VTES Rules Team Rulings, July 7, 1998
LSJ
to give a concrete "real world" reasoning to aid in remembering/
explaining a rule. Some comments address the reason/need for
the errata.
The comments may be safely ignored or deleted.
New Rule:
---------
No vote pushing: Each Methuselah can only play no more than one
Political Action card to gain a vote during a political action,
including the Political Action card used to call the vote, if any.
#
# Idea: arguable reading of the original Jyhad rules. Fixes the
# same problem that the DCI vote-replenishment rule attempted to
# fix (so the DCI rule shouldn't be used with this rule).
Other Changes to the Rules (or changes to Errata to the rules):
---------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified. Your cards are still
your own, but are not burned when you are ousted - only the cards
that you control are burned when you are ousted. The rest (stolen
by or traded to other players) are returned to you when they are
burned or when the game ends.
Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah,
one of her minions, or a card a Methuselah controls. Cards that
involve directed actions have a "(D)" in the card text. Nondirected
actions are actions that are not directed against a Methuselah or one
of her minions. Hunting, equipping a minion, recruiting an ally, and
employing a retainer are examples of nondirected actions.
#
# Yeah, I know - this is a direct quote from the VTES rulebook. But it
# does change the way the (D) symbol currently works [back to the
# correct way] by removing the long-standing errata. Specifically, the
# "(D)" symbol merely identifies (redundantly) a directed action. The
# symbol does *not* address who the action can be directed at - the rest
# of the text on the card should make that clear. Some errata is
# introduced for expansion cards that are dependent on the errata - but
# these cards have caused confusion anyway. The card-specific errata for
# (D) actions is limited to the expansion cards, and then only when
# necessary. See: Darius Styx, Goth Band, and PB: Mexico City
Equipment: is not optional, except as noted on card text. (Note: weapons
always grant the ability to strike, but the minion is still free to
use other strikes.)
#
# Removes some strangeness possible with Writ of Acceptance and possibly
# some other cards, matches the rule for Retainers and Locquipment (so
# should be easier to remember/explain) and doesn't unbalance the game.
Aggravated Damage: aggravated damage done to a ready vampire sends the
vampire to torpor (since it cannot be healed) but does not cause the
vampire to burn any blood. Aggravated damage done to a vampire with
unhealed damage (including aggravated damage after the first point)
requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of damage to avoid
being burned.
#
# Like the original Jyhad rules, only without the "packet" problems.
# Some of the aggravated-damage-dealing effects from the original set
# (and some from later sets) were unbalanced with the VTES-style
# aggravated damage rules, so this serves to restore some of the balance
# to those.
CARDS:
Darius Styx:
"Non-Camarilla. As an action, Darius may allow his controller to look at one
card at random from any other Methuselah's hand. If it is an equipment card
or a retainer card, it is placed on Darius at no cost."
#
# Net effect: no change. Textual change needed to uphold the (D) symbol
# conventions that were in effect when the card was printed, and which are
# necessary in Darius's case.
Fame:
"Unique Master. Put this card on a ready vampire. If the vampire with this
card goes to torpor, then his controller burns 3 pool. Each Methuselah
burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase if this vampire is in torpor."
#
# Hoses the controller of the vampire instead of the Prey - which makes more
# sense from a World of Darkness perspective (the controller has to expend
# resources to cover up the famous one's disappearance, not the Prey, although
# all suffer from the mounting questions people start asking after an
# extended period.)
# This removes the "watch me shoot myself" abuses, and gives combat decks
# slightly improved speed, which helps in a tournament situation where the
# games are timed.
Fire Dance:
Is directed or not based on the controller of the target, as always.
#
# Previous RT Ruling makes this statement necessary.
Goth Band:
"As a +1 stealth (D) action, the Goth Band may move one counter from
a master card controlled by another Methuselah to a master card you
control that uses counters."
#
# Net effect: no change. Textual change needed to uphold the (D) symbol
# conventions that were in effect when the card was printed.
Heidelburg Castle, Germany:
Cannot be used during an action (including during a combat, since that
is part of the action now - including combats resulting from blocks).
Can be used after an action resolves and before the next action begins, at
the beginning of any minion phase, or at any time outside of the minion
phase.
Major Boon:
"Play this card when another Methuselah is successfully bled. Not usable if
you control the acting minion. The bleed amount may be modified after this
card is played. You burn pool for the bleed instead of the target Methuselah
(must be at least 1 pool) and give this card to the target Methuselah. You
may burn this card to have that Methuselah burn pool instead of you when you
are successfully bled."
#
# The VTES version munged the "may be modified" clause pretty badly
Mind Rape:
"Superior: (D) put this card on a younger vampire and tap that vampire.
The vampire with this card does not untap as normal during his
controller's untap phase. During the acting vampire's controller's next
minion phase, she must burn this card to untap the vampire and take
control of the vampire until the end of her turn."
#
# The original version of this card is just way too powerful. This new text
# is copied from Temptation, with slight obvious modifications.
# Still probably better than Temptation - it costs an extra blood and doesn't
# untap the target and doesn't stick around to let you regain control
# later, but it more than makes up for all of this in speed. Plus it has
# variety in the inferior version - which is worth a good deal.
Of Noble Blood:
Is directed or not based on the controller of the target (and the
definition of "directed").
Powerbase: Mexico City
The action to steal the blood from your powerbase cannot be attempted
by your own vampires.
Pulled Fangs:
The damage is not aggravated.
#
# to balance the card with Lucky Blow, Disarm, and Twisting the Knife.
Return to Innocence:
Action - 4 blood.
Bleed. If you successfully bleed your Prey for one or more, put this card
on the acting vampire. Burn this card if this vampire loses any blood or
goes to torpor, or if your Prey is ousted. During your next untap, this
vampire is removed from play and your Prey burns X pool, where X is the
capacity of this vampire.
#
# to offset the "sudden death" aspect somewhat - not sure if it goes far
# enough, though. We'll see.
Sleeping Mind:
Cards played after Sleeping Mind are still free to break these rules, as
always. So while you are provented from untapping (with Rat's Warning),
for instance, you are not prevented from playing Wake to block - since
Wake allows you to attempt to block "as if untapped", and untapped
vampires can still block the action as normal.
Thoughts Betrayed:
"Superior: Opposing minion cannot play strike cards for the rest of combat."
Tomb of Ramses III:
"Master: Unique Location. 3 pool.
When this card is brought into play, or the controller of this card changes,
the controller chooses a vampire in her uncontrolled region. During your
influence phase, tap to move 1 blood from the blood bank to the chosen
vampire. Burn this card when the chosen vampire leaves the uncontrolled
region."
#
# Basically a clanless Eco Terrorist that costs an additional pool and can
# feed only 1 vampire (to balance the clanlessness and the fact that you
# can play it on your first turn).
# This may not be the best fix (indeed, I've seen some better ones posted
# on the NG), but it is the easiest to explain/remember.
Treatment, The:
The action to burn this card is directed (unless the Prince and the
Treatment somehow come to be controlled by the same Methuselah), by the
definition of a directed action.
Wake with Evening's Freshness:
"Do not replace until your next untap phase."
Zip Gun:
Cannot use ammo cards.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
James Hamblin
>
> As before, some comments are included for clarification, or
> to give a concrete "real world" reasoning to aid in remembering/
> explaining a rule. Some comments address the reason/need for
> the errata.
>
> The comments may be safely ignored or deleted.
Well, I don't want to get into another heated argument, but I will say
that there is a lot here. A lot of it is good, but I do have some
comments.
> New Rule:
> ---------
>
> No vote pushing:
[snip]
I'm with you 100% on this one. Especially since being ousted by a
weenie vote push deck at Origins probably kept me out of the finals...
:)
> Other Changes to the Rules (or changes to Errata to the rules):
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified. Your cards are still
> your own, but are not burned when you are ousted - only the cards
> that you control are burned when you are ousted. The rest (stolen
> by or traded to other players) are returned to you when they are
> burned or when the game ends.
I realize that this makes sense in game terms, but when somebody has to
leave, they _will_ take their cards with them. Having to remember who
had what is, I think, more complicated that just saying "OK, he's out,
so all of his stuff is out, too". It _is_ a card game after all.
> Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah,
[snip]
I take this to mean that plain brown (D) bleeds are no longer
omni-directable? I think that the old ruling is _so_ old that I don't
really know how this will affect things. Hmm...
> Aggravated Damage: aggravated damage done to a ready vampire sends the
> vampire to torpor (since it cannot be healed) but does not cause the
> vampire to burn any blood. Aggravated damage done to a vampire with
> unhealed damage (including aggravated damage after the first point)
> requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of damage to
> avoid being burned.
I think the wording here is a little murky. I understand that you want
this to return aggro damage to the old Jyhad way, but the first sentence
seems to imply that aggro damage can't _ever_ burn anyone.
> Fame:
> "Unique Master. Put this card on a ready vampire. If the vampire with this
> card goes to torpor, then his controller burns 3 pool. Each Methuselah
> burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase if this vampire is in torpor."
Wow! Upon reading this, I thought at first "Geez, now no one will play
with this card". Then I realized, "hey, _I'll_ play with this card!".
Now you don't just hurt a player by torporizing his vampire, you also
hit them with 3 damage to their pool. And then you rescue the vampire,
and do it again! I can see it now... the Fame/Humanitas combat deck!
> Pulled Fangs:
> The damage is not aggravated.
> #
> # to balance the card with Lucky Blow, Disarm, and Twisting the Knife.
Well, I would think that with the aggro damage rules back the way they
used to be, and the fact that the damage is now preventable, that PF is
now completely in line with Disarm without this change. They both
accomplish the same thing, except that PF pays for being disciplineless
by not being able to be used by a vampire going to torpor and having its
damage be preventable. I don't see what Lucky Blow has to do with
anything, and Twisting the Knife has never been anything but bad, bad,
bad.
> Return to Innocence:
> Action - 4 blood.
> Bleed. If you successfully bleed your Prey for one or more, put this card
> on the acting vampire. Burn this card if this vampire loses any blood or
> goes to torpor, or if your Prey is ousted. During your next untap, this
> vampire is removed from play and your Prey burns X pool, where X is the
> capacity of this vampire.
> #
> # to offset the "sudden death" aspect somewhat - not sure if it goes far
> # enough, though. We'll see.
At this point, do you really think this change is really better than
just banning the card?
> Sleeping Mind:
> Cards played after Sleeping Mind are still free to break these rules, as
> always. So while you are provented from untapping (with Rat's Warning),
> for instance, you are not prevented from playing Wake to block - since
> Wake allows you to attempt to block "as if untapped", and untapped
> vampires can still block the action as normal.
But wasn't the intent of the card clearly to _prevent_ Waken vampires
from blocking?
> Thoughts Betrayed:
> "Superior: Opposing minion cannot play strike cards for the rest of combat."
I applaud the spirit behind this change, but again I wonder if this is
better than banning.
> Tomb of Ramses III:
> "Master: Unique Location. 3 pool.
> When this card is brought into play, or the controller of this card changes,
> the controller chooses a vampire in her uncontrolled region. During your
> influence phase, tap to move 1 blood from the blood bank to the chosen
> vampire. Burn this card when the chosen vampire leaves the uncontrolled
> region."
> #
> # Basically a clanless Eco Terrorist that costs an additional pool and can
> # feed only 1 vampire (to balance the clanlessness and the fact that you
> # can play it on your first turn).
> # This may not be the best fix (indeed, I've seen some better ones posted
> # on the NG), but it is the easiest to explain/remember.
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but if you're using a
sub-standard fix solely for the reason that it would be harder to
remember another, better one, why not just ban this card, too? That
would be _really_ easy to remember.
> Wake with Evening's Freshness:
> "Do not replace until your next untap phase."
Any reasons behind this? Anything to do with David Pontes' recent post
about "everyone uses this card"? Do you really find the card too
powerful?
Thanks for the work you've put into these, LSJ. I know that your intent
is to make this game better. I may not agree with everything you've
done, but your heart's in the right place.
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
Sorrow
>to give a concrete "real world" reasoning to aid in remembering/
>explaining a rule. Some comments address the reason/need for
>the errata.
Ok, I'm outta here. I cannot believe these rulings/erratta.
How much more damage do you want to do to the game, LSJ?
Outright changing of the card text, blatently reducing the power
of many cards? For what? Game balance? I don't see any
of that here. Many of the cards have gone from overpowered
(in the opinions of some) to wall paper. Why would *anyone*
ever use RtI or Pulled Fangs or WWEF again? Why did you
change the rules for Vote Pushing? The current rules for PAs
(not replacing until the end of the turn) were fine. Fame? WTF?
Why would anyone ever use that card again?
This is just more than I can bear.
I'll be surprised if anyone new gets into the game. Already people
look at me like I'm crazy when I produce the practical equivilant
of a *books* worth of Rulings and Erratta when I join their group.
These new rulings/erratta are just way out of line.
V:tes used to be a fun game. A game that I was proud to go out
and promote. Hell, in the 5 months I've moved down to New
Orleans, I've gotten 7 or 8 people into the game. But no more.
After producing this new list, I'll be surprised if any of them continue
with the game.
On a side note: Anyone interested in buying my collection? I've
over 10,000 cards which include many copies of really cool rares
that I bought from Mark Korshavn.
A recent list of cards I bought from him include 3 Talbot's Chainsaws,
6 Quickness, 2 Hand of Conrads, 3 Ambrosius, the Ferryman, 9
Gangrel Conspiricy.
I've tons more. I'll try to come up with a list within the next week.
I've been playing this game for a very long time. In that time, I've
invested over $1500+.
Thanks for ruining it for me and, I suspect, alot of others.
>No vote pushing: Each Methuselah can only play no more than one
> Political Action card to gain a vote during a political action,
> including the Political Action card used to call the vote, if any.
What was wrong with the way it currently works?
>Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified. Your cards are still
> your own, but are not burned when you are ousted - only the cards
> that you control are burned when you are ousted. The rest (stolen
> by or traded to other players) are returned to you when they are
> burned or when the game ends.
So, when I'm ousted and I want to leave, I have to wait until the
game is over until I get all my cards back.
Whatever.
>Aggravated Damage: aggravated damage done to a ready vampire >sends the
vampire to torpor (since it cannot be healed) but does not >cause the
vampire to burn any blood.
This makes it sound like if you do 5 points of aggro damage, the
opposing vamp simply drops to torpor, losing no blood...?
>Aggravated damage done to a vampire with unhealed damage
>(including aggravated damage after the first point) requires that the
>vampire burn one blood per point of damage to avoid being burned.
This seems almost contradictory to what is said above.
> # Like the original Jyhad rules, only without the "packet" problems.
> # Some of the aggravated-damage-dealing effects from the original set
> # (and some from later sets) were unbalanced with the VTES-style
> # aggravated damage rules, so this serves to restore some of the
> # balance to those.
I seem to remember a comment made by James about how it is
seeming that you want to go back to the 'pristine' rules/text from
the Jyhad set, which you flatly denied.
It seems more and more that James was right on the money.
>Fame:
> "Unique Master. Put this card on a ready vampire. If the vampire
> with this card goes to torpor, then his controller burns 3 pool. Each
> Methuselah burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase if this vampire
> is in torpor."
Why would anyone ever use this card? What does it do for the
controller? Nothing. If you *really* wanted all the other meths to
lose a pool every turn, you could just use Anarch Revolts. At least
those are stackable. The way it works now, your vamp is just
begging to be Diablerized and you got nothing out of the deal.
> # Hoses the controller of the vampire instead of the Prey - which makes >
more sense from a World of Darkness perspective (the controller
I can't believe I'm hearing this! How many times was the WoD (or
real world perspective) used as an argument only to have it shot
down because this is a card game and you can't really use "real
world" ideas/concepts/etc. Something which even you have said
many times in the past, LSJ.
> # This removes the "watch me shoot myself" abuses, and gives
> combat decks
> # slightly improved speed, which helps in a tournament situation
> where the games are timed.
How?
>Tomb of Ramses III:
> "Master: Unique Location. 3 pool.
> # Basically a clanless Eco Terrorist that costs an additional pool and
> can feed only 1 vampire (to balance the clanlessness and the fact that
> you can play it on your first turn).
Except that cards like Eco Terrorist stay around for the *entire game*
(barring location burning effects), can be used on *any* vamp in your
uncontrolled region and _costs less_. I don't see how the clanlessness
of ToRIII makes up for weakening this card this much.
ToRIII is now essentially wallpaper.
>Wake with Evening's Freshness:
> "Do not replace until your next untap phase."
Why? Why not do the same thing to Forced Awakening?
Wallpaper.
>Zip Gun:
> Cannot use ammo cards.
Again, wallpaper. Used with DBR it was pretty brutal, but why
would anyone use this card again? Because you don't have
to use an equip action? There is nothing good that this card
offers now that offsets the bad.
Hrmmm, I can pull ZG out and do a *max* of 1 point of damage
(barring celerity) while I do a damage to myself. Alot of incentive
there...
Sorrow
-ex Prince of New Orleans
---
I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am
anymore |--------------------------------
I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...?
anymore | you never seen anyone try to
I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Goudie
>
> >As before, some comments are included for clarification, or
> >to give a concrete "real world" reasoning to aid in remembering/
> >explaining a rule. Some comments address the reason/need for
> >the errata.
>
> Ok, I'm outta here. I cannot believe these rulings/erratta.
> How much more damage do you want to do to the game, LSJ?
> Outright changing of the card text, blatently reducing the power
> of many cards? For what? Game balance? I don't see any
> of that here.
Game balance and consistancy are the reasons for these changes. Cards
that were over-powered had their power blatantly reduced and (hopefully)
brought into balance with the rest of the cardset.
> Why did you
> change the rules for Vote Pushing? The current rules for PAs
> (not replacing until the end of the turn) were fine.
