Another question about an underused card
Jozxyqk
Only usable <when this vampire is blocked>.
Untap the blocking minion. This action is not blocked, and it is now
unblockable.
Does this translate to "Do not tap..." if the blocker had played a Wake?
Or does it actually untap a blocker who was blocking while tapped?
reyda
do not tap. =)
when an "old" card says untap the blokcing vampire, like in "elder
impersonation", it means "do not tap" =)
James Coupe
<jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> writes:
>Horrific Countenance, in its latest wording, says:
>Only usable <when this vampire is blocked>.
>Untap the blocking minion. This action is not blocked, and it is now
>unblockable.
>
>
>Does this translate to "Do not tap..." if the blocker had played a Wake?
No. It means "Untap the blocking minion."
>Or does it actually untap a blocker who was blocking while tapped?
Yes. However, a couple of similar-ish cards were rationalised to a "Do
not tap..." version, IIRC. (The many varied texts of Obedience, for
instance.)
Currently, though, you untap the blocking minion, regardless of their
tapped status when they started the block.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
reyda
> In message <M5P1a.61938$be.47854@rwcrnsc53>, Jozxyqk
> <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> writes:
>> Horrific Countenance, in its latest wording, says:
>> Only usable <when this vampire is blocked>.
>> Untap the blocking minion. This action is not blocked, and it is
>> now unblockable.
>>
>>
>> Does this translate to "Do not tap..." if the blocker had played a
>> Wake?
>
> No. It means "Untap the blocking minion."
>
>> Or does it actually untap a blocker who was blocking while tapped?
>
> Yes. However, a couple of similar-ish cards were rationalised to a
> "Do not tap..." version, IIRC. (The many varied texts of
> Obedience, for instance.)
>
> Currently, though, you untap the blocking minion, regardless of
> their tapped status when they started the block.
i'm just wondering : how so ? =)
LSJ
In the absence of errata, card text is used.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
reyda
> reyda wrote:
>>> Currently, though, you untap the blocking minion, regardless of
>>> their tapped status when they started the block.
>>
>> i'm just wondering : how so ? =)
>
> In the absence of errata, card text is used.
this is something i can understand.
But the wording is exactly the same on Horrific Countenance and on Elder
Impersonation. Why errata the latter and not the former ? =)
Why clarify one thing and let the other as it is ? =)
James Coupe
<true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>But the wording is exactly the same on Horrific Countenance and on Elder
>Impersonation.
No it's not.
Elder Impersonation was reprinted in CE with current card text.
Angus, the Unruled
> In message <3e485186$0$3394$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>, reyda
> <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >But the wording is exactly the same on Horrific Countenance and on Elder
> >Impersonation.
>
> No it's not.
>
> Elder Impersonation was reprinted in CE with current card text.
Related question:
What happens if i played a faceless nights at superior before the
elder impersonation (and/or the horrific countenance)?
reyda
> In message <3e485186$0$3394$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>,
> reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> But the wording is exactly the same on Horrific Countenance and on
>> Elder Impersonation.
>
> No it's not.
IT IS.
> Elder Impersonation was reprinted in CE with current card text.
i know ... i know... i talk about the first card text when both cards were
printed together in Ancient Hearts.
i'm sure you can be more constructive.
James Coupe
<true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> In message <3e485186$0$3394$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>,
>> reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> But the wording is exactly the same on Horrific Countenance and on
>>> Elder Impersonation.
>>
>> No it's not.
>
>IT IS.
Sorry, black is not white, no matter how many capital letters you use.
Irrespective of any previous card texts or errata, the card text has
been *changed* by the Design Team. Nor are the Design Team strictly
bound by previous errata or rulings on cards.
The card text for Elder Impersonation is not the same as the card text
for Horrific Countenance.
>> Elder Impersonation was reprinted in CE with current card text.
>
>i know ... i know... i talk about the first card text when both cards were
>printed together in Ancient Hearts.
So? The card text on Elder Impersonation is not what you say it is.
No general ruling on "untap" and "do not tap" has ever been issued.
(Consider general rulings like "During X, do Y.")
There is no ambiguity in the card text or in its play, so no rulings or
clarifications have had to be issued.
You could bring it to the attention of the Design Team, for inclusion in
The Anarchs - if the card is reprinted (I have no idea) - or to the
Rules Team, who may choose to issue errata.
However, there has been none so far, and errata for it doesn't seem to
me to be particularly high priority. Hence we play by card text.
LSJ
> Related question:
> What happens if i played a faceless nights at superior before the
> elder impersonation (and/or the horrific countenance)?
Faceless Night wins. See CE card text.
LSJ
Errata is not "clarification", BTW. It is a change.
Elder Impersonation received errata probably because it was seeing use.
Therefore, it rose to the errata threshold set at that time in history.
Horrific Countenance didn't rise to the threshold at that time, and isn't
at the threshold now, either.
reyda
> In message <3e48ca83$0$6289$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>,
> reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> James Coupe wrote:
>>> In message <3e485186$0$3394$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>,
>>> reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>> But the wording is exactly the same on Horrific Countenance and
>>>> on Elder Impersonation.
>>>
>>> No it's not.
>>
>> IT IS.
>
> Sorry, black is not white, no matter how many capital letters you
> use.
Please... Being so literate and educated, you *exactly* know what i mean.
Stop being so picky and try to answer the point instead. =)
> Irrespective of any previous card texts or errata, the card text has
> been *changed* by the Design Team. Nor are the Design Team strictly
> bound by previous errata or rulings on cards.
>
> The card text for Elder Impersonation is not the same as the card
> text for Horrific Countenance.
my guess is : it's because, and only because one has been reprinted and not
the other. I want more explanations on this matter, that's all.
>>> Elder Impersonation was reprinted in CE with current card text.
>>
>> i know ... i know... i talk about the first card text when both
>> cards were printed together in Ancient Hearts.
>
> So? The card text on Elder Impersonation is not what you say it is.
The card text on 25 out of 26 copies of elder impersonation is what i said.
When i compare this text with the one on horrid form i wonder why one has
changed and not the other.
(by the way it would be great if a fairy spell could change the text on all
my cards to the most recent one)
> No general ruling on "untap" and "do not tap" has ever been issued.
> (Consider general rulings like "During X, do Y.")
a ruling existed before the reprint of Elder impersonation. It said " do not
tap" instead of "untap" the blocker. Is it still applicable ? is it also
concerning horrid form ?
> There is no ambiguity in the card text or in its play, so no
> rulings or clarifications have had to be issued.
Why ? if there is/was no ambiguity, why has elder impersonation has been
changed ?
> You could bring it to the attention of the Design Team, for
> inclusion in The Anarchs - if the card is reprinted (I have no
> idea) - or to the Rules Team, who may choose to issue errata.
that part of your post is the interesting one ;)
they may choose to "uniform" their decision concerning this kind of wording
/ effect.
> However, there has been none so far, and errata for it doesn't seem
> to me to be particularly high priority. Hence we play by card text.
i'm glad to hear so !
it's not a reason not to ask for the... reasons. =)
reyda
> reyda wrote:
>> this is something i can understand.
>> But the wording is exactly the same on Horrific Countenance and on
>> Elder Impersonation. Why errata the latter and not the former ? =)
>> Why clarify one thing and let the other as it is ? =)
>>
>>
>
> Errata is not "clarification", BTW. It is a change.
granted.
> Elder Impersonation received errata probably because it was seeing
> use. Therefore, it rose to the errata threshold set at that time in
> history. Horrific Countenance didn't rise to the threshold at that
> time, and isn't at the threshold now, either.
thanks for the simple and clear answer =)