed action didn't "fix"
Bonding - Bonding wasn't broken. It corrected some players' attempts to
use the card in a manner that they felt was consistent with card text but
which violated a general rule (you can't play bleed modifiers on a
non-bleed action).
By your logic, playing Bonding on a non bleed action is an example of
the card "working" to begin with, before the RT "fixed" it.
-------
Unless new points are brought up, I will no longer be participating in
this thread. Bottom line: the rule from the RT stands, is a good rule in
my opinion, breaks nothing, and I can't change it even if I would want to.
As always, I'm happy to explain the rulings, and the reasons behind the
rulings. And I'll continue to address any concerns players have on the
effects of a ruling.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Jeffrey Endres
LSJ wrote:
>
> In article <341F57...@student.qut.edu.au>,
> Jeffrey Endres <j.en...@student.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> > LSJ (VtES Rep) wrote:
> > > > > > "During phase X, do Y" limits Y to once per phase X. [LSJ 970625]
> > > Satyr uses the singular "that card" and "the ability". No difference.
> >
> > No these _are_ different. They do not imply a limit. If I say "during
> > the day, you can jump up in the air" it does not imply you can only do
> > this once a day.
> > "the air" is not singular and implies no limit, this
> > is "the ability" part. "You" _is_ singular but implies no limit, this is
> > "that card" part.
>
> No, the "You can jump" is the "Satyr may use" part. "up in the air" is a
> prepositional phrase that has no equivalent in Satyr's card text
> decribing where you can jump.
>
> Likewise, the "the ability of that card" has no equivalent in your
> example.
My short example has a two parts; a time-limit, and what can happen
during that time.
The template you fit Satyr into has two parts, a time-limit and what can
happen during that time limit.
My example is to illustrate that
"During phase X, you may do Y" does not imply a limit on the number of
times you may do Y, only the limit on _when_ you may do Y.
Perhaps you read the terminology:
"During phase X, do Y" And yes this does imply doing Y once.
Here is the opening in defense, but neither the Satyr, PB Chicago or any
other of the cards discussed use _this_ "template". All have "you _may_
do Y".
My argument is that without the ruling, the game could be played in the
same way. Since most of the cards that "fit" this template have limits
implied which are fairly obvious to most people.
> > The only limit is the "during the day" part.
>
> Fine. But this has no parallel in any card text.
> All of the cards have singular words, whereas your example (as you note)
> does not (except for the subject: "you" or "Satyr").
"During combat, Satyr may use the ability of that card as if that card
had been played from your hand."
Well of course "that card" is singular, as there is only one card
played on the Satyr...And "the ability" is singular as the card only
has one ability. These are refering to something, but place no limit on
the number of times it can be used.
These have no value in your argument.
However, the "if that card had been played from your hand" _might_ imply
a limit, but is used in a context of clarification. There is no limit
to the number of times you can play cards from your hand in combat.
(Except with Thoughts Betrayed)
You would argue that you can only play "that card" once, but as I have
said, playing a card also means discarding, and I am sure that this does
not occur with Satyr. Does it?
The need for this clarification becomes obvious with cards like,
"thought's betrayed". Since using the ability is equivalent to playing
a card, by this clarification, then you would not be able to use the
Satyr's ability if thoughts betrayed is played.
> > > Try this: put a Skin of Rock in your hand. Put a bunch of other cards
> > > (not Skin of Rock) in your library and in the other slots in your
> > > hand.
> > >
> > > Now, in combat, play the Skin of Rock.
> > >
> > > How many times can you use it?
> > >
> > > Satyr can use the ability of that card in the same way (card text).
> >
> > So you claim the cost also lies in the playing of the card, and that
> > Satyr doesn't get the card's ability, this would imply loosing the card
> > to the ash heap, (unless the card was a permenant(ugh sounds Magicky),
> > can't think of any permenant combat cards though...).
>
> No. I claim that card text on the Satyr specifically parallels the effect
> of playing the card which is on him.
>
> > The "as if" is a let's pretend thing. Fall down to the ground as if I
> > punched you. (No real hostility here btw.:-) This is more for
> > clarification in my opinion.
>
> Yes, it clarifies the way in which Satyr uses the effect of the card.
> This clarification also yields a singular use of the card's effect.
So you agree that it is for clarification on how to treat the use of the
ability. You have still failed to argue how this provides a limit.
> > My main argument is not about Satyr, but rather about unneccessary
> > rulings. If Satyr is meant to imply once, then it should say once or
> > have a limit in the text. The current text does not
>
> It does. The limit is implicit in the template.
Not only was my statement made in the context of there not being the
ruling, but the idea that the card fits the "template" is under debate.
Please do not cut my sentences in half...
>
> > therefore without
> > the terminology ruling it would mean multiple times (this statement
> > makes a nice debate though).
>
> It *could* mean multiple times without the ruling.
> The ruling removes the ambiguity.
> It does so in a way consistenet with the rest of the cards which
> have similar texts.
> > > > Re: PB: Chicago. There is an explicit singular. "you may move 1 blood".
> > > > There is no singular in the text for Shadow Court Satyr.
> > >
> > > Every reference to the card on Satyr and to its effect is singular.
> >
> > See "jump in the air" example.
>
> If you want card text to allow you to be able to jump in the air more
> than once, then PB card text you would have to be able to move blood
> from the PB to your pool more than once.
No, if you move two lots of 1 blood you have moved 2 blood. The card
says you can move 1 blood.
> That is obviously not the way it works, and the behind-the-scenes
> reason why you can't move blood more than once is the way "during X,
> do Y" works in the game.