That is a tournament rule. The regular V:TES rules have no prohibitions
against vote pushing.
> Fame?
> WTF?
> Why would anyone ever use that card again?
Re-read the card text.
> >Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified. Your cards are still
> > your own, but are not burned when you are ousted - only the cards
> > that you control are burned when you are ousted. The rest (stolen
> > by or traded to other players) are returned to you when they are
> > burned or when the game ends.
>
> So, when I'm ousted and I want to leave, I have to wait until the
> game is over until I get all my cards back.
> Whatever.
Again, these are not tournament rules.
> >Fame:
> > "Unique Master. Put this card on a ready vampire. If the vampire
> > with this card goes to torpor, then his controller burns 3 pool. Each
> > Methuselah burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase if this vampire
> > is in torpor."
>
> Why would anyone ever use this card? What does it do for the
> controller? Nothing. If you *really* wanted all the other meths to
> lose a pool every turn, you could just use Anarch Revolts. At least
> those are stackable. The way it works now, your vamp is just
> begging to be Diablerized and you got nothing out of the deal.
>
> > # Hoses the controller of the vampire instead of the Prey - which makes >
> more sense from a World of Darkness perspective (the controller
>
> I can't believe I'm hearing this! How many times was the WoD (or
> real world perspective) used as an argument only to have it shot
> down because this is a card game and you can't really use "real
> world" ideas/concepts/etc. Something which even you have said
> many times in the past, LSJ.
At the start of this post LSJ made it very clear that the "real world"
examples were not the basis for the card changes.
> > # This removes the "watch me shoot myself" abuses, and gives
> > combat decks
> > # slightly improved speed, which helps in a tournament situation
> > where the games are timed.
>
> How?
Re-read the card. No more Day-Op/Fame, Mummify/Fame, Force of Will/Fame
decks. Votes, Bleeds, Combat, and Fame. Fame abuse has become a style
of play unto itself.
--
Robert Goudie, Chairman rrgo...@earthlink.net
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
_________________________________________________________________
The Official Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Players' Organization
Robert Goudie
That these Rules Team Rulings become effective August 1, 1998. This
date should coincide with the release of new DCI Tournament Rules for
V:TES.
Robert Goudie
>
> LSJ wrote:
> >
> > Sleeping Mind:
> > Cards played after Sleeping Mind are still free to break these rules, as
> > always. So while you are provented from untapping (with Rat's Warning),
> > for instance, you are not prevented from playing Wake to block - since
> > Wake allows you to attempt to block "as if untapped", and untapped
> > vampires can still block the action as normal.
>
> But wasn't the intent of the card clearly to _prevent_ Waken vampires
> from blocking?
Not to speak for Scott, but his goal isn't always to return a card to
its original intent. The chief concern seems to be balance. And if the
original intent was unbalanced then the card gets a fix. If the
original intent was properly balanced then the card returns to original
intent.
[clip]
> > Wake with Evening's Freshness:
> > "Do not replace until your next untap phase."
>
> Any reasons behind this? Anything to do with David Pontes' recent post
> about "everyone uses this card"? Do you really find the card too
> powerful?
I suspect it wasn't that the card was too powerful. Rather that its
power was inappropriate for its cost. WwEF was the only card in the
cardset that didn't even cost a hand slot.
Sorrow
> Action - 4 blood.
> Bleed. If you successfully bleed your Prey for one or more, put this card
> on the acting vampire. Burn this card if this vampire loses any blood or
> goes to torpor, or if your Prey is ousted. During your next untap, this
> vampire is removed from play and your Prey burns X pool, where X
> is the capacity of this vampire.
One last thing:
This new erratta makes it *impossible* to redirect this bleed/loss
of pool. At least with the text before, you could redirect the bleed
to your prey. This new text prohibits that.
Also, in order for this action to be even worthwhile, you *need*
modifiers. With just this card alone, using the new text, you will
never bleed your prey with anything. Since it is an action, it
essentially replaces the vampires built in bleed of 1. The card
text says nothing about (clearly, anyway) about how much you
are bleeding your prey for. So in effect, it is useless w/o bleed
mods.
People hated it before when the only defense you had against
it was deflection. I wonder how people are going to take to it
now that they cannot deflect the huge pool loss effect of this
card.
Sorrow
Ethan Burrow
> As before, some comments are included for clarification, or
> to give a concrete "real world" reasoning to aid in remembering/
> explaining a rule. Some comments address the reason/need for
> the errata.
OK, I'm gonna have to un-lurk for this one.... I'll comment on what I
don't like, thus what I <snip> is generally a thumbs up, pat on the back
kinda thing.
> No vote pushing: Each Methuselah can only play no more than one
> Political Action card to gain a vote during a political action,
> including the Political Action card used to call the vote, if any.
> #
> # Idea: arguable reading of the original Jyhad rules. Fixes the
> # same problem that the DCI vote-replenishment rule attempted to
> # fix (so the DCI rule shouldn't be used with this rule).
I concede that you wanted to invalidate weenie vote decks. But now this
leads me to believe that presence is essentially required for vote decks
to pass votes now. Is this your intent?
> Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah,
> one of her minions, or a card a Methuselah controls. Cards that
> involve directed actions have a "(D)" in the card text. Nondirected
> actions are actions that are not directed against a Methuselah or one
> of her minions. Hunting, equipping a minion, recruiting an ally, and
> employing a retainer are examples of nondirected actions.
Removing cross bleeds in our playgroup will drastically affect the
Meta-Game in a bad way. Considering you have fixed "certain" cards to
restore balance, I didn't think this change needed to be made. (i.e. I
have survived numerous games by (d) bleeding a predator I couldn't
handle to help oust him, thus ensuring my survival. Removing this
ability doesn't seem to be a good thing to me, as I'll just fix that by
putting in more wakes <g>)
> Aggravated Damage: aggravated damage done to a ready vampire sends the
> vampire to torpor (since it cannot be healed) but does not cause the
> vampire to burn any blood. Aggravated damage done to a vampire with
> unhealed damage (including aggravated damage after the first point)
> requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of damage to avoid
> being burned.
The only card the new agg rules broke IMO was Pulled Fangs, and I
honestly feel the VTES agg rules were simpler and more fun to play. And
for those interested I played Jyhad since the beginning, so changing to
the new rules made sense until I started seeing Pulled Fangs in
abundance 2 years (a group) later. So in short fix Pulled Fangs; you
fix the problem.
> Sleeping Mind:
> Cards played after Sleeping Mind are still free to break these rules, as
> always. So while you are provented from untapping (with Rat's Warning),
> for instance, you are not prevented from playing Wake to block - since
> Wake allows you to attempt to block "as if untapped", and untapped
> vampires can still block the action as normal.
This goes against the very nature of the card. It's now wallpaper,
since Wakes aren't going away even with the current changes.
> Tomb of Ramses III:
> "Master: Unique Location. 3 pool.
> When this card is brought into play, or the controller of this card changes,
> the controller chooses a vampire in her uncontrolled region. During your
> influence phase, tap to move 1 blood from the blood bank to the chosen
> vampire. Burn this card when the chosen vampire leaves the uncontrolled
> region."
> #
> # Basically a clanless Eco Terrorist that costs an additional pool and can
> # feed only 1 vampire (to balance the clanlessness and the fact that you
> # can play it on your first turn).
> # This may not be the best fix (indeed, I've seen some better ones posted
> # on the NG), but it is the easiest to explain/remember.
We locally played where ToR comes into play tapped, and cannot be used
until untapped. This gives the other players a round to do something
"location" wise and reducing the speed of the transfers, while making
the card still useful. As it is, I doubt anyone will now play with it
as it's too costly for a location that can be stolen/burned before it's
even used enough to break even. Better to just ban it.
> Wake with Evening's Freshness:
> "Do not replace until your next untap phase."
??!? This helps how? People will just play with Forced
Awakenings....unless you plan on changing Forced Awakening too.
While I acknowledge that some of the intent is to return to the purity
of Jyhad rules, I don't think some of these sweeping changes will
enhance or help the game at all. If my responses were premature because
I didn't fully understand the rules, please PLEASE clarify them for me.
I'm responding mostly from the gut here, since my interpretation of
these rulings *really* pulled a nerve.
As I noted earlier, I agree pretty much with the rest of the rulings I
haven't ranted about (although RTI, Mind Rape, TB, etc. should never
have been printed...without a reprint they'll never be "fixed" to the
masses).
_____________________________________________________________
Ethan Burrow V:EKN Prince of Austin
et...@ddg.com http://www.ddg.com/ethan/austin
http://www.ddg.com/ethan/
James Hamblin
>
> Ok, I'm outta here. I cannot believe these rulings/erratta.
> How much more damage do you want to do to the game, LSJ?
Man, and I thought I was belligerent. No offense here, but as I said,
LSJ's intentions are to make the game fun _and_ balanced. Had any
expansions not come out, this would have been a lot easier. But, as it
is, many people feel that the expansions themselves have led to a
decline in the balanced nature of the game. This is what LSJ is trying
to fix, and he's doing it in a way that not everyone agrees with.
> Why did you
> change the rules for Vote Pushing? The current rules for PAs
> (not replacing until the end of the turn) were fine.
Well, actually not. Around the time when everyone was lobbying WotC to
implement the Corrupter's SPTR rule set, the current rules (don't
replace until end of turn) were instead implemented. Some people were
mollified (something being better than nothing), but others were sure
that this fix was not good enough. And, as suspected, in various groups
decks were constructed which pushed votes brokenly despite this new
rule. So, at least in Ithaca, we kept the no vote push rule, since it
was better.
> Fame? WTF?
> Why would anyone ever use that card again?
> This is just more than I can bear.
As others (including me) have pointed out, it is now an offensive card
(as in used on the offense) as opposed to an offensive card (as in
broken broken broken).
> I'll be surprised if anyone new gets into the game. Already people
> look at me like I'm crazy when I produce the practical equivilant
> of a *books* worth of Rulings and Erratta when I join their group.
I agree here, as do others. Many non-net-able players are shocked and
dismayed when presented with a huge list of eratta. Which is why I
argue that it's just better to ban a card rather than completely change
its card text.
> >No vote pushing: Each Methuselah can only play no more than one
> > Political Action card to gain a vote during a political action,
> > including the Political Action card used to call the vote, if any.
>
> What was wrong with the way it currently works?
You could still make an effectively broken weenie vote push deck, which
the rule was intended to hinder.
> I can't believe I'm hearing this! How many times was the WoD (or
> real world perspective) used as an argument only to have it shot
> down because this is a card game and you can't really use "real
> world" ideas/concepts/etc. Something which even you have said
> many times in the past, LSJ.
I can see the point that if a card needs to be changed, changing it so
that it _also_ makes sense in "real world" terms is desirable; it helps
you explain to people why the change was made the way it was.
> >Zip Gun:
> > Cannot use ammo cards.
>
> Again, wallpaper. Used with DBR it was pretty brutal, but why
> would anyone use this card again?
You say "brutal", many others say "broken".
> Because you don't have
> to use an equip action? There is nothing good that this card
> offers now that offsets the bad.
> Hrmmm, I can pull ZG out and do a *max* of 1 point of damage
> (barring celerity) while I do a damage to myself. Alot of incentive
> there...
You're maneuvering to long range... against one of my decks, you take 1
point of damage instead of 7.
Strangely enough, I am actually mollified by this set of rulings, modulo
the comments I made in my first post on this subject. We'll see where
this takes things.
Gomi no Sensei
Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
>>Return to Innocence:
>> Action - 4 blood.
>> Bleed. If you successfully bleed your Prey for one or more, put this card
>> on the acting vampire. Burn this card if this vampire loses any blood or
>> goes to torpor, or if your Prey is ousted. During your next untap, this
>> vampire is removed from play and your Prey burns X pool, where X
>> is the capacity of this vampire.
>One last thing:
>This new erratta makes it *impossible* to redirect this bleed/loss
>of pool. At least with the text before, you could redirect the bleed
>to your prey. This new text prohibits that.
Actually, they still work. The first complete sentence ('If you
successfully bleed your prey for one or more...') means that
bounce or reduction are as effective RtI defences as ever, with
the added bonus that now combat decks can cope with it.
>Also, in order for this action to be even worthwhile, you *need*
>modifiers. With just this card alone, using the new text, you will
>never bleed your prey with anything. Since it is an action, it
>essentially replaces the vampires built in bleed of 1. The card
>text says nothing about (clearly, anyway) about how much you
>are bleeding your prey for. So in effect, it is useless w/o bleed
>mods.
I'm not sure how you figure that. For an X-cap vampire:
Old RtI New RtI
One bounceable X+1 bleed, plus mods One bounceable 1 bleed, plus mods
One turn later: loss of X pool
___________________________________ _________________________________
Loss of X+1 pool (plus mods) Loss of X+1 pool (plus mods)
In both cases, bounce will shut the card down; with New RtI, the
defenses are expanded, not reduced (the time-delay, the combat
defence) -- a single Telepathic Counter or even an Ignis Fatuus
will suffice as a defence in many cases.
>People hated it before when the only defense you had against
>it was deflection. I wonder how people are going to take to it
>now that they cannot deflect the huge pool loss effect of this
>card.
Deflection is still a viable defence for Return to Innocence.
I hope you'll reconsider leaving the game; you've been a passionate
contributor to the group, and I'm glad that you've promoted the
game in the past. I hope you'll come to see that the changes are
for the benefit of the game.
gomi
--
Sure, she may be a nuisance for a while, but then you
kill her and go on with your life. - hamblin at math wisc edu
Jaysen Knight
and I support you completely on those rulings. Some of these ones
however.....
LSJ wrote:
>
> As before, some comments... <snip>
> the errata.
>
> New Rule:
> ---------
>
> No vote pushing: Each Methuselah can only play no more than one
> Political Action card to gain a vote during a political action,
> including the Political Action card used to call the vote, if any.
> #
> # Idea: arguable reading of the original Jyhad rules. Fixes the
> # same problem that the DCI vote-replenishment rule attempted to
> # fix (so the DCI rule shouldn't be used with this rule).
>
This should read "not including the Political Action card used to
the vote, if any." Why should everyone else be able to push on a
vote and I can't? I can understand the need to stop the 6 card
dump on a vote, but this goes too far.
>
> Other Changes to the Rules (or changes to Errata to the rules):
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified. Your cards are still
> your own, but are not burned when you are ousted - only the cards
> that you control are burned when you are ousted. The rest (stolen
> by or traded to other players) are returned to you when they are
> burned or when the game ends.
>
Unless, of course, I decide to go home after I am ousted right?
Right????
>
> Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah,
> one of her minions, or a card a Methuselah controls. Cards that
> involve directed actions have a "(D)" in the card text.
> <snip>
> # (D) actions is limited to the expansion cards, and then only when
> # necessary. See: Darius Styx, Goth Band, and PB: Mexico City
>
Um, sure. I guess I can agree with this. Logic is nice that way.
>
> Equipment: is not optional, except as noted on card text. (Note: weapons
> always grant the ability to strike, but the minion is still free to
> use other strikes.)
> #
> # Removes some strangeness possible with Writ of Acceptance and possibly
> # some other cards, matches the rule for Retainers and Locquipment (so
> # should be easier to remember/explain) and doesn't unbalance the game.
>
Um, sure. I guess I can agree with this. Logic is nice that way.
>
> Aggravated Damage: aggravated damage done to a ready vampire sends the
> vampire to torpor (since it cannot be healed) but does not cause the
> vampire to burn any blood. Aggravated damage done to a vampire with
> unhealed damage (including aggravated damage after the first point)
> requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of damage to avoid
> being burned.
> #
> # Like the original Jyhad rules, only without the "packet" problems.
> # Some of the aggravated-damage-dealing effects from the original set
> # (and some from later sets) were unbalanced with the VTES-style
> # aggravated damage rules, so this serves to restore some of the balance
> # to those.
>
No. No. No. Don't go back to the original Jyhad Rules here. The
only card I know of that abuses the V-TES style aggro. rules is
Pulled Fangs. The old Jyhad way was hard to use, harder to explain,
and a general pain in the ass. We are much better off fixing the
broken cards - not an unbroken rule.
>
> CARDS:
>
> Fame:
> "Unique Master. Put this card on a ready vampire. If the vampire with this
> card goes to torpor, then his controller burns 3 pool. Each Methuselah
> burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase if this vampire is in torpor."
> #
> # Hoses the controller of the vampire instead of the Prey - which makes more
> # sense from a World of Darkness perspective (the controller has to expend
> # resources to cover up the famous one's disappearance, not the Prey, although
> # all suffer from the mounting questions people start asking after an
> # extended period.)
> # This removes the "watch me shoot myself" abuses, and gives combat decks
> # slightly improved speed, which helps in a tournament situation where the
> # games are timed.
>
Abusive the other way now. Please don't do this. Something else has
to work. Instead of a must have in my defensive decks, it is now a
must have in my offensive decks! Where is the wisdom in that?
>
> Mind Rape:
> "Superior: (D) put this card on a younger vampire and tap that vampire.
> The vampire with this card does not untap as normal during his
> controller's untap phase. During the acting vampire's controller's next
> minion phase, she must burn this card to untap the vampire and take
> control of the vampire until the end of her turn."
> #
> # The original version of this card is just way too powerful. This new text
> # is copied from Temptation, with slight obvious modifications.
> # Still probably better than Temptation - it costs an extra blood and doesn't
> # untap the target and doesn't stick around to let you regain control
> # later, but it more than makes up for all of this in speed. Plus it has
> # variety in the inferior version - which is worth a good deal.
>
Have to think some more about this one.
>
> Pulled Fangs:
> The damage is not aggravated.
> #
> # to balance the card with Lucky Blow, Disarm, and Twisting the Knife.
>
Wallpaper. Really ugly wallpaper. Please, just change it to one point
of unpreventable damage (not aggro., not regular, just unpreventable).
Nice, simple, still effective. For balance, make the card unreplaceable
until after combat. Still nice, still simple, still effective.
>
> Return to Innocence:
> Action - 4 blood.
> Bleed. If you successfully bleed your Prey for one or more, put this card
> on the acting vampire. Burn this card if this vampire loses any blood or
> goes to torpor, or if your Prey is ousted. During your next untap, this
> vampire is removed from play and your Prey burns X pool, where X is the
> capacity of this vampire.
> #
> # to offset the "sudden death" aspect somewhat - not sure if it goes far
> # enough, though. We'll see.
>
Just ban the card. Make life simpler for all of us. I have thought
about many fixes to this card - haven't found one I like yet.
>
> Sleeping Mind:
> Cards played after Sleeping Mind are still free to break these rules, as
> always. So while you are provented from untapping (with Rat's Warning),
> for instance, you are not prevented from playing Wake to block - since
> Wake allows you to attempt to block "as if untapped", and untapped
> vampires can still block the action as normal.
>
Don't like this one. Never saw the card as 'that broken'. Just change
the '1 blood cost' to 'X blood cost', where X is the number of minions
induced to sleep.
>
> Thoughts Betrayed:
> "Superior: Opposing minion cannot play strike cards for the rest of combat."
>
I must say that I actually like this one - I do, I really do. Kudos.
>
> Tomb of Ramses III:
> "Master: Unique Location. 3 pool.
> When this card is brought into play, or the controller of this card changes,
> the controller chooses a vampire in her uncontrolled region. During your
> influence phase, tap to move 1 blood from the blood bank to the chosen
> vampire. Burn this card when the chosen vampire leaves the uncontrolled
> region."
> #
> # Basically a clanless Eco Terrorist that costs an additional pool and can
> # feed only 1 vampire (to balance the clanlessness and the fact that you
> # can play it on your first turn).
> # This may not be the best fix (indeed, I've seen some better ones posted
> # on the NG), but it is the easiest to explain/remember.
>
Just make it a clanless Eco-Terrorist that can only be played when you
have a vamp in play.
i.e. I bring out Vliam and KoKo, on my next master phase I can
play the Tomb (for three pool) and declare which clan,
of the clans I have in play, it supports.
A simpler fix that doesn't relegate the Tomb to "Wallpaper city".
>
> Wake with Evening's Freshness:
> "Do not replace until your next untap phase."
>
What????? Can you say wallpaper boys and girls??? This is crazy talk.
Are you secretly a Malk?
Insults and snideness aside, this change is completely unnecessary.
>
> Zip Gun:
> Cannot use ammo cards.
>
Um, why. While ZG/DBR was cheesy, it didn't blow the game away. This
makes the ZG into wallpaper. Twisting the Knife all over again.
>
> --
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
> Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
> http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
I appreciate your hard work LSJ. I rarely object to your rulings.
However, in the cases where I have objected above; I am really, really
objecting - almost pissed off even. Especially on:
Aggro Damage
Fame
Pulled Fangs
Tomb of Ramses III
Wake w/Evening's
Zip Gun
Please rethink these, please,
Jaysen
Robert Goudie
>
> >Return to Innocence:
> > Action - 4 blood.
> > Bleed. If you successfully bleed your Prey for one or more, put this card
> > on the acting vampire. Burn this card if this vampire loses any blood or
> > goes to torpor, or if your Prey is ousted. During your next untap, this
> > vampire is removed from play and your Prey burns X pool, where X
> > is the capacity of this vampire.
>
> This new erratta makes it *impossible* to redirect this bleed/loss
> of pool. At least with the text before, you could redirect the bleed
> to your prey. This new text prohibits that.
What you do is deflect the RTI bleed to your prey (or whoever). If this
is done then the "If you successfully bleed your prey" is not met and
the RTI is not placed on the acting minion. So, the loss cannot be
deflected but deflection is still a good defense against RTI. As LSJ
pointed out, this new version removes the sort of "Rushian Roulette"
aspect of the original version.
> Also, in order for this action to be even worthwhile, you *need*
> modifiers. With just this card alone, using the new text, you will
> never bleed your prey with anything. Since it is an action, it
> essentially replaces the vampires built in bleed of 1. The card
> text says nothing about (clearly, anyway) about how much you
> are bleeding your prey for. So in effect, it is useless w/o bleed
> mods.
How is bleeding your prey for a minimum of Capacity + 1 useless?
PDB6
"No vote pushing"
Yaa! Make those freaking Caitif work for their political power.
"Aggravated Damage"
I don't think I fully understand this rule. Does this mean that Aggro damage
is not pretty much identical to Jyhad aggro? You now burn from X+2 aggro,
where X is your current blood level?
"Fame:
Unique Master. Put this card on a ready vampire. If the vampire with this card
goes to torpor, then his controller burns 3 pool. Each Methuselah burns 1 pool
during his or her untap phase if this vampire is in torpor."
Hmm, while I never liked Fame, I think this goes too far away from the original
intention of the card. It will be a pretty henious addition to the already
viable Rush deck (I make your Smudge Famous and kill him, then rescue him, then
kill him again...).
"Mind Rape:"
So it makes your vampire get tapped, and then stolen a turn from now? It seems
a bit wordy.
"Powerbase: Mexico City
The action to steal the blood from your powerbase cannot be attempted by your
own vampires."
Did I miss something? Can you now do (D) actions against yourself?
"Pulled Fangs:
The damage is not aggravated."
While a viable fix, It now seems kinda worthless (just like Twisting the
Knife...). Why not change it to the same template as Disarm? Don't the re-old
Aggro rules fix PF anyway?
"Return to Innocence:"
Pretty good!
"Thoughts Betrayed:
Superior: Opposing minion cannot play strike cards for the rest of combat."
Also good.
"Tomb of Ramses III:"
I always thought this was probably the best fix, although I fail to see how the
above mentioned radical changes to the 3 cards are any better than simply
banning them?
"Wake with Evening's Freshness:
"Do not replace until your next untap phase."
Good.
"Zip Gun:
Cannot use ammo cards."
Good.
Now while this is a good bunch of rules, most of these are pretty severe
changes to the cards presented (Tomb, RTI, Fame, etc), and I can see a great
deal of resistance (Man, I thought I was being reasonable about IG, m'self :-),
especially from non Net folks. Most of the last set of changes were pretty
subtle (except for Rutors Hand) and easy to explain. Most of these make old
cards into pretty much completely new cards. Are there any plans to reach the
leigons of non Net Jyhad players? At Origins this last weekend, the vast
majority of the players we met had zero information from any of the Net
rulings, and there was a pretty large number of players with very weird ideas
of how the game worked, and a good number of them became fairly beligerent when
introduced to the various rules fixes. I suspect that if I go to a tournamnet
with all of these rules, most people won't know them, and some of them will try
and lynch me. What to do?
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"I am the world's forgotten boy
the one who searches and destroys."
-Iggy Pop
gen...@iname.com
> that there is a lot here. A lot of it is good, but I do have some
> comments.
I agree; a lot of "heated" arguments will come from this. But not from me. :)
> > Aggravated Damage: aggravated damage done to a ready vampire sends the
> > vampire to torpor (since it cannot be healed) but does not cause the
> > vampire to burn any blood. Aggravated damage done to a vampire with
> > unhealed damage (including aggravated damage after the first point)
> > requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of damage to
> > avoid being burned.
>
> I think the wording here is a little murky. I understand that you want
I agree, and I have trouble understanding what it truly means... Maybe with an example
or two?
> > Fame:
> > "Unique Master. Put this card on a ready vampire. If the vampire with this
> > card goes to torpor, then his controller burns 3 pool. Each Methuselah
> > burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase if this vampire is in torpor."
>
> and do it again! I can see it now... the Fame/Humanitas combat deck!
That's the spirit! And I really like that idea... I'll give you due merits, don't worry. :)
> > Return to Innocence:
> > Action - 4 blood.
> > Bleed. If you successfully bleed your Prey for one or more, put this card
> > on the acting vampire. Burn this card if this vampire loses any blood or
> > goes to torpor, or if your Prey is ousted. During your next untap, this
> > vampire is removed from play and your Prey burns X pool, where X is the
> > capacity of this vampire.
> At this point, do you really think this change is really better than
> just banning the card?
Well, at least it leaves a way out of it... Enter combat with the minion and deal some
damage, or simply use Cryptic Mission, and RtI is burned before it is useful.
> > Wake with Evening's Freshness:
> > "Do not replace until your next untap phase."
>
> Any reasons behind this? Anything to do with David Pontes' recent post
> about "everyone uses this card"? Do you really find the card too
> powerful?
I am also having trouble seeing the motivation behind this... I never considered this
card "broken" in any way...
> Thanks for the work you've put into these, LSJ. I know that your intent
> is to make this game better. I may not agree with everything you've
> done, but your heart's in the right place.
Agreed 100%.
DOUGDWISE
The card text starts off with "Bleed." So, yes, the card does replace the
vampire's inherent bleed for one point. But it replaces that inherent bleed
with a carded bleed for 1 point. So playing the card still means your vamp is
taking a bleed action and successful bleeding minus modifiers will still cause
a 1 point pool loss.
As far as bouncing, it looks to me as if this carded bleed can still be
bounced. The only difference is that you don't get to bounce a nasty X+1 bleed
to your prey but only the carded bleed of 1. So bouncing the bleed still looks
like an effective defense against RTI, it just can't be used to turn RTI into a
great windfall for you to use against your prey.
Anyway, that's how it looks from here.
Now, about that Golden Rule of Card Ownership. . . .
Doug Dunaway
Artistically Inept Toreador
Sorrow writes:
>This new erratta makes it *impossible* to redirect this bleed/loss
>of pool. At least with the text before, you could redirect the bleed
>to your prey. This new text prohibits that.
>Also, in order for this action to be even worthwhile, you *need*
>modifiers. With just this card alone, using the new text, you will
>never bleed your prey with anything. Since it is an action, it
>essentially replaces the vampires built in bleed of 1. The card
>text says nothing about (clearly, anyway) about how much you
>are bleeding your prey for. So in effect, it is useless w/o bleed
>mods.
Card text is:
Legbiter
working very hard to try to popularise what is basically a very good game,
and I feel betrayed by these new rulings. I simply can't justify to myself
or others ANY change to the explicit text of ANY card.
What you have done here is simultaneously create an elite of Jyhad players
who know the new rules, and cast into outer darkness the vast majority of
fun players who will find it difficult either to access or to understand
the new rulings. Gaze into my eyes and I will give you another instance of
my prophetic Malkavian powers ....
Scene: the near future. A tense game of Jyhad is nearing its climax .....
NEWBIE: "Hah! Using my two master phases I play Fame and Memories of
Mortality on Zebulon, no minion phase, and during influence Zebulon burns
the Memories, goes to torpor and you are ousted!!! I WIN I WIN!!! I LOVE
THIS GAME!!!!"
LEGBITER: "Erm .... sorry dear Newbie, but according to the latest rules
team rulings Fame kills YOU! I WIN I WIN!!!! I LOVE BEING RICH ENOUGH TO
HAVE NET ACCESS SINCE IT ENABLES ME TO KILL PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY BETTER
THAN ME!!!!"
However, I'm not selling up or getting out of the game. I will even try to
explain these rulings to people. I just won't like it and, disastrously
for our game, i don't think they will either.
Legbiter, feeling really let down and sad.
PS: Hey Sorrow and anyone else who feels the way I do, d'ye fancy a game
of Rage?
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified. Your cards are still
> > your own, but are not burned when you are ousted
>
> leave, they _will_ take their cards with them. Having to remember who
> had what is, I think, more complicated that just saying "OK, he's out,
> so all of his stuff is out, too". It _is_ a card game after all.
If someone has to leave before the game is finished, that may create
problems, true. Whether or not she is ousted by the time she has to
leave. As with most games, you should allocate enough time to play it.
> > Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah,
> I take this to mean that plain brown (D) bleeds are no longer
> omni-directable? I think that the old ruling is _so_ old that I don't
> really know how this will affect things. Hmm...
No more omni-directabilty, correct.
> > Aggravated Damage: aggravated damage done to a ready vampire sends the
> > vampire to torpor (since it cannot be healed) but does not cause the
> > vampire to burn any blood. Aggravated damage done to a vampire with
> > unhealed damage (including aggravated damage after the first point)
> > requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of damage to
> > avoid being burned.
>
> I think the wording here is a little murky. I understand that you want
> this to return aggro damage to the old Jyhad way, but the first sentence
> seems to imply that aggro damage can't _ever_ burn anyone.
Hmm. Sorry about that. The second was meant to
clarify/expound/give-exception-to that point, but I can see how the two are
at odds.
Read the first sentence as "agg done to a vampire who doesn't currently have
unhealed damage will send the vampire to torpor..." (Or just read the second
sentence as an exception).
> > Pulled Fangs:
> > The damage is not aggravated.
> > #
> > # to balance the card with Lucky Blow, Disarm, and Twisting the Knife.
>
> Well, I would think that with the aggro damage rules back the way they
> used to be, and the fact that the damage is now preventable, that PF is
> now completely in line with Disarm without this change. They both
> accomplish the same thing, except that PF pays for being disciplineless
> by not being able to be used by a vampire going to torpor and having its
> damage be preventable. I don't see what Lucky Blow has to do with
Lucky Blow: 1 extra damage, announced with the strike, dodgeable, preventable
by Skin of Steel, disciplineless, card not replaced, not stackable (only one
per strike).
PF: 1 extra damage, announced after the strike, not dodgeable, not
preventable by Skin of Steel, disciplineless, card replaced, stackable,
hunting restriction, requirement on playing the card (more damage done than
received).
> [Re: several major overhauls]
> At this point, do you really think this change is really better than
> just banning the card?
I'm *really* don't like the idea of banning cards. More people would be
even more upset at that than this, esp. the ones that have paid a lot
of money for a card that they could then no longer play with at all.
> > Sleeping Mind:
> > Cards played after Sleeping Mind are still free to break these rules, as
> > always. So while you are provented from untapping (with Rat's Warning),
> > for instance, you are not prevented from playing Wake to block - since
> > Wake allows you to attempt to block "as if untapped", and untapped
> > vampires can still block the action as normal.
>
> But wasn't the intent of the card clearly to _prevent_ Waken vampires
> from blocking?
Probably (IMO), but the intent isn't a good excuse for leaving a broken
card unbalanced. I'm all for intent when balance is preserved.
> > Wake with Evening's Freshness:
> > "Do not replace until your next untap phase."
>
> Any reasons behind this? Anything to do with David Pontes' recent post
> about "everyone uses this card"?
No, the rule was penned and being playtested well before David's post.
> Do you really find the card too powerful?
More powerful than it should be - the old restriction was meaningless,
and led to this single card supplanting the need for resource
management.
> Thanks for the work you've put into these, LSJ. I know that your intent
> is to make this game better. I may not agree with everything you've
> done, but your heart's in the right place.
Thanks for that. Nice to know we can agree on occasion. :-)
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
LSJ
> > > Aggravated Damage: aggravated damage done to a ready vampire sends the
> > > vampire to torpor (since it cannot be healed) but does not cause the
> > > vampire to burn any blood. Aggravated damage done to a vampire with
> > > unhealed damage (including aggravated damage after the first point)
> > > requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of damage to
> > > avoid being burned.
> or two?
OK:
vamp w/ 0 blood takes 1 regular damage: goes to torpor empty since he cannot
heal the damage.
vamp w/ 0 blood takes 1 agg damage: goes to torpor empty since he cannot
heal the damage.
vamp w/ 1 blood takes 1 agg damage: goes to torpor with 1 blood since
he cannot heal the damage.
vamp w/ 1 blood takes 1 regular and 1 agg: loses 1 to heal regular, and goes
to torpor with no blood.
vamp w/ 1 blood takes 2 agg: 1st point will send him to torpor (since
it cannot be healed), 2nd point requires the loss of a blood (since
he now has unhealed damage - namely, the first point). He goes to
torpor with no blood.
vamp w/ 1 blood takes 2 regular and 1 agg: loses 1 to heal first point
of regular damage, cannot heal the second point of regular damage, so
he will be sent to torpor. The point of agg requires the loss of a blood
(since he currently has unhealed damage - namely, the second point of
regular damage), so he is burned since he has no more blood to burn.
vamp w/ 1 blood takes 1 regular and 2 agg: loses 1 to heal first point
of regular damage; the first point of agg damage will send him to torpor
(but doesn't require the loss of a blood, since he currently has no
unhealed damage), and the second point of agg requires the loss of a blood,
which he cannot pay, so he is burned.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> > No vote pushing: Each Methuselah can only play no more than one
> > Political Action card to gain a vote during a political action,
> > including the Political Action card used to call the vote, if any.
>
> leads me to believe that presence is essentially required for vote decks
> to pass votes now. Is this your intent?
No, nor do I believe that it has been achieved.
Bribes, vote denial (auspex and/or !Ventrue), and good old-fashioned
politics (deal making) are still viable.
> > Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah,
> Removing cross bleeds in our playgroup will drastically affect the
> Meta-Game in a bad way.
"drastic" and "bad way" are both matters of opinion. The latter one is
one that I do not hold to.
>
> > Aggravated Damage: aggravated damage done to a ready vampire sends the
> > vampire to torpor (since it cannot be healed) but does not cause the
> > vampire to burn any blood. Aggravated damage done to a vampire with
> > unhealed damage (including aggravated damage after the first point)
> > requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of damage to avoid
> > being burned.
>
> The only card the new agg rules broke IMO was Pulled Fangs, and I
It also made all of the other methods of dealing aggravated damage
stronger, when most were balanced to begin with.