>
> > > Compare Blood of Acid.
>
> No response here?
Compare Blood of Acid to what and in what way? Well, it doesn't taste
as good as eggs and bacon in the morning but I am sure it is better for
you...
> > > > Re: Tremere Convocation. Another card where a ruling is required
> > > > unnecessarily, (except for the vampire to Tremere change) because of the
> > > > terminology ruling.
>
> Sorry I missed this the first time around:
> Tremere Convocation's errata does not change "vampire" to "Tremere".
Ah sorry, I misread the ruling.
> It only changes the template from the "once during combat" template to
> the "any time during combat" template.
"During combat, vampires with basic Thaumaturgy may use
Thaumaturgy combat cards at the superior level."
This has poor correlation with the "template" (Ooh, that sounds too
"engineering-ish"...) Read by itself, it does not have a limit on the
number of times the cards can be played.
Errata:
"Vampires with basic Thaumaturgy may play combat cards requiring
Thaumaturgy as if they had superior Thaumaturgy."
This by itself, says almost the same thing, (unless there was the
opportunity to play combat cards outside of combat..)
> > > The ruling isn't really "required". Tremere Convocation could have been
> > > left to the effect of its card text. But that isn't what was intended.
> > > So errata was issued to make card text conform to the intended effect
> > > of the card.
> >
> > It is required to keep the card performing as writen, this is my
> > argument against the terminology.
This one is a good example, the text by itself says clearly how to use
the card, but because of the ruling it would mean only once. (if the
template fits..)
> As written, it allows the Tremere with inferior Thaumturgy only one use
> of a superior Thaumaturgy card.
As written _and_ with the "template" ruling.
> This was not the intended effect, so the
> text was changed with official (RTR) errata.
>
Lambach
"During combat, Lambach may burn 1 blood to make his hand damage
aggravated for the current round."
Hmm, re-reading it, I would have to agree, this ability could only be
used once, but not because of the terminology ruling. He is limited to
only burning the 1 blood.
>
> The ruling that you can't play Bonding on a non-bleed action didn't "fix"
> Bonding - Bonding wasn't broken. It corrected some players' attempts to
> use the card in a manner that they felt was consistent with card text but
> which violated a general rule (you can't play bleed modifiers on a
> non-bleed action).
>
> By your logic, playing Bonding on a non bleed action is an example of
> the card "working" to begin with, before the RT "fixed" it.
>
This is fine, it does not require card text to be changed around and is
a good general ruling.
> -------
> Unless new points are brought up, I will no longer be participating in
> this thread. Bottom line: the rule from the RT stands, is a good rule in
> my opinion, breaks nothing, and I can't change it even if I would want to.
>
> As always, I'm happy to explain the rulings, and the reasons behind the
> rulings. And I'll continue to address any concerns players have on the
> effects of a ruling.
>
Fine, I am getting tired of this myself. (I didn't respond to half your
points)
Anyway, could you clarify the use of mask with force of will? I asked
this one in the original posting.
LSJ (VtES Rep)
> Compare Blood of Acid to what and in what way? Well, it doesn't taste
> as good as eggs and bacon in the morning but I am sure it is better for
> you...
:-) Compare what was being discussed to Blood of Acid.
(Blood of Acid has the "during time X" template - and
is usable only once, as I hope that even you will agree;
but you claim that that template would allow multiple uses.
Hopefully the card will help illustrate why your view is
not the official one.)
> Anyway, could you clarify the use of mask with force of will? I asked
> this one in the original posting.
Oh yeah. I answered it in the original reply (which never saw the
light of any external newsserver).
Masking a Force of WIll is perfectly acceptable.
It works just as card text allows.
(i.e., a tapped minion with fortitude take the FoW action,
an untapped minion with obfuscate plays Mask - tapping
himself while untapping the first minion.)
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
salem....
> (Blood of Acid has the "during time X" template - and
> is usable only once, as I hope that even you will agree;
> but you claim that that template would allow multiple uses.
> Hopefully the card will help illustrate why your view is
> not the official one.)
what???????????? nooooooooooo..........you told me blood of acid was
cumulative last time i asked......erm..maybe it still is...umm...now i
am confused.....if i play 3 bloods of acid, and strike hands for one,
and opposing minion strikes hands for one....the opposing minion takes
how much damage?
or do you mean by "during time X" template it only works for one strike
res. phase? or what?
help......
salem....
LSJ (VtES Rep)
Blood of Acid has the "During time X, do Y" template.
X: strike resolution
Y: minion takes a matching amount of damage
The template means that this Y can only happen once per X.
So the minion can only be dealt matching damage once each
strike resolution.
But this says nothing about how multiple Blood of Acids act
(each acts independently of the others, so can be said to
"stack" if you care to abuse the terminology).
And it says nothing about the duration of the Blood of Acid effect
(which has been ruled to last for the entire combat - not just
one resolution).
You can't however, play one Blood of Acid, get punched for 1,
and then do "Y" [deal the amount of damage (1 damage) to the
opposing minion] as many times as you like during time "X"
[strike resolution] until your opponent runs out of blood to
heal with. The effect (inflicting matching damage) occurs only
once per "X" time unit (strike resolution).
In the same way (to tie this back to the beginning of the
thread), A Satyr with Skin of Rock cannot do "Y" [use the
effect of Skin of Rock: prevent a damage] as many times as
you like during time "X" [combat], preventing all damage
that comes your way during combat. The effect (using the
effect of the card on Satyr) occurs only once per "X" time
unit (combat).