While not all of them were "broken" by the VTES rule, they were all
made stronger. Some (Ivory Bow, e.g.) moved deep into the unbalanced
field, others less so.
> honestly feel the VTES agg rules were simpler and more fun to play. And
The new rules are simpler than the Jyhad rules, and almost as simple
as the old VTES rules. Effectively, the vampire simply has to burn 1
less blood to avoid destruction now than with the old VTES rules.
> > Wake with Evening's Freshness:
> > "Do not replace until your next untap phase."
>
> ??!? This helps how? People will just play with Forced
> Awakenings....unless you plan on changing Forced Awakening too.
FA requires a blood if used to play a deflection, and runs the risk of
a loss of blood even if you try to block. Sometimes a vampire's blood
is worth the temporary loss of a hand slot, sometimes not. Now it's
more a matter of a deck-building decision rather than a given.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
James Hamblin
>
> Legbiter wrote:
> >
> > Sigh. I have to say that I agree with Sorrow about this lot. I've been
> > working very hard to try to popularise what is basically a very good game,
> > and I feel betrayed by these new rulings. I simply can't justify to myself
> > or others ANY change to the explicit text of ANY card.
>
>
> I myself do not relish the thought of playing with an Obedience
> that doesn't cancel combat (Sabbat), or playing a Soul Gem that
> costs two pool.
LSJ... I'm trying to support you this time, I really am... :)
As I said before, those cards you mention are bascially typos. It's
really easy to explain to someone that there was a typo on a card and
tell them to play it the way it was printed before. But telling someone
"here are these 20 cards which were changed" tends to make that person
angry and confused. I do understand that changes are needed, to
overturn bad rulings in the past and to make the game better. But the
simpler these changes are, the better for everyone. If I were in the
position to be making these kind of changes, I would only give myself
three options:
1. Leave the card alone.
2. Make a slight change.
3. Ban the card.
If we can't live with the card the way it is, and there isn't some
slight change that will fix it (like correcting a typo), then we're
probably better off just banning it.
Mike Bohlmann
the entirely new card wordings? The Rulings, Clarifications, and
Errata are already over 20 printed pages long (based off of printing
them directly from LSJ's web pages). If the cards that got major
rewordings were in such dire need of fixing, why not just ban them?
It's much easier to tell someone that a card is banned rather than
saying they totally changed the card to make it not be so powerful.
LSJ wrote:
> No vote pushing: Each Methuselah can only play no more.......
It's really too bad that vote pushing decks were around. It was
always fun to be in the middle of voting and get someone to
give you something in exchange for a couple extra votes. Good
rule.
> Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified.....
Personally, I love this rule. When I was in Vienna, that's how
the group played. Now we might actually see some Corruption decks
on the tournament scene.
However, I've also had my fair share of people who are very bitter
when they lose. They just want to take their cards and go pout when
they are ousted. This has the possibility of leading to some
confrontations without a strong and firm judge.
> Directed actions are actions that directly affect another.......
As James said, is one of the unstated results of this change that you
can't use bleed cards to bleed anyone other than your prey?
> Equipment: is not optional, except as noted on card text.....
Bye-bye IC member with the Laptop...... I'm guessing that you looked
at EVERY equipment item to make sure this didn't create any weird
card interdependencies?
> Aggravated Damage: aggravated damage done to a ready vampire sends the
> vampire to torpor (since it cannot be healed) but does not cause the
> vampire to burn any blood. Aggravated damage done to a vampire with
> unhealed damage (including aggravated damage after the first point)
> requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of damage to
> avoid being burned.
I would recommend rewording this to be the exact wording from the
Jyhad
rulebook along with clarification as necessary. First you say
aggravated damage doesn't cause a vampire to burn blood and then you
do. We all know what you mean, but it should be stated better.
> Fame:
> "Unique Master. Put this card on a ready vampire. If the vampire with this
> card goes to torpor, then his controller burns 3 pool. Each Methuselah
> burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase if this vampire is in torpor."
At first, I was like, "Great, there goes my Ravnos deck." But then I
realised that my combat decks now have a way to cause some actual pool
loss. However, I must reiterate that if a card gets this much
rewording
to "fix" it, I'd rather see it banned.
> Major Boon:
> ...Not usable if you control the acting minion....
Is this piece of text necessary? It's an OOT Master. Or are you
planning on making OOT's playable on your turn?
> Mind Rape:
> # The original version of this card is just way too powerful.
Once again, ban rather than totally reword.
> Pulled Fangs:
> The damage is not aggravated.
> #
> # to balance the card with Lucky Blow, Disarm, and Twisting the Knife.
Huh? Making the damage preventable didn't balance it enough?
> Return to Innocence:
Great fix, but once again, ban rather than totally redo.
> Sleeping Mind:
> Cards played after Sleeping Mind are still free to break these rules, as
> always. So while you are provented from untapping (with Rat's Warning),
> for instance, you are not prevented from playing Wake to block - since
> Wake allows you to attempt to block "as if untapped", and untapped
> vampires can still block the action as normal.
I always took the above as the devil's advocate way of interpreting
the card. Net effect - none on decks that don't use Animalism untaps,
and Animalism untap decks have to pack some Wakes (if the meta-game
warrants).
> Thoughts Betrayed:
> "Superior: Opposing minion cannot play strike cards for the rest of combat."
Cool, but ban rather than fix. Although at least this fix doesn't add
a whole paragraph to the card.....
> Tomb of Ramses III:
> "Master: Unique Location. 3 pool.
> When this card is brought into play, or the controller of this card changes,
> the controller chooses a vampire in her uncontrolled region. During your
> influence phase, tap to move 1 blood from the blood bank to the chosen
> vampire. Burn this card when the chosen vampire leaves the uncontrolled
> region."
Ummmm, I didn't see Dreams of the Sphinx on this list anywhere.
Unless you are using ToR for pool gain, it just became wallpaper.
I'm sure glad I didn't _buy_ any as singles.
> # This may not be the best fix (indeed, I've seen some better ones posted
> # on the NG), but it is the easiest to explain/remember.
I'm sorry, LSJ, no offense intended, but I had a hard time staying on
my chair laughing at this statement. None of the cards (apart from
maybe TB) that got major reworkings are easy to remember.
> Wake with Evening's Freshness:
> "Do not replace until your next untap phase."
Forced Awakening? Hello? Is Forced Awakening alright or did you just
forget about it?
> Zip Gun:
> Cannot use ammo cards.
Zip Gun went from combat offense to combat defense. And a pretty weak
one at that.
I think I can safely predict that these rulings will increase the
room temperature on r.c.t-c.jyhad to a level that is at or above the
most heated CL debates.
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP mboh...@pdnt.com
Internet Strategy and Development Consultant
Mike Bohlmann
My news server seems slow so I went to DejaNews to see that there
were about twice as many posts as I say from my news server.
Overall, I think the new rulings are great. However, I'm in the
group that feels non-typo, complex card changes should not be
made. In their place, a card should be untouched or banned.
I've played Jyhad with about 30 or 40 different people now (not
counting conventions and tournaments). I would _liberally_
estimate that about 10 of those have Internet access. I already
feel like somewhat of an ass when I have to bring up the rulings
and such on one of every 10 cards (just a wild estimate). Usually,
I don't get too much resistance when the ruling/errata/clarification
is somewhat obvious from card text or a typo. However, when they
weren't, resistance could be great. Like the pre-June ruling on
2nd Tradition: only usable by a tapped Prince or Justicar that
needed the intercept. The card was wildly open to interpretation.
However, when faced with "official" ruling, people either just
accepted it or got upset because they depended on the card to work
a different way.
When a card is errata'd/ruling'd/clarified based on a reasonable
interpretation of a card, generally you can count on at least someone
else supporting your position.
However, I can just see what happens at the next tournament with
these rules in effect. A net savvy person is playing a game with
3 non-net people. One of the non-net people plays a Tomb of
Ramses. You have to explain to them how the card works. Then
later, someone plays a Pulled Fangs, and you have to tell them about
that change. As you continue to tell them that cards their decks
depend on have been incredibly reworded, they accuse you of cheating.
So now that you've played a tournament with a bunch of people that
don't know about the RTR, what do they do? They tell their play
group about all these weird rulings. Most likely, they don't have
anything printed, so they just continue to play as they always did.
Are tournament and event organizers now going to start carrying around
30 page books with all the new rulings to give to non-net savvy
players?
I realise that the rulings are well intentioned and meant to make
the game better. However, in my humble opinion, they've just made
a somewhat complex game with an already complex set of fixes a whole
lot more complex. And unnecessarily so.
Legbiter
<ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
I agree with James here, as usual. And let me say that I hate to appear so
negative. I like the reversion to the original aggravated damage rules. I
understand that a lot of the card-fixes are very ingenious, and we can all
marvel at them and wish that they had, indeed, originally been phrased
that way. I even suspect that as Jyhad fades out we dwindling band of
die-hards may find ourselves playing an objectively better game.
Unfortunately, it isn't going to matter one bit, because the already
difficult task of bringing in new people has just been made about ten
times more difficult.
We've been through this whole discussion before, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
see that playability is NOT the main problem with Jyhad. The main problem
is LACK OF PLAYERS AND LACK OF SALES. By all means let's fix abusive
tournament play if that's what the community wants, but NOT at the expense
of fossilising the whole game. And, as James suggests, let's do the fixing
by BANNING cards, NOT by creating new texts for them.
Legbiter, feeling slightly more cheerful with his third VP from jolstory3
almost in the bag.
Sorrow
that were over-powered had their power blatantly reduced and
I don't see how these ruling have balanced anything.
>> Fame?
>> WTF?
>> Why would anyone ever use that card again?
>Re-read the card text.
I've read it several times.
>> >Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified. Your cards are >>>
still your own, but are not burned when you are ousted - only the cards
>> > that you control are burned when you are ousted. The rest (stolen
>> > by or traded to other players) are returned to you when they are
>> > burned or when the game ends.
>> So, when I'm ousted and I want to leave, I have to wait until the
>> game is over until I get all my cards back.
>> Whatever.
>Again, these are not tournament rules.
Oh, but if I'm playing with my regular gaming group, if I need to leave
I cannot because my cards are "still in play".
Whatever.
>> >Fame:
>> How?
>Re-read the card. No more Day-Op/Fame, Mummify/Fame, Force of >Will/Fame
decks. Votes, Bleeds, Combat, and Fame. Fame abuse has >become a style of
play unto itself.
As I point out in a different message, Fame abuse has moved from
Fortitude decks to Combat decks with this ruling. I don't see how
that is any better.
Plus, in it's current state, it is practically unusable.
Sorrow
Sorrow
>>> Action - 4 blood.
>>> Bleed. If you successfully bleed your Prey for one or more, put this
It was this that I found unclear. But upon reading it *several* more
times, I see that it implies that it replaces the vampires base (inherant)
bleed of 1.
>Actually, they still work. The first complete sentence ('If you
>successfully bleed your prey for one or more...') means that
>bounce or reduction are as effective RtI defences as ever, with
>the added bonus that now combat decks can cope with it.
What I was unclear was how you even got a *1* bleed from RtI.
When I first read it, it seemed like to get >1, you *had* to use
bleed mods.
>Deflection is still a viable defence for Return to Innocence.
I see that.
However, I still contend that noone will use this card.
A 4 blood cost action to bleed for 1 where the only deck that
now has to truly worry about it is a vote deck. The text that
says that if anything happens to the vamp, the card is burned
makes it useless, IMO. An action not even worth taking because
the threat of the card being burned prematurely is too great and
not worth the 4 blood cost.
>I hope you'll reconsider leaving the game; you've been a passionate
>contributor to the group, and I'm glad that you've promoted the
>game in the past.
I didn't mind lugging around all the previous erratta because I felt
that almost all of it was fair and just. I don't see any of that fair and
justness in any of the recent rulings. I'm leaving the game. And yes,
it is kind of sad because both here (in New Orleans) and when I lived
in D.C., I promoted the hell out of the game. Since I've gotten into
V:tes, I'd have to say I've brought more than 50 people on board.
I'll be posting a list of all the cards I have later this week if anyone
is interested in buying them all.
>I hope you'll come to see that the changes arefor the benefit of the
>game.
But I don't see that they have.
I played my Pot/IG deck last week using the new erratta against one
of my playgroups Presence deck. MY IG deck won about 75%
of the time. I lost every single game (and we played 6 to do a good
test).
I don't see how any of this erratta/rulings have brought anything into
balance. I feel that all the fun has left the game for me.
bi...@my-dejanews.com
take it with many grains of salt or in a satiric fashion.
It is not intended to offend, merely to express ideas.
<satire>
LSJ,
I am starting a Lynch Mob to be composed of everyone
that ever over-traded or spent upwards of $10 on a Mind
Rape, RTI or Tomb and we will be over to your house
shortly.
You seem to have taken the trump cards effectively
out of the game with the exception of Sudden Reversal
and Direct Intervention. Do you intend to correct
this oversight?
Wouldn't it have been better to simply ban Mind Rape,
RTI and the Tomb than to issue such sweeping errata
that cannot hope to be supported by card text?
Why should Pulled Fangs be balanced against a crappy
wallpaper card like Twisting the Knife?
No self-respecting Potence deck would consider TtK,
must they also remove PF from consideration?
PF change - This should more than effectively redress
Potence against it's miniscule loss with the IG ruling,
no longer do they need to be concerned that a Fortitude
deck will take the Potence Deck's Bum's Rushes to be
an invitation to torporize the rushing vampire
(prevent all and PF).
</satire>
Any other changes immediately in the works?
cbo...@apdi.net
> > > Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah,
> > Meta-Game in a bad way.
> one that I do not hold to.
So it is indeed true that you cannot use a (D) bleed to bleed cross table?
Sorrow
LSJ
> Sorrow wrote:
> > >Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified. Your cards are still
> > > your own, but are not burned when you are ousted - only the cards
> > > that you control are burned when you are ousted. The rest (stolen
> > > by or traded to other players) are returned to you when they are
> > > burned or when the game ends.
> >
> > So, when I'm ousted and I want to leave, I have to wait until the
> > game is over until I get all my cards back.
>
But they do apply in DCI tournaments.
(Sorry - I was confused at first by your statement, and
wanted to make sure no one else was).
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> "Aggravated Damage"
>
> I don't think I fully understand this rule. Does this mean that Aggro damage
> is not pretty much identical to Jyhad aggro? You now burn from X+2 aggro,
> where X is your current blood level?
If you're taking only aggravated damage, yes.
First point cannot be healed, and you're on your way to torpor.
Next X points deplete your X blood
And the final point burns you, since you cannot burn any more blood.
LSJ
> The action to steal the blood from your powerbase cannot be attempted by your
> own vampires."
>
> Did I miss something? Can you now do (D) actions against yourself?
As allowed by card text, yes.
Note that you can never bleed yourself or enter combat with a minion
that you control.
> Are there any plans to reach the
> leigons of non Net Jyhad players? At Origins this last weekend, the vast
> majority of the players we met had zero information from any of the Net
> rulings, and there was a pretty large number of players with very weird ideas
> of how the game worked, and a good number of them became fairly beligerent
when
> introduced to the various rules fixes. I suspect that if I go to a tournamnet
> with all of these rules, most people won't know them, and some of them will
try
> and lynch me. What to do?
Good questions. I hope to be able to work with WotC and/or VEKN to reach the
non-netters out there, but am not sure yet of the scope of what that will
involve. The logistics (and profitability) may stand in the way.
We'll see.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > No vote pushing: Each Methuselah can only play no more than one
> > Political Action card to gain a vote during a political action,
> > including the Political Action card used to call the vote, if any.
> > #
> > # Idea: arguable reading of the original Jyhad rules. Fixes the
> > # same problem that the DCI vote-replenishment rule attempted to
> > # fix (so the DCI rule shouldn't be used with this rule).
> >
> This should read "not including the Political Action card used to
> the vote, if any." Why should everyone else be able to push on a
> vote and I can't? I can understand the need to stop the 6 card
> dump on a vote, but this goes too far.
No one can "push" the vote - each player can get at most one vote
from a PA card. Why should you be allowed two when everyone else
is restricted to one?
> >
> > Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified. Your cards are still
> > your own, but are not burned when you are ousted - only the cards
> > that you control are burned when you are ousted. The rest (stolen
> > by or traded to other players) are returned to you when they are
> > burned or when the game ends.
> >
> Unless, of course, I decide to go home after I am ousted right?
> Right????
Parallel:
Or you decide to go home before you're ousted, right?
Right???
Um, no. If players cannot stay for the whole game, the situation
will have to be handled as the players see fit.
In general, if you don't have time for a whole game, you should
use a time limit or some other method of ensuring that you can
leave when you need to.
> No. No. No. Don't go back to the original Jyhad Rules here. The
> only card I know of that abuses the V-TES style aggro. rules is
> Pulled Fangs. The old Jyhad way was hard to use, harder to explain,
Then explain it the current way, except that you lose one less blood.
> [objections to some of the card fixes]
Noted.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
LSJ
> >> Fame? WTF?
> >> Why would anyone ever use that card again?
> >As others (including me) have pointed out, it is now an offensive card
> >(as in used on the offense) as opposed to an offensive card (as in
> >broken broken broken).
>
> moved from Fortitude decks to combat decks.
And, as you pointed out in another post, it is much harder for
a combat deck to abuse it - to the point, in your opinion, of
making the card useless.
I don't think it is useless - but it is much harder to abuse
(maybe even balanced).
> >> >No vote pushing: Each Methuselah can only play no more than one
> >> > Political Action card to gain a vote during a political action,
> >> > including the Political Action card used to call the vote, if any.
> >> What was wrong with the way it currently works?
> >You could still make an effectively broken weenie vote push deck, which
> >the rule was intended to hinder.
>
> But now, the only effective vote decks will be those that pack *all*
> Princes or Presense.
Or auspex and vote denial. See Ventrue Antitribu.
Or Bribery.
Or Justicar votes w/ Praxes.
...
> >> >Zip Gun:
> >> Hrmmm, I can pull ZG out and do a *max* of 1 point of damage
> >> (barring celerity) while I do a damage to myself. Alot of incentive
> >> there...
> >You're maneuvering to long range... against one of my decks, you take 1
> >point of damage instead of 7.
>
> Except that you can simply use a Maneuver card instead (there are
> disciplinless Maneuver cards) and not worry about hurting yourself.
> This is effectivly what LSJ changed the ZG into: a Maneuver card.
If so, then it is effectively balanced with Fake Out, eh?
(Except that you can use it for multiple strikes at long range
with celerity, or in later rounds, or if your hand damage is
reduced, or...)
Steve Bucy
> >Tomb of Ramses III:
> > "Master: Unique Location. 3 pool.
> > you can play it on your first turn).
>
> Except that cards like Eco Terrorist stay around for the *entire game*
> (barring location burning effects), can be used on *any* vamp in your
> uncontrolled region and _costs less_. I don't see how the clanlessness
> of ToRIII makes up for weakening this card this much.
> ToRIII is now essentially wallpaper.
I totally agree with Sorrow on this one. The more I think of it, the worse
this one seems. TOR III is now basically worthless. It's expensive,
selective, vulnerable, and temporal. There is no point in using it. The
fact it is clanlessness doesn't even come close to making up for this. Also
this doesn't match the card text at all. Really bad. It would have been
much better to say that only transfers made to the vamp with TOR are
matched from the blood bank, and that no pool can be transferred from the
vampire with the tomb. I personally don't care if it's harder to remember,
I think making the card balanced and useful is more important. This ruling
is a joke. It would be better to just ban the card along with RTI and TB.
My $.02
Steve Bucy
gen...@iname.com
> almost in the bag.
I saw this! I'll remember you... :)
Todd Banister
a lot and are needed but some just do not make a whole lot of sense. :(
> Political Action card to gain a vote during a political action,
> including the Political Action card used to call the vote, if any.
> #
> # Idea: arguable reading of the original Jyhad rules. Fixes the
> # same problem that the DCI vote-replenishment rule attempted to
> # fix (so the DCI rule shouldn't be used with this rule).
I do not know how other playgroups are/were but my group has played by the
DCI tourney rules and vote pushing has not been a problem. I do not see why
we need the change. Anyone had different stories?
>
>Aggravated Damage: aggravated damage done to a ready vampire sends the
> vampire to torpor (since it cannot be healed) but does not cause the
> vampire to burn any blood. Aggravated damage done to a vampire with
> unhealed damage (including aggravated damage after the first point)
> requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of damage to avoid
> being burned.
Ugh! NO NO NO! While these may be the original rulings for agg damage they
were a pain in the ass. Newbies would look at you very confused when trying
to understand this one. Why go back? As so many people have said, the card
that was abusing the agg rules was PF. Just change PF (only!) and leave the
VTES version of the agg damage rules.
>Pulled Fangs:
> The damage is not aggravated.
> #
> # to balance the card with Lucky Blow, Disarm, and Twisting the Knife.
A very easy change that fixes the card. My group has been playing with this
house rule for a while now and have had no problems. Why the need to change
all of the agg rules as well? What other cards (agg cards) do you think are
overpowering LSJ?
>Return to Innocence:
> Action - 4 blood.
> Bleed. If you successfully bleed your Prey for one or more, put this card
> on the acting vampire. Burn this card if this vampire loses any blood or
> goes to torpor, or if your Prey is ousted. During your next untap, this
> vampire is removed from play and your Prey burns X pool, where X is the
> capacity of this vampire.
> #
> # to offset the "sudden death" aspect somewhat - not sure if it goes far
> # enough, though. We'll see.
This does help the card but why not make a very simple change and say that
NO action modifiers can be played on this action at all? Very simple. Keep
the original card text. That way, no pumping stealth into it, no Day Ops, no
Dawn Ops, Daring the Dawn. Am I missing something?
>Thoughts Betrayed:
> "Superior: Opposing minion cannot play strike cards for the rest of
combat."
Wonderful! Very simple. Very effective.
>Tomb of Ramses III:
> "Master: Unique Location. 3 pool.
> When this card is brought into play, or the controller of this card
changes,
> the controller chooses a vampire in her uncontrolled region. During your
> influence phase, tap to move 1 blood from the blood bank to the chosen
> vampire. Burn this card when the chosen vampire leaves the uncontrolled
> region."
> #
> # Basically a clanless Eco Terrorist that costs an additional pool and
can
> # feed only 1 vampire (to balance the clanlessness and the fact that you
> # can play it on your first turn).
> # This may not be the best fix (indeed, I've seen some better ones posted
> # on the NG), but it is the easiest to explain/remember.
The fix that you suggest is fine. Except that it creates a whole new card.
The Tomb was _never_ supposed to be an EcoTerrorist for the clanless. Once
again, there is a easy fix without changing all of the words and intent.
Proposed fix - just change the phrase "for each blood counter you transfer
to _AN_ uncontrolled" to "for each blood counter you transfer to _THE_
uncontrolled". Very simple change. Net effect - Now only blood moved to the
vamp with the Tomb gets the free blood. Not the ability of bringing out a
vamp for the cost of the Tomb while you influence another. Now the Tomb
makes just the very big vamps a little cheaper to play. 10 and 11 cap vamps
cost 9 pool (net savings of 2 pool). 8 and 9 cap vamps cost 7 pool (net
savings of 1 pool). I understand that you do not like the idea of the Tomb
giving free transfers on the first turn before anyone has a change to Arson
it. But so does Information Highway which is free. Please do not kill the
Tomb because I do not see a lot of larger vamps being brought out now. With
this ruling, play continues to shift to the med. (4-6) and smaller vamps.
L Scott, I have said in the past that I appreciate all of the work you have
done for the game. I still do. I completely understand that you want to
change a lot of things in the game. I think most of us are generally for
this. But before we make any drastic changes, could we at least talk about
some of them first? Like the agg damage rulings. Could the NG at least
debate this for a little while before it becomes official? This might ease
some of the tension from these rulings.
Just my 2 cents.
Todd Banister
Prince of Atlanta
LSJ
> > > > Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah,
> > > Removing cross bleeds in our playgroup will drastically affect the
> > > Meta-Game in a bad way.
> > "drastic" and "bad way" are both matters of opinion. The latter one is
> > one that I do not hold to.
>
> So it is indeed true that you cannot use a (D) bleed to bleed cross table?
Right, unless card text says otherwise.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Ethan Burrow
> > But now, the only effective vote decks will be those that pack *all*
> > Princes or Presense.
>
> Or auspex and vote denial. See Ventrue Antitribu.
Our playgroup doesn't play with voting enough to even entertain making a
deck that *hoses* votes. It would get mauled by the combat decks that
are now even stronger with fame ;-)
> Or Bribery.
Possibly, but I'm not going to build a deck based on it due to....
> Or Justicar votes w/ Praxes.
In our group everyone typically has 2-3 votes per Meth simply because of
the combo's and vamps we like to play. Praxis Seizures rarely pass
unless a weenie get's it off on 2nd turn. Thus without presence there's
no way to really get votes passed that directly help your deck, since
the table has a majority against you (and most players in our group
recognize the meta-game so there is usually no sympathy votes). So your
voting deck is downgraded to just "annoying" unless you pack in the
presence. The only viable voting deck with the new rules IMHO is a
presence vote deck that uses Closed Session, and god have mercy on your
soul if you sit next to an intercept deck.
Maybe our playgroup is the only one getting screwed, but this doesn't
give us any incentive to play with more voting....
_____________________________________________________________
Ethan Burrow V:EKN Prince of Austin
et...@ddg.com http://www.ddg.com/ethan/austin
http://www.ddg.com/ethan/
Ethan Burrow
> Legbiter wrote:
> >
> > Sigh. I have to say that I agree with Sorrow about this lot. I've been
> > working very hard to try to popularise what is basically a very good game,
> > and I feel betrayed by these new rulings. I simply can't justify to myself
> > or others ANY change to the explicit text of ANY card.
>
> Then we have an impasse.
>
> I myself do not relish the thought of playing with an Obedience
> that doesn't cancel combat (Sabbat), or playing a Soul Gem that
> costs two pool.
Errata to cards to some extent I can accept. (Let's face it, some cards
were poorly worded or poorly tested)
Outright changing basic rules of the game to me shouldn't be as simple
to change as errata though. That's what house rules and DCI rules are
for.
Ethan Burrow
> No, nor do I believe that it has been achieved.
> Bribes, vote denial (auspex and/or !Ventrue), and good old-fashioned
> politics (deal making) are still viable.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to play a vote deck
without presence using the new rules. But I doubt it'll get a single
victory point knowing how our group builds crypts (i.e. 2-3 votes per
meth usually).
> > > Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah,
> > Removing cross bleeds in our playgroup will drastically affect the
> > Meta-Game in a bad way.
>
> "drastic" and "bad way" are both matters of opinion. The latter one is
> one that I do not hold to.
One of the great things about this game is the many options available.
Your recent rulings have removed many of my options which I felt
enhanced the game. Not being able to directly bleed my predator in
times of need effectively removes a strategy from several of my decks.
What am I gaining in return? Clearer wording that I felt was already
clear??
> It also made all of the other methods of dealing aggravated damage
> stronger, when most were balanced to begin with.
>
> While not all of them were "broken" by the VTES rule, they were all
> made stronger. Some (Ivory Bow, e.g.) moved deep into the unbalanced
> field, others less so.
If it wasn't broken then what was the motivation for changing the rule
that justifies the community's (net and non-net) confusion....
> > honestly feel the VTES agg rules were simpler and more fun to play. And
>
> The new rules are simpler than the Jyhad rules, and almost as simple
> as the old VTES rules. Effectively, the vampire simply has to burn 1
That would be an opinion that I don't share. I prefer the VTES rule.
I'd rather you made all these rules changes to the DCI rules and leave
the casual game alone. It would be less confusing to new players who
frankly don't worry about tournaments all that much <g>
Ian Cyr
Although I haven't played that long my first deck was a gangrel weenie burn 'em
deck with amaranths and such.
But no, with the new agg damage rules, it seems like gangrel have just gone
down in power since it now requires AT LEAST 3 points of agg damage to burn a
vampire, and that's just if the vampire has one blood on him.
Before it would have taken two, one to put him in torpor and one to burn him,
but now it takes three, which basiclly makes playing a protean based gangrel
deck almost impossible, especially since most vampires you run across will have
more than one blood on them. Protean was hard enough to play already, and noe
it will be basically impossible to creat a viable protean deck taht will do
anything but put vampires in torpor WITH BLOOD on them so that they can just
get out next turn...
Sorry, just my $.02
Ian
<snip>
> OK:
>
> vamp w/ 0 blood takes 1 regular damage: goes to torpor empty since he cannot
> heal the damage.
>
> vamp w/ 0 blood takes 1 agg damage: goes to torpor empty since he cannot
> heal the damage.
>
> vamp w/ 1 blood takes 1 agg damage: goes to torpor with 1 blood since
> he cannot heal the damage.
>
> vamp w/ 1 blood takes 1 regular and 1 agg: loses 1 to heal regular, and goes
> to torpor with no blood.
>
> vamp w/ 1 blood takes 2 agg: 1st point will send him to torpor (since
> it cannot be healed), 2nd point requires the loss of a blood (since
> he now has unhealed damage - namely, the first point). He goes to
> torpor with no blood.
>
> vamp w/ 1 blood takes 2 regular and 1 agg: loses 1 to heal first point
> of regular damage, cannot heal the second point of regular damage, so
> he will be sent to torpor. The point of agg requires the loss of a blood
> (since he currently has unhealed damage - namely, the second point of
> regular damage), so he is burned since he has no more blood to burn.
>
> vamp w/ 1 blood takes 1 regular and 2 agg: loses 1 to heal first point
> of regular damage; the first point of agg damage will send him to torpor
> (but doesn't require the loss of a blood, since he currently has no
> unhealed damage), and the second point of agg requires the loss of a blood,
> which he cannot pay, so he is burned.
>
James Hamblin
>
> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
>
> > > But now, the only effective vote decks will be those that pack *all*
> > > Princes or Presense.
> > Or Bribery.
>
> Possibly, but I'm not going to build a deck based on it due to....
You'd be suprised. You call a vote which everyone benefits from
(Rumors, Ancient Influence, etc.) and Bribe, then Cryptic Rider your
praxis seizure or damaging vote.
> > Or Justicar votes w/ Praxes.
>
> In our group everyone typically has 2-3 votes per Meth simply because of
> the combo's and vamps we like to play.
I have found in the Ithaca group that people tend to use vampires for
their disciplines much more than for votes. If I'm not going to vote
effectively, there's not much point in even trying. Hence the vote deck
tends to get going more easily, but that's OK.
> Praxis Seizures rarely pass
> unless a weenie get's it off on 2nd turn. Thus without presence there's
> no way to really get votes passed that directly help your deck, since
> the table has a majority against you (and most players in our group
> recognize the meta-game so there is usually no sympathy votes). So your
> voting deck is downgraded to just "annoying" unless you pack in the
> presence. The only viable voting deck with the new rules IMHO is a
> presence vote deck that uses Closed Session, and god have mercy on your
> soul if you sit next to an intercept deck.
I have myself made an effective Lasombra vote deck. The Lasombra do
not, as you may be aware, have presence. :)
Robert Franklin Grau
>
>
> Other Changes to the Rules (or changes to Errata to the rules):
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified. Your cards are still
> your own, but are not burned when you are ousted - only the cards
> that you control are burned when you are ousted. The rest (stolen
> by or traded to other players) are returned to you when they are
> burned or when the game ends.
>
I like the change, but I understand why people want their cards when
ousted...
A thought hit me, and maybe this could make both parties happy:
What about proxy cards? If I remember right V:EKN was trying to get WotC
to print blank V:TES cards, and from what I could tell, the blank cards
really will be printed. (I'm right, about this anyway, eh?)
Then if someone is ousted and needs to leave, (e.g. Has a long trip home
after the last game of a tourney.) You can use the proxy card to
represent the Curse of Nitocris, Millicent Smith, Kindred Society Games
or whatever happens to be leaving.
I know that you don't need a blank card to have a proxy, but I thought
it would simplify things for tournament use. (Better than using another
card-- "No that's not a hunting ground, that's 'The Rack'" or another
object-- Chee-tos make lousy proxys... "HEY! Don't eat my ToRIII!" )
If anyone has any different ideas about how to make both parties happy
and/or compromise, I'd love to hear it. (If for nothing else, but to
develop a decent house rule on the subject.)
Thanks,
Rob Grau
rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu
Luis P. Duarte
>> [Re: several major overhauls]
>> At this point, do you really think this change is really better than
>> just banning the card?
>I'm *really* don't like the idea of banning cards. More people would be
>even more upset at that than this, esp. the ones that have paid a lot
>of money for a card that they could then no longer play with at all.
What?! I can't believe this!
I disagree totally with you, LSJ.
Your rules "corrections" have the objective to make V:tES a more
playable and fair game for all. This has nothing to do with peoples
money. I spent a lot of money on cards and now i'm worried
with some new rules i disagree, not the money i spent before!
But if that's the point, so why don't you bring back for example
"Madness of the Bard" and change it's text? I payed for that
card and i'm not worried about knowing it's a banned card!
>> > Wake with Evening's Freshness:
>> > "Do not replace until your next untap phase."
>> Any reasons behind this? Anything to do with David Pontes' recent post
>> about "everyone uses this card"?
>No, the rule was penned and being playtested well before David's post.
>> Do you really find the card too powerful?
>More powerful than it should be - the old restriction was meaningless,
>and led to this single card supplanting the need for resource
>management.
I always felt that WWEF should be replaced after i played it.
This is unfair... but that's no problem: we still got Forced Awakening!
I don't understand the new rules on "aggravated damage".
Here's a small example:
-B has capacity 2.
-A inflicts 3 aggravated points on B.
What happens now? B is still burned or just goes to torpor?
Just one final comment: in my opinion 2 different things should
happen for the good (or the surviving) of the game:
1- Too Powerful cards shoud be banned from Tournments (only), just
like Ante cards and "Madness of the Bard".
2- A second edition of the cards should be printed, because NOW i
can't explain to the NEW players of V:tES that there are many cards that
what they read in the card text is NOT what the card really does...
How do you explain this point to the new players, LSJ?
"Please don't read the card text! Instead of it, please consult
these 8 pages and search for the new card text."...!
Thanks for reading.
.- Luis....@ip.pt
James Hamblin
>
> I have to delurk here.
> Although I haven't played that long my first deck was a gangrel weenie burn 'em
> deck with amaranths and such.
> But no, with the new agg damage rules,
Er, the _old_ agg damage rules.
> it seems like gangrel have just gone
> down in power since it now requires AT LEAST 3 points of agg damage to burn a
> vampire, and that's just if the vampire has one blood on him.
...or two points if the vampire is empty. This isn't as hard to do as
you think.
There's Gangrel Revel, Ritual Challenge, and Scorpion Sting. See also
Gomi no Sensei's "Who needs potence?" deck and my various incarnations
of the Gangrel intercept deck. These were all made under the old (and
now current again) aggro rules.
Then again, there's always the weenie Protean deck. Lots of weenies
that bleed with computer hackings and Laptops, and poke anyone who
blocks.
cbo...@apdi.net
>> Fame? WTF?
> > But the effect is the exact same. It's just that the burden of abuse has
> > moved from Fortitude decks to combat decks.
> (maybe even balanced).
I dispute this assertion.
During the heated debate about IG, you said time and time again that it
still isn't difficult to put the opposing vamp into Torpor in the first
round (while still under the effects of IG). And since Fame now is only
effective in a combat deck (I pointed out Fame is useless in anything but),
it can (and will) still be abused by combat decks.
> > >> >No vote pushing: Each Methuselah can only play no more than one
> > But now, the only effective vote decks will be those that pack *all*
> > Princes or Presense.
> Or auspex and vote denial. See Ventrue Antitribu.
These just became ultra powerful v. vote decks. In talking with Jared
Strait this morning, he made mention that the more he thought about it,
the more he liked this ruling because it made it so that voting is now
a group dynamic where one deck would no longer dominate. I contend that
this is not a good thing. Unless you pack tons of PS's, Princes or
Presence, you are pretty much going to have to rely on the rest of the
table to help you pass votes. That just about each of your votes
(including, potentially, the initial PS to make your minions a prince)
is now controlled by the whims of the table. What ever happened to
being able to build a Vote deck that succeeds on it's own merits and
not on the mood of the other players.
> Or Bribery.
Why should a vote deck *have* to pack bribery just to pass it's votes?
Of all the vote decks I've ever built, only one contained Bribes. I
usually needed the space for other cards. Now, just about every vote
deck will need to in order to succeed.
> Or Justicar votes w/ Praxes.
Yeah, but if your Justicar/PS votes get voted down (which is easy to
do) early in the game, then your deck is so screwed.
>> >Zip Gun:
> > Except that you can simply use a Maneuver card instead (there are
> > disciplinless Maneuver cards) and not worry about hurting yourself.
> > This is effectivly what LSJ changed the ZG into: a Maneuver card.
> If so, then it is effectively balanced with Fake Out, eh?
How? Fake Out doesn't cause a damage to be done to the vamp.
> (Except that you can use it for multiple strikes at long range
> with celerity, or in later rounds, or if your hand damage is
> reduced, or...)
If you are using celerity, then there are much better things you
can use for strikes. And why in the world would you pack a ZG
expecting your HD to be reduced? It rarely happens and because
of this, it will turn into a wasted slot. And later rounds? If
your deck is using ZG, odds are that you don't want to go later
rounds.
All of the above arguments are poor, imo.
Sorrow
cbo...@apdi.net
> > So it is indeed true that you cannot use a (D) bleed to bleed cross table?
> Right, unless card text says otherwise.
Umm, I don't understand this.
Most (all?) bleed cards say:
(D) Bleed with +X bleed.
It doesn't say anything about bleeding another methuselah (the otherwise).
So, now cards like Social Charm and Govern the Unaligned cannot be used
to bleed my Predator? Or even my Grand Pred?
Todd Banister
>Next X points deplete your X blood
>And the final point burns you, since you cannot burn any more blood.
>
is exactly what you mean. You said that the first point of agg damage
_cannot_ be healed. No damage prevention? Did you mean if it is not
prevented then the first point sends the vamp to torpor?
Just needed this ruling a little clearer.
Thanks
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > Major Boon:
> > ...Not usable if you control the acting minion....
>
> Is this piece of text necessary? It's an OOT Master. Or are you
> planning on making OOT's playable on your turn?
It is possible to take a bleed action when it is not your turn,
you know?
> > Tomb of Ramses III:
> > "Master: Unique Location. 3 pool.
> > When this card is brought into play, or the controller of this card changes,
> > the controller chooses a vampire in her uncontrolled region. During your
> > influence phase, tap to move 1 blood from the blood bank to the chosen
> > vampire. Burn this card when the chosen vampire leaves the uncontrolled
> > region."
>
> Ummmm, I didn't see Dreams of the Sphinx on this list anywhere.
> Unless you are using ToR for pool gain, it just became wallpaper.
> I'm sure glad I didn't _buy_ any as singles.
Tomb can be used indefinately as a pool gainer. Dreams cannot.
> > Wake with Evening's Freshness:
> > "Do not replace until your next untap phase."
>
> Forced Awakening? Hello? Is Forced Awakening alright or did you just
> forget about it?
FA has a cost if you simply cycle it (or use it to play Deflection
or Telepathic Counter or whatever), and carries the threat of a
cost if the acting minion out-stealths you.
LSJ
> Our playgroup doesn't play with voting enough to even entertain making a
> In our group everyone typically has 2-3 votes per Meth simply because of
Well, which is it?
If voting is just a sideline for your players, then you
should be able to pass mosts vote if you are playing a voting
deck.
If it's just a sideline for you as well, then sure, it
may not be a sure thing (far from it). That's the
way politics are supposed to work.
LSJ
> Errata to cards to some extent I can accept. (Let's face it, some cards
> were poorly worded or poorly tested)
>
> Outright changing basic rules of the game to me shouldn't be as simple
> to change as errata though. That's what house rules and DCI rules are
> for.
DCI rules are for making the game work in a tournament environment,
not for fixing problems with the game in general.
That's what errata is for.
Mike Bohlmann
> Good questions. I hope to be able to work with WotC and/or VEKN to reach the
> non-netters out there, but am not sure yet of the scope of what that will
> involve. The logistics (and profitability) may stand in the way.
> We'll see.
A failure to plan is a plan for failure. I already get confused
and frustrated looks from people when I point out a ruling that
means the card they just tried to play to do something really cool
doesn't really work like that.
Old Way:
Me - "Fame is now unique, you can't play more than one
without contesting it."
Other player - "Oh..." And they usually accept it.
New Way:
Me - "Fame is unique and instead of causing your prey to lose 3
pool, you lose 3 pool. So since you were using it for a kind
of combat defense, you'll want to take it out of that deck and
put it in your combat decks."
Other player - "What? Why? Huh?"
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP mboh...@pdnt.com
Internet Strategy and Development Consultant
Quicksilver
> > >Tomb of Ramses III:
> > > "Master: Unique Location. 3 pool.
> > > # Basically a clanless Eco Terrorist that costs an additional pool and
> > > can feed only 1 vampire (to balance the clanlessness and the fact that
> > > you can play it on your first turn).
> >
> > Except that cards like Eco Terrorist stay around for the *entire game*
> > (barring location burning effects), can be used on *any* vamp in your
> > uncontrolled region and _costs less_. I don't see how the clanlessness
> > of ToRIII makes up for weakening this card this much.
> > ToRIII is now essentially wallpaper.
>
> I totally agree with Sorrow on this one. The more I think of it, the worse
> this one seems. TOR III is now basically worthless. It's expensive,
> selective, vulnerable, and temporal. There is no point in using it. The
> fact it is clanlessness doesn't even come close to making up for this. Also
> this doesn't match the card text at all. Really bad. It would have been
> much better to say that only transfers made to the vamp with TOR are
> matched from the blood bank, and that no pool can be transferred from the
> vampire with the tomb. I personally don't care if it's harder to remember,
> I think making the card balanced and useful is more important. This ruling
> is a joke. It would be better to just ban the card along with RTI and TB.
>
> My $.02
>
> Steve Bucy
Hogwash. You pay 3 pool and get 1 pool per turn or faster influence. I
would definately still use the card. It is now balanced instead of a focus
of complaint.
Quicksilver
> >> Sleeping Mind:
> >> Cards played after Sleeping Mind are still free to break these rules,
> >> as always. So while you are provented from untapping (with Rat's
> >> Warning), for instance, you are not prevented from playing Wake to >>
> block - since Wake allows you to attempt to block "as if untapped",
> >> and untapped vampires can still block the action as normal.
> >But wasn't the intent of the card clearly to _prevent_ Waken vampires
> >from blocking?
>
> So basically the only cards that the Sleeping Mind will prevent being
> used is Guard Dogs and Rat's Warning?
> This makes a whole lot of sense. If this is indeed the case, why would
> anyone use TSM if it is only useful against an animalism untap deck?
2nd Tradition too. Not too useful, but, hey, dominate did not need
Sleeping Mind as it was written.
Mike Bohlmann
> Hogwash. You pay 3 pool and get 1 pool per turn or faster influence. I
> would definately still use the card. It is now balanced instead of a focus
> of complaint.
Unless you actually bring out that vampire. Unless you are willing
to take the time to fill a vampire using only the "new" ToRIII, you
are going to probably lose or barely break even on your investment.
So it's best use under the new wording is as a pool gainer. Kind of
like an infinite Dreams of the Sphinx that only does the influence
part.
If a rewording was going to be done, why wasn't the simpler one
chosen that has floated around for quite a while: the ToRIII only
works for transfers to the vampire that has the Tomb. Someone else
already wrote it, but it basically required the change of the word
"any" to "this." A lot simpler than this new wording.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote in message <6o02v1$3r8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >> [Re: several major overhauls]
> >> At this point, do you really think this change is really better than
> >> just banning the card?
> >I'm *really* don't like the idea of banning cards. More people would be
> >even more upset at that than this, esp. the ones that have paid a lot
> >of money for a card that they could then no longer play with at all.
>
> What?! I can't believe this!
> I disagree totally with you, LSJ.
> Your rules "corrections" have the objective to make V:tES a more
> playable and fair game for all. This has nothing to do with peoples
> money.
Correct.
And if I banned cards instead of fixing them, some
(more) people would be (more) upset.
> But if that's the point, so why don't you bring back for example
> "Madness of the Bard" and change it's text? I payed for that
> card and i'm not worried about knowing it's a banned card!
It is banned for tournament reasons (namely, that it penalizes
non-native speakers, and it is hard to fairly "judge" what
is a rhyme).
> I always felt that WWEF should be replaced after i played it.
Even before combat was concluded?
I hadn't heard that one before.
> I don't understand the new rules on "aggravated damage".
> Here's a small example:
> -B has capacity 2.
> -A inflicts 3 aggravated points on B.
> What happens now? B is still burned or just goes to torpor?
Torpor: first point (unhealable, since it is agg) sets the vampire
on his way to torpor. second point (since he has unhealed damage)
requires the loss of a blood (leaving him with one), and the third
point (since he has unhealed damage) requires the loss of a blood
(leaving him with zero).
> 2- A second edition of the cards should be printed, because NOW i
> can't explain to the NEW players of V:tES that there are many cards that
> what they read in the card text is NOT what the card really does...
> How do you explain this point to the new players, LSJ?
> "Please don't read the card text! Instead of it, please consult
> these 8 pages and search for the new card text."...!
The same way you explain that Hidden Lurker is an action modifier,
that Blythe has only inferior auspex, that Catatonic Fear's damage
is dealt after combat, etc.
I'd *love* to get a new edition printed, I really would.
Right now, that doesn't look like it'll happen.
Eric Pettersen
rulings (some exceptions, though), I feel that making so many fundamental
card/rule changes is unwise. I think most players would have been happy
if the "heavy hitters" of brokenness (only) had been addressed, namely:
RtI, Tomb, TB, and Fame. Four changes are easily explainable. 20+ changes
are not.
Making so many changes puts a big damper on tourneys. A friend of mine
runs V:TES tourneys at local cons, and most participants are not
up-to-the-minute on net rulings. Having to tell them about _major_
rules/card changes as they arrive with prepared decks is an obvious
disaster. I don't know if my friend will be able to reasonably run further
tourneys.
The two rulings I disagree enough with that I feel compelled to say
something are:
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> Fame:
> "Unique Master. Put this card on a ready vampire. If the vampire with this
> card goes to torpor, then his controller burns 3 pool. Each Methuselah
> burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase if this vampire is in torpor."
Aside from its "brokenness" angles, the other intent of Fame is to safeguard
a vampire from combat somewhat due to the negative consequences of
torporizing the vampire. The above "fix" preserves none of this intent,
and in fact turns it inside out to make the Famous vampire a target of
combat. Why not fix Fame to be:
"<uniqueness clause preserved>... If the vampire with this card goes to
torpor during another Methuselah's turn, that Methuselah burns 3 pool.
...<1 pool per Meth for torpor preserved>"
Since all the broken angles involve loops on the controller's turn, this
errata removes those problems while preserving Fame's other intent (combat
deterrence). The current errata isn't a "fix"; it's an entirely different
card whose only resemblance to the printed card is the name "Fame".
> Sleeping Mind:
> Cards played after Sleeping Mind are still free to break these rules, as
> always. So while you are provented from untapping (with Rat's Warning),
> for instance, you are not prevented from playing Wake to block - since
> Wake allows you to attempt to block "as if untapped", and untapped
> vampires can still block the action as normal.
So you're saying that the "tapped minions cannot block this action" clause
of Sleeping Mind, despite not being parenthesized, is simply reminder text
(since tapped minions can never normally block). Clearly not the intent
of SM, so therefore the reasoning must be that SM is broken and needs
fixing.
Now, I don't think anyone argues that SM is broken on its own -- if you
tap all your minions you're kind of "asking for it". It's a combo that
taps all your minions and follows with SM that's broken. What combo is
that? Everybody together: Misdirection / Sleeping Mind. I'd say that
of the two, Misdirection is the broken card; it's devastating in many
situations and is what causes the "must have Wakes / SRs" problem. I'd
say you're targeting the wrong card for a fix (SM) just because it's newer.
Instead of making SM wallpaper and leaving Misdirection overpowered, why
not leave SM as is and change Misdirection to a 0 cost master that taps
a single minion?
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)
Eric Pettersen
> Sorrow wrote:
> > Why did you
> > change the rules for Vote Pushing? The current rules for PAs
> > (not replacing until the end of the turn) were fine.
>
> That is a tournament rule. The regular V:TES rules have no prohibitions
> against vote pushing.
Not just a tournament rule -- it's also a Sabbat rule. Vote replenishment
occurs at the end of the minion phase by Sabbat rules.
Eric Pettersen
> I totally agree with Sorrow on this one. The more I think of it, the worse
> this one seems. TOR III is now basically worthless. It's expensive,
> selective, vulnerable, and temporal. There is no point in using it. The
> fact it is clanlessness doesn't even come close to making up for this. Also
> this doesn't match the card text at all. Really bad. It would have been
> much better to say that only transfers made to the vamp with TOR are
> matched from the blood bank, and that no pool can be transferred from the
> vampire with the tomb. I personally don't care if it's harder to remember,
> I think making the card balanced and useful is more important. This ruling
> is a joke. It would be better to just ban the card along with RTI and TB.
Yes, I would have preferred a fix along the lines of the matched transfers
going onto the _Tomb_. When the vamps blood + Tomb blood == vamp cap,
the vamp comes out at full. This allows the Tomb to be burned or stolen
_along with its blood_ -- a major risk. But still a possible major benefit.
And no transfers off. Oh well.
bi...@my-dejanews.com
cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
>
> > > So it is indeed true that you cannot use a (D) bleed to bleed cross table?
> > Right, unless card text says otherwise.
>
> Umm, I don't understand this.
> Most (all?) bleed cards say:
>
> (D) Bleed with +X bleed.
>
> It doesn't say anything about bleeding another methuselah (the otherwise).
> So, now cards like Social Charm and Govern the Unaligned cannot be used
> to bleed my Predator? Or even my Grand Pred?
>
than your prey may be bled. According to the new (D) interpretation,
these are the only actions that allow you to bleed someone other than
your prey.
bi...@my-dejanews.com
"Todd Banister" <T_Ban...@Premier-Lending.com> wrote:
> >Return to Innocence:
> > Action - 4 blood.
> > Bleed. If you successfully bleed your Prey for one or more, put this card
> > on the acting vampire. Burn this card if this vampire loses any blood or
> > goes to torpor, or if your Prey is ousted. During your next untap, this
> > vampire is removed from play and your Prey burns X pool, where X is the
> > capacity of this vampire.
> > #
> > # to offset the "sudden death" aspect somewhat - not sure if it goes far
> > # enough, though. We'll see.
>
> This does help the card but why not make a very simple change and say that
> NO action modifiers can be played on this action at all? Very simple. Keep
> the original card text. That way, no pumping stealth into it, no Day Ops, no
> Dawn Ops, Daring the Dawn. Am I missing something?
Concoction of Vitality, Psychic Veil, Misdirection, etc.
GymNat1
Rape is as tame as it is now. The original original card text had you taking
control of the vamp for good!
Todd Banister
the way I played the card until someone pointed out to me that there was
another way to read it. Changing one word is a hell of a lot easier to
remember than creating a new card (clanless Ecoterrorist). AND it keeps the
original intent.
Will anyone listen?
Todd Banister
Prince of Atlanta
Mike Bohlmann wrote in message <35A3D7C3...@pdnt.com>...
James Hamblin
>
> I dispute this assertion.
> During the heated debate about IG, you said time and time again that it
> still isn't difficult to put the opposing vamp into Torpor in the first
> round (while still under the effects of IG). And since Fame now is only
> effective in a combat deck (I pointed out Fame is useless in anything but),
> it can (and will) still be abused by combat decks.
He said "isn't difficult" in the context of a combat deck. It is
exceedingly difficult to get a working combat deck that can reliably
torporize vampires. So having this card work for those decks isn't
really broken. Being able to play cards which have penalties like Day
Op and get a benefit out of them (ie., Fame damage) _is_ broken.
Besides, the Uniqueness of Fame again keeps it under control even in its
new context.
> What ever happened to
> being able to build a Vote deck that succeeds on it's own merits and
> not on the mood of the other players.
A deck which can basically automatically pass every single one of its
votes (read: Weenie Vote Push) is broken, since vote defense is sketchy,
narrow, and rarely used.
> > Or Bribery.
>
> Why should a vote deck *have* to pack bribery just to pass it's votes?
Why should a vote deck have to play with cards to pass its votes?
Because every other strategy has to have something to make it work. Why
should votes be any different?
> If you are using celerity, then there are much better things you
> can use for strikes. And why in the world would you pack a ZG
> expecting your HD to be reduced? It rarely happens and because
> of this, it will turn into a wasted slot. And later rounds? If
> your deck is using ZG, odds are that you don't want to go later
> rounds.
You seem to be saying that the only thing that made Zip Gun good was the
broken Dragons Breath Rounds combo. That is not the case; I have seen
the card used as combat defense in weenie decks a lot.
Ethan Burrow
> Ethan Burrow wrote:
> > Our playgroup doesn't play with voting enough to even entertain making a
> >[...]
> > In our group everyone typically has 2-3 votes per Meth simply because of
>
> Well, which is it?
>
> If voting is just a sideline for your players, then you
> should be able to pass mosts vote if you are playing a voting
> deck.
>
> If it's just a sideline for you as well, then sure, it
> may not be a sure thing (far from it). That's the
> way politics are supposed to work.
What I meant was that people play with high capacity vamps for the
skills, and they just so happen to have titles.
And if I were to play a voting deck, I would *have* to use presence to
have any hope of passing them.
Ethan Burrow
> Ethan Burrow wrote:
> >
> > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > But now, the only effective vote decks will be those that pack *all*
> > > > Princes or Presense.
> [snip]
>
> > > Or Bribery.
> >
> > Possibly, but I'm not going to build a deck based on it due to....
>
> You'd be suprised. You call a vote which everyone benefits from
> (Rumors, Ancient Influence, etc.) and Bribe, then Cryptic Rider your
> praxis seizure or damaging vote.
How many times has your hand jammed when you needed at least a 4 card
combo? Now that you can't push votes, I expect any deck to easily kill
a voting deck using bribes instead of presence.
> I have myself made an effective Lasombra vote deck. The Lasombra do
> not, as you may be aware, have presence. :)
I'd be interested to know what kind of gaming environment your Lasombra
deck succeeds in. Would you object to posting the deck here?
r. brian smith
of my group and a few of the other members of this newsgroup, it is time
for me to join the fray. Not that my words will be listened to, or somehow
be more important than anyone elseÄ…s :)
First off a thank you goes out to LSJ for fixing some long standing
problems in the past few weeks (that includes the last set of rulings and
some of this current one). I know that what youÄ…re doing for this game
isnÄ…t the easiest thing in the world, and right now you are far from
everyoneÄ…s favorite person, but thank you for your good intentions. In
terms of numbers, there is more good than bad in all of these rulings.
ItÄ…s just that the Å‚badË› (or questionable) is significant and difficult to
swallow when it comes out of the blue like this.
No Vote push
Hmm, as one of the people I play with has already stated this could have
the biggest effect of all of these rulings on the group I play with. Not
that we vote-push on a regular basis - in fact the last time I tried a
weenie vote push deck (using the pre-DCI vote push rule) it was pummeled
so bad that we havenÄ…t seen another - but often that one or two political
action cards thrown for votes could make the difference (mainly because we
all have at least one titled vamp per game). Now voting decks have to work
much harder (be more creative in how votes are cast, use more action
modifiers, stick to only large vampires with titles, or rely upon
presence) to achieve the same ends. In an environment where all
MethuselahÄ…s are keenly aware of the power of politics and will sometimes
willingly vote down a referendum that benefits them in order to avoid a
cryptic rider or Voter cap, this makes political decks, especially ones
that try to function without presence (malk stealth vote, !Ventrue vote,
!Gangrel vote, Lasombra - though they do have ways to make a voting deck
that others do not) much less attractive.
As I mentioned above, we seldom see WVP decks, so it might be very
possible that my opinion on this topic is not average. Perhaps if we saw
more WVP decks I would be one of the people cheering for this change.
In an attempt to blow some sunshine on the situation - this rule might
have the unexpected side effect of re-introducing cards like Bribes (which
we have actually used quite a bit more since the Sabbat), Delaying
Tactics, Surprise Influence, etc. I doubt it, but it might.
Golden rule
We have played this way as a house rule since the first time we played
(which like everyone else here was mere days after the initial release).
so it isnÄ…t that big of a deal to us.
A suggestion for those having difficulties with the Å‚what if I want to go
homeË› question. The way we play it is that if someone needs to go home
they take their cards with them and play is suspended momentarily while
another version of the same card is pulled from another deck (I steal
EthanÄ…s Sport bike, heÄ…s ousted and needs to leave, I dig through one of
my other decks and get a sport bike to replace the one that needs to leave
with Ethan), or if that is not an option we remember what card is in play
by use of a token, if that becomes too difficult we take a piece of paper
(napkin, trash, anything) and write which card it represents. This rarely
presents a problem and most people are content with the solution.
(D) actions
This one is a biggie in that it removes cross table bleeding. Our table
dynamic is such that you rarely know who is going to pull off a victory.
The current Å‚leaderË› generally finds themself all alone with only enemies.
While cross-table bleeding isnÄ…t rampant, it is often used as Å‚defensiveË›
ability (bleeding your predator to relieve or remove some of the pressure
you may be experiencing). Half of the time this is an act of desperation
or someone going into Å‚spoilerË› mode, the other half it is a well-planned
removal of an obstacle in your path to victory.
But now that I think about it, if a well placed direct bleed is the
difference between victory and loss, perhaps it is a little too powerful.
I donÄ…t like the change, but can live with it.
Non-optional equipment
My only concern (and this was brought up by another member of my group) is
that any +1 bleeder with a laptop is now a target for justicar
retribution. Perhaps some clarification that the laptop only gives the +1
bleed when bleeding (similar to the way the Sabbat Pulse of Canaille
works) is in order
Agg Damage
ach. My only complaint with the V:tES agg damage rules was that they broke
Pulled Fangs and to a lesser extent the Ivory Bow. With the changes to
Pulled Fangs I donÄ…t see this as necessary. The V:tES agg damage rules are
much more easier to remember and teach to new players.
The Jyhad Agg damage rules (X+2) arenÄ…t all that difficult, but even I
still have to pause for a moment to figure it out in the middle of combat.
Simplest often is best.
Fame
I am a longtime abuser of Fame (of sorts) I admit it. I am not sure that I
care for the change, but the new wording does make more sense in a
real-world sense (which I always try to apply to make sense out of cards).
The change is just so significant that it is going to be hell to make sure
all people are using it in the same way.
This, and other cards are prime candidates for some sort of a special
reprint/exchange program where card with the new texts are reprinted in
small quantities (just a run with fame, RTI, MR, TOR, etc. slipped onto
the printing plates of another product) to replace those that consumers
already have. Perhaps even having us ship the cards to a Å‚reprint centerË›
so they know exactly how many to print, and to avoid Å‚little JohnnyË›
manipulating the truth to end up with 50 of each. this idea will obviously
never happen, but it would be nice. Even some sort of Å‚stickerË› program
where the new text is printed onto label stock and can be adhered to cards
could work. Something with the correct text on it is preferable to a tome
of rulings.
Mind Rape & RTI
The new cards seem like they would be much better had they been the
original versions, unfortunately they arenÄ…t.
I prefer simpler fixes rather than brand new cards simply because trying
to remember the text change is going to be hellish. If it were possible to
get new versions printed, IÄ…m all for the change, but thatÄ…s not going to
happen.
The text change is too extensive to enforce easily, grudgingly IÄ…ll have
to admit that I prefer banning to this significant of a change.
The Sleeping Mind
This works, donÄ…t like it that much, but I am very aware of how rough the
Misdirection/TSM actually is. Something probably needed to be done. Of the
five cards it originally hosed (WwEF, FA, RW, GD, & 2nd Trad) it now only
hoses three. ThatÄ…s fine, and since animalism untap decks are very popular
at times around here I will still be using TSM in my tap & bleed deck.
ThoughtÄ…s Betrayed
Better than the original and not a complete rewrite. When my group meets
to discuss these rulings I will probably be willing to take TB off of our
house banned list.
TOR 3
I donÄ…t know how I feel about this. WeÄ…ve been playing it so that it comes
into play tapped (so you cannot use it until it untaps) and that it only
matches transfers made to the vamp it is put on. Slows it down a turn and
removes the abusive Å‚IÄ…ll put blood on all these other minions and viola
the one under the tomb also pops outË›
This change is certainly worth trying and it makes more sense than the
original when compared to the rest of the cards of that nature.
Wake
This came as a surprise. I recognize that wakes really donÄ…t require a lot
of thought to use, donÄ…t have a drawback, and due to a screwy ruling can
be played to cycle cards without ill effect (personally I think this is
more damaging than the lack of any real negative effect). But since they
in and of themselves donÄ…t allow you to win a game I had never really
thought them bad enough to warrant fixing.
the Å‚do not replace until your next untap phaseË› seems severe, especially
when you are waking to block your preyÄ…s actions. I would argue that a Å‚do
not replace until the next untap phaseË› might be more in line. But since
you are still allowed to Å‚burnË› a wake to no effect my suggestion still
isnÄ…t powerful enough.
I guess IÄ…ll just have to use Forced Awakenings in any decks where I plan
to block my preyÄ…s actions : )
My apologies if I have offended anyone or displayed an incredible amount
of ignorance. Just felt that I needed to join in the Å‚funË›, thank LSJ for
at least trying to clean up this game we all love, and to hope that when
all this is said and done cooler heads will have prevailed and that we end
up with a game that is as balanced as it can be.
--
r. brian smith
tam...@purity.com
James Hamblin
>
> James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> > You'd be suprised. You call a vote which everyone benefits from
> > (Rumors, Ancient Influence, etc.) and Bribe, then Cryptic Rider your
> > praxis seizure or damaging vote.
>
> How many times has your hand jammed when you needed at least a 4 card
> combo? Now that you can't push votes, I expect any deck to easily kill
> a voting deck using bribes instead of presence.
All the time. Why should votes be the special strategy that only
requires a one-card combo? As I have said, in Ithaca we used the no
vote push rule for years and there were many an effective vote deck.
> > I have myself made an effective Lasombra vote deck. The Lasombra do
> > not, as you may be aware, have presence. :)
>
> I'd be interested to know what kind of gaming environment your Lasombra
> deck succeeds in. Would you object to posting the deck here?
The deck has been posted by me at least twice in the past. I would not
object to posting it again except that I have since dismantled it. Try
looking through DejaNews or on one of the deck archives. It was called
"Hey, hey, we're the Lasombra". It used bribes, titled vampires, and a
couple of the goofy Lasombra gain-votes cards.
James Hamblin
>
> Perhaps I should have said "modifiers" instead of "action modifiers".
Except that "modifiers" is not a well-defined game term.
> This
> would have stopped Concoction of Vitality. As far as the Psychic Veil or
> Misdirection goes, thats gets sticky. One would need to have +1 intercept
> or a wakey to stop. Either way they will help the RTI but not (IMHO) make
> it over bearing. At least this way you have a chance to stop it instead of
> the no choice (Day ops way).
As I've said before, any bleed for 15 (or whatever) is just broken.
Trying to plug up the dam by preventing specific combos will only make
people work harder to find other combos. Either cripple the card (as
LSJ has done) or ban it.
Gomi no Sensei
Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
[LSJ dixit:]
>> No more omni-directabilty, correct.
>Umm... that doesn't follow at all. Nowhere in the rules (or in your new
>rulings) does it say that bleeds must be directed at your prey.
I am forced to disagree. From the VtES rulebook, 6.4, available at
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/rulebook:
"[...]Bleeding is one of the most fundamental directed
actions in the game.[...]
To have one of your minions commit a bleed action:
1) Tap the minion and announce to your prey that your minion is attempting
to bleed.
2) If your prey's minions cannot block, or are unsuccessful in their
attempts to stop you, your prey burns one pool."
The use of 'directed' and 'prey' in the definition of the term 'bleed'
indicate that an action card that uses the word 'bleed' in its text
can only be directed at one's prey, modulo specific cardtext to the
contrary.
>The
>normal "cardless" bleed action, as defined in the rulebook is, "(D)
>Bleed your prey."
The rulebook available on-line states otherwise.
>Therefore, a card which says, "(D) Bleed," allows you
>to bleed any methuselah by exclusion of a condition, not by any voodoo
>definition of the (D) symbol. Since there has been no ruling saying
>that (D) forces you to direct at your prey, Social Charm, et al, are
>still directable at any methuselah. Or is there to be new errata for
>all such bleed cards?
Near as I can determine, no such errata is required.
gomi
--
Sure, she may be a nuisance for a while, but then you
kill her and go on with your life. - hamblin at math wisc edu
Robert Goudie
>
> >I hope you'll come to see that the changes arefor the benefit of the
> >game.
>
> But I don't see that they have.
> I played my Pot/IG deck last week using the new erratta against one
> of my playgroups Presence deck. MY IG deck won about 75%
> of the time. I lost every single game (and we played 6 to do a good
> test).
> I don't see how any of this erratta/rulings have brought anything into
> balance. I feel that all the fun has left the game for me.
You should realize that your six games is a ridiculously sample and not
a good measure of the effect of the new rulings. But that is beside the
point anyway. For cryin' out loud, make some new decks. Frankly, I
think that the fact that many of my existing decks are unusable is a
good sign that LSJ is on the right track.
Robert Goudie
rrgo...@earthlink.net
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
Robert Goudie
> > Bribes, vote denial (auspex and/or !Ventrue), and good old-fashioned
> > politics (deal making) are still viable.
>
> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to play a vote deck
> without presence using the new rules. But I doubt it'll get a single
> victory point knowing how our group builds crypts (i.e. 2-3 votes per
> meth usually).
If your playgroup has this many big vamps at the table then a vote deck
probably isn't even what you should be playing. How about some weenie
decks?
> > > > Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah,
> > > Removing cross bleeds in our playgroup will drastically affect the
> > > Meta-Game in a bad way.
> >
> > "drastic" and "bad way" are both matters of opinion. The latter one is
> > one that I do not hold to.
>
> One of the great things about this game is the many options available.
> Your recent rulings have removed many of my options which I felt
> enhanced the game. Not being able to directly bleed my predator in
> times of need effectively removes a strategy from several of my decks.
> What am I gaining in return? Clearer wording that I felt was already
> clear??
Bleeding someone other than your prey is certainly a tool that all good
players have used at one time or another. However, there is little
doubt that bleeds were intended to be inflicted upon your prey only.
Frankly, I've had too many games de-evolve into figuring out who was
winning and then the table ganging up on them. Yawn.
> I'd rather you made all these rules changes to the DCI rules and leave
> the casual game alone. It would be less confusing to new players who
> frankly don't worry about tournaments all that much <g>
I feel very strongly that the tournament rules should only address
tournament issues such as ante cards.
--
Robert Goudie, Chairman rrgo...@earthlink.net
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
_________________________________________________________________
The Official Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Players' Organization
Robert Goudie
>
> Sigh. I have to say that I agree with Sorrow about this lot. I've been
> working very hard to try to popularise what is basically a very good game,
> and I feel betrayed by these new rulings. I simply can't justify to myself
> or others ANY change to the explicit text of ANY card.
>
> What you have done here is simultaneously create an elite of Jyhad players
> who know the new rules, and cast into outer darkness the vast majority of
> fun players who will find it difficult either to access or to understand
> the new rulings. Gaze into my eyes and I will give you another instance of
> my prophetic Malkavian powers ....
So who knows the rules about Hidden Lurker? How about the tournament
rules that removed the 6-card limit on S:CE and Damage Dealing Votes?
The list goes on and on... Those with net access have always been the
only ones playing with the correct rules. What has changed?
> Scene: the near future. A tense game of Jyhad is nearing its climax .....
>
> NEWBIE: "Hah! Using my two master phases I play Fame and Memories of
> Mortality on Zebulon, no minion phase, and during influence Zebulon burns
> the Memories, goes to torpor and you are ousted!!! I WIN I WIN!!! I LOVE
> THIS GAME!!!!"
>
> LEGBITER: "Erm .... sorry dear Newbie, but according to the latest rules
> team rulings Fame kills YOU! I WIN I WIN!!!! I LOVE BEING RICH ENOUGH TO
> HAVE NET ACCESS SINCE IT ENABLES ME TO KILL PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY BETTER
> THAN ME!!!!"
In the last tournament you played in did the "NEWBIE" play with a
six-card limit, or a 2-Card limit on S:CE? Why not? Probably because
someone gave them a copy of the current rulings off the net. Either
that or they had net access themself. I am as concerned about the
people without net access as anyone, but I don't think this situation
has changed any with LSJ's latest rulings.
Has everyone just gotten so used to not having any Rules Team responses
that they are just willing to freeze the May '98 rules forever?
Robert Goudie
>
> > > So it is indeed true that you cannot use a (D) bleed to bleed cross table?
> > Right, unless card text says otherwise.
>
> Umm, I don't understand this.
> Most (all?) bleed cards say:
>
> (D) Bleed with +X bleed.
>
> It doesn't say anything about bleeding another methuselah (the otherwise).
> So, now cards like Social Charm and Govern the Unaligned cannot be used
> to bleed my Predator? Or even my Grand Pred?
The rulebook says that you can only bleed your prey and that bleeding is
a directed action. Later, the rulebook says that directed actions are
actions that directly affect other Methuselah's.
There is little doubt that this game always intended bleeds to be made
to prey only. Read Richard Garfield's comments in the original Jyhad
strategy guide. He states that games in which players interact too
freely become simple games of diplomacy. Richard doesn't like games
like that "which is why in Jyhad you can only bleed your prey".
Robert Goudie
>
> However, I can just see what happens at the next tournament with
> these rules in effect. A net savvy person is playing a game with
> 3 non-net people. One of the non-net people plays a Tomb of
> Ramses. You have to explain to them how the card works. Then
> later, someone plays a Pulled Fangs, and you have to tell them about
> that change. As you continue to tell them that cards their decks
> depend on have been incredibly reworded, they accuse you of cheating.
If the tournament is sanctioned, the judge will have these rules. I
bring stacks of the complete set of rulings and errata (in 4 pt. type)
and make them available to the masses. A good judge will also let
people know when changes of this magnitude take place.
Robert Goudie
>
> LSJ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Other Changes to the Rules (or changes to Errata to the rules):
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified. Your cards are still
> > your own, but are not burned when you are ousted - only the cards
> > that you control are burned when you are ousted. The rest (stolen
> > by or traded to other players) are returned to you when they are
> > burned or when the game ends.
> >
>
> I like the change, but I understand why people want their cards when
> ousted...
>
> A thought hit me, and maybe this could make both parties happy:
>
> What about proxy cards? If I remember right V:EKN was trying to get WotC
> to print blank V:TES cards, and from what I could tell, the blank cards
> really will be printed. (I'm right, about this anyway, eh?)
Proxy cards are completely appropriate for regular home playgroups.
Robert Goudie
Philippe Richer
>> a vampire from combat somewhat due to the negative consequences of
>> torporizing the vampire. The above "fix" preserves none of this intent,
>> and in fact turns it inside out to make the Famous vampire a target of
>> combat. Why not fix Fame to be:
>> "<uniqueness clause preserved>... If the vampire with this card goes to
>> torpor during another Methuselah's turn, that Methuselah burns 3 pool.
>
>I kinda like that one. Small addition, and simple. However it leaves some
>room for abuse. But, that abuse is much more difficult to pull repeatedly
>(which is, I believe, basically the problem with "broken" cards).
I don't think so. Put that Fame on Isabel or any weenie with superior
Auspex. Then just play Eagle's Sight during your prey's turn to block any
action. Make sure the fight lasts long enough for Isabel to go to torpor
(either by having her at one or zero blood, using Zip Gun for the one
damage, presses, tapping Mariel, whatever!). It is still abusable in
wicked ways. Let's take the time it'll need to fix that card. What if it
affects the meth who actually GETS the famous vamp involved in the fight?
Either through a Rush or by blocking (or with Brujah Frenzy!). Could lead
to some serious philosophical reflexions (To block or not to block?)
If cards are to be banned, I'd say we might as well ban that card. But
don't count me in the proponents of bans. I'm rather undecided, with a
preference for fixes. I'd like to still be happy of getting a RTI in a
pack, instead of just going: "Argh! My rare is a no-card!"
Bleu
remove the "nospam" if I managed to actually get this reader to work
properly. If not, please don't spam me as I might send you a can of it.
Luis P. Duarte
>And if I banned cards instead of fixing them, some
>(more) people would be (more) upset.
More people? You based your opinion on what statistic?
>> But if that's the point, so why don't you bring back for example
>> "Madness of the Bard" and change it's text? I payed for that
>> card and i'm not worried about knowing it's a banned card!
>
>It is banned for tournament reasons (namely, that it penalizes
>non-native speakers, and it is hard to fairly "judge" what
>is a rhyme).
Yes, but the point is that there is a list of banned cards...
so, ** for tournament reasons** why not ban some cards?
The list isn't that huge: TB, ToR, RTI,...
>> I always felt that WWEF should be replaced after i played it.
>
>Even before combat was concluded?
>I hadn't heard that one before.
Well, there's always a first time for everything in life.
Yes, i always think that WWEF should be played as Forced
Awakening: play it and draw immediatly a new card.
>> 2- A second edition of the cards should be printed, because NOW i
>> can't explain to the NEW players of V:tES that there are many cards that
>> what they read in the card text is NOT what the card really does...
>> How do you explain this point to the new players, LSJ?
>> "Please don't read the card text! Instead of it, please consult
>> these 8 pages and search for the new card text."...!
>
>The same way you explain that Hidden Lurker is an action modifier,
>that Blythe has only inferior auspex, that Catatonic Fear's damage
>is dealt after combat, etc.
Please understand that i show to a new player Hidden Lurker card and
point to it and say "This is an AM card". This is quite different to show
him a card with a text and say: "Please don't read the card text. Here's
a 8 page 'erratabook'. Search for that card..."
This way V:tES is being transformed to a Card & Errata Game!
>I'd *love* to get a new edition printed, I really would.
>Right now, that doesn't look like it'll happen.
Yes! In this matter i agree totally with you. This would resolve many
of the problems... but since we don't have New Cards with New
Texts, i personally think that there are TOO MANY changes...
Players should play the cards by their text (few exceptions allowed)
not for a 8 page errata book!
Thanks for your pacience...
.- Luis....@ip.pt
gen...@iname.com
> >> "<uniqueness clause preserved>... If the vampire with this card goes to
> >> torpor during another Methuselah's turn, that Methuselah burns 3 pool.
> >> ....<1 pool per Meth for torpor preserved>"
> >
> >I kinda like that one. Small addition, and simple. However it leaves some
> >room for abuse. But, that abuse is much more difficult to pull repeatedly
> >(which is, I believe, basically the problem with "broken" cards).
> I don't think so. Put that Fame on Isabel or any weenie with superior
> Auspex. Then just play Eagle's Sight during your prey's turn to block any
> damage, presses, tapping Mariel, whatever!). It is still abusable in
> wicked ways. Let's take the time it'll need to fix that card. What if it
Yes, but much harder. Beside, taking that vampire out of torpor is harder, since
you can't use the FOR cards for that. And while it was done while it is another's
turn, there is plenty of time for that vampire to be diablerized by another Meth
(while if is it done during your turn, you can assign another vampire to take him
out, like Legbiter seems to like to do. :)
> affects the meth who actually GETS the famous vamp involved in the fight?
> Either through a Rush or by blocking (or with Brujah Frenzy!). Could lead
> to some serious philosophical reflexions (To block or not to block?)
This may be worth thinking about, but it seems to be way to wacky for the usual
players. :)
Eric Pettersen
> >> "<uniqueness clause preserved>... If the vampire with this card goes to
> >> torpor during another Methuselah's turn, that Methuselah burns 3 pool.
> >> ....<1 pool per Meth for torpor preserved>"
> >
> >I kinda like that one. Small addition, and simple. However it leaves some
> >room for abuse. But, that abuse is much more difficult to pull repeatedly
> >(which is, I believe, basically the problem with "broken" cards).
>
> I don't think so. Put that Fame on Isabel or any weenie with superior
> Auspex. Then just play Eagle's Sight during your prey's turn to block any
> (either by having her at one or zero blood, using Zip Gun for the one
> wicked ways. Let's take the time it'll need to fix that card. What if it
> Either through a Rush or by blocking (or with Brujah Frenzy!). Could lead
> to some serious philosophical reflexions (To block or not to block?)
I think you overstate the abuse potential. Since the Famous vampire is
going to torpor on the prey's turn, the controller has to not only manage
to get the Famous vampire into torpor in the first place (with an Eagle
Sight block using sufficient additional intercept) but also has to resist
both prey and predator's attempts to diablerize / Sac. Lamb / Vulnerability
/ GraveRob the vamp, without getting all the controller's vamps hammered
in the process.
But you're entitled to your erroneous opinion, Bleu. ;-)
Philippe Richer
>Bleu wrote:
>> >> "<uniqueness clause preserved>... If the vampire with this card goes to
>> >> torpor during another Methuselah's turn, that Methuselah burns 3 pool.
>> >> ....<1 pool per Meth for torpor preserved>"
>> >I kinda like that one. Small addition, and simple. However it leaves some
>> >room for abuse. But, that abuse is much more difficult to pull repeatedly
>> >(which is, I believe, basically the problem with "broken" cards).
>>
>> I don't think so. Put that Fame on Isabel or any weenie with superior
>> Auspex. Then just play Eagle's Sight during your prey's turn to block any
>> action. Make sure the fight lasts long enough for Isabel to go to torpor
>> (either by having her at one or zero blood, using Zip Gun for the one
>> damage, presses, tapping Mariel, whatever!). It is still abusable in
>> wicked ways
>going to torpor on the prey's turn, the controller has to not only manage
>to get the Famous vampire into torpor in the first place (with an Eagle
>Sight block using sufficient additional intercept) but also has to resist
>both prey and predator's attempts to diablerize / Sac. Lamb / Vulnerability
>/ GraveRob the vamp, without getting all the controller's vamps hammered
>in the process.
What are weenie Auspex vamps made for, except wake and block? Well, I know,
I know. Getting to know everybody's hand is nice too. Still. A Fast
Reacting Flamethrowing weenie is quite a force to reckon with. With
sufficient permanent and hand-played intercept, it'd be more than possible
to pull it off and block almost all attempts at destruction. Of course, Day
Op and such would make it harder, but that's basically why I'd use weenies.
That and the need to get in torpor. I agree though that Vulnerability would
be difficult to deal with (save a well-timed Sudden), but it's also a
rarely used card, AFAIK.
I'd show it to you, except that I'd still wouldn't like Fame enough to play
it. Ahh, scrupples. I can betray a friend or an ally, but I still can't
play a screwed card and live with it.
Though now that I think about it, let's have the fight to torporize the
famous minion, then play Fast Reaction with the Flame throwing weenie and
torporize the unlucky vamp.
>But you're entitled to your erroneous opinion, Bleu. ;-)
Eric, Eric. Are you God to say who's in error or not on this? I think I can
make this work, even in big JOL games. Of course, I might have to add some
Anarch Revolts to divert some attention.
Bleu
remove the nospam as it seems to be working.
Chris Berger
> > I take this to mean that plain brown (D) bleeds are no longer
> > omni-directable? I think that the old ruling is _so_ old that I don't
> > really know how this will affect things. Hmm...
>
> No more omni-directabilty, correct.
>
Umm... that doesn't follow at all. Nowhere in the rules (or in your new
normal "cardless" bleed action, as defined in the rulebook is, "(D)
to bleed any methuselah by exclusion of a condition, not by any voodoo
definition of the (D) symbol. Since there has been no ruling saying
that (D) forces you to direct at your prey, Social Charm, et al, are
still directable at any methuselah. Or is there to be new errata for
all such bleed cards?
-Chris
Chris Berger
> > > Wake with Evening's Freshness:
> > > "Do not replace until your next untap phase."
> >
> > ??!? This helps how? People will just play with Forced
> > Awakenings....unless you plan on changing Forced Awakening too.
>
> FA requires a blood if used to play a deflection, and runs the risk of
> a loss of blood even if you try to block. Sometimes a vampire's blood
> is worth the temporary loss of a hand slot, sometimes not. Now it's
> more a matter of a deck-building decision rather than a given.
>
Hmm... I still don't see how this errata was necessary. Forced
Awakening was already a better card than Wake. I always put FA in a
deck over Wake, unless I'm adding Wakes "just in case" without any plans
of being able to block. This doesn't even throw off the balance between
FA and Wake, since they still cost different types of resources. People
will still use FA or Wake as necessary. You've just weakened Wake for
some reason. Colour me confused.
-Chris
Greg Faulkner
LSJ, you've done more for this game than anyone I know. I'm glad that you put
your ass on the line to finally address some of the inherent problems with the
game. Many of your decisions were good, and long awaited (PF, ZG). However, I
am going for the holy grail in an attempt to explain some of our dismay over
the current rulings.
>New Rule:
>---------
>
>No vote pushing: Each Methuselah can only play no more than one
> Political Action card to gain a vote during a political action,
> including the Political Action card used to call the vote, if any.
We have no need for "new rules". I'd prefer to see this as a rules
clarification instead. One that I am intrigued to play with.
>Aggravated Damage: aggravated damage done to a ready vampire sends the
> vampire to torpor (since it cannot be healed) but does not cause the
> vampire to burn any blood. Aggravated damage done to a vampire with
> unhealed damage (including aggravated damage after the first point)
> requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of damage to avoid
> being burned.
This is unnecessary. IMHO, the decision to go with a more simplified agg
damage system was the best decision the old rules team ever made. It improved
my level of enjoyment, and it improved the ease with which I could teach new
players. Ethan had a good point: "If aggrevated damage wasn't broken, then why
fix it?". The game is full of checks and balances, and minions have plenty of
ways to avoid/prevent agg damage now that PF is fixed.
>Fame:
> "Unique Master. Put this card on a ready vampire. If the vampire with this
> card goes to torpor, then his controller burns 3 pool. Each Methuselah
> burns 1 pool during his or her untap phase if this vampire is in torpor."
There was a time not too long ago that I would have been in complete support of
this ruling (I've even suggested it in the past), but now I am not so sure.
Trust me, I am SO glad someone has finally addressed Fame, but I see this
solution as only marginally better. Once in play, there is no way to get rid
of it, except to contest the unique card. In other words: Outside SR, the only
way to counter the Fame card is to play with the Fame card in your own deck.
That defines "broken" to me.
>Mind Rape
>Tomb of Ramses III
>Return to Innocence
I disagree with what happened to these rulings. Yes, I enjoy balanced play as
much as the next person, but what you have done is created "new cards". These
are not "fixes" nor are they rules clarifications. If the cards cannot be
"fixed" with a simple understanding, then they should be banned from tournament
play.
I don't believe it is in our best interest to create "new cards" such as these
to balance the game. LSJ, you made some GOOD, GOOD, decisions with your 7th of
July Rulings. However, many people (including myself) are opposed to the
wide-sweeping changes which aren't really decisions at all... instead they are
creations of new cards and new rules.
Greg
bi...@my-dejanews.com
> Ethan Burrow wrote:
> > Our playgroup doesn't play with voting enough to even entertain making a
> >[...]
> > In our group everyone typically has 2-3 votes per Meth simply because of
>
> Well, which is it?
>
(5 player game, 2-3 votes on the table per player)
8-12 votes on the table and all inherently against you.
One Cryptic Rider, and you will never successfully call a
vote again, especially if you are sitting next to Jeff or
Greg.
Light intercept + combat works really well against vote
decks and against most other decks as well.
If you can successfully call a second vote, (any time or
turn after the CR) you will have betrayed the trust of
the misfortunate few who voted with you the first time
and all votes will be against you.
This has happened in all playgroup's I've played in,
are your's different?
Carpe Noctem.
Lasombra
http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra
J. Andrew Lipscomb
> > ---------
> >
> > No vote pushing:
>
> I'm with you 100% on this one. Especially since being ousted by a
> weenie vote push deck at Origins probably kept me out of the finals...
> :)
I notice this also abolishes multi-pushes by players other than the caller.
Not sure if that's good.
> > Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified. Your cards are still
> > your own, but are not burned when you are ousted - only the cards
> > that you control are burned when you are ousted. The rest (stolen
> > by or traded to other players) are returned to you when they are
> > burned or when the game ends.
>
> I realize that this makes sense in game terms, but when somebody has to
> leave, they _will_ take their cards with them. Having to remember who
> had what is, I think, more complicated that just saying "OK, he's out,
> so all of his stuff is out, too". It _is_ a card game after all.
Make proxies. That's what they do in Galactic Empires tournaments.
> > Aggravated Damage: aggravated damage done to a ready vampire sends the
> > vampire to torpor (since it cannot be healed) but does not cause the
> > vampire to burn any blood. Aggravated damage done to a vampire with
> > unhealed damage (including aggravated damage after the first point)
> > requires that the vampire burn one blood per point of damage to
> > avoid being burned.
>
> I think the wording here is a little murky. I understand that you want
> this to return aggro damage to the old Jyhad way, but the first sentence
> seems to imply that aggro damage can't _ever_ burn anyone.
It sounds like this means you burn only 1 blood for 2 aggravated, but 2 for
1 of each...
J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com>
PGP keys by request
jean...@concentric.net
> Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah,
> involve directed actions have a "(D)" in the card text. Nondirected
> actions are actions that are not directed against a Methuselah or one
> of her minions. Hunting, equipping a minion, recruiting an ally, and
> employing a retainer are examples of nondirected actions.
Let me see if I've got this straight: an action that has the (D) symbol,
but that has no text restricting it to cards controlled by another
methuselah, can now be directed at a card you control? And, if so, is it
resolved as an undirected action?
For example, can you now Derange one of your own vampires (as long as it's
not a Malk Anti)? And, if you try, can your predator and prey attempt to
block normally without needing Eagles's Sight or Anneke?
--
Justin Fang (jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu)
This space intentionally left blank.
sta...@my-dejanews.com
These changes you've been making have been making have, although being
drastic, been good - sometimes on closer inspection, but nevertheless.
The idea of fixing powerful cards is a jolly good idea. However, in
our local playing there has been one powerful card which hasn't been
touched by the rulings. Now I know this card hasn't really gotten a lot
of coverage on the newsgroup, not that I've noticed anyway, as being
powerful but trust me it is, if you need an explanation just ask.
That card is Hostile Takeover. And the reason why I'm mentioning
this now, apart from being of the opinion that something should be
done about it, is because a new rule makes it more powerful.
> Golden Rule of Card Ownership has been modified. Your cards are still
> your own, but are not burned when you are ousted - only the cards
> that you control are burned when you are ousted. The rest (stolen
> by or traded to other players) are returned to you when they are
> burned or when the game ends.
Now you can take someone's vampire, kill them and still have the
vampire. The card is now more powerful - and it is the opinion of
many in our playing group, including the person who uses it, that
the card was already quite a powerful card.
Any comments?
stan
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/5304
Petri Wessman
Ok, I'll jump into the fray, too ;-)
To start with: LSJ, on the whole I like the new rulings, some of them
*a lot*. IMHO they go a long way towards fixing things that were
broken in the game.
That said...
"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> writes:
> >Man, and I thought I was belligerent. No offense here, but as I said,
> >LSJ's intentions are to make the game fun _and_ balanced.
>
> IMO, he has ruined both. I do not see how any of these rulings/erratta.
> have made any of these cards "balanced"
I disagree strongly, I think most of the rulings have a *very*
balancing effect on the game. Yes, some decks have become "less
powerful", but those are mainly decks that have depended on broken or
borderline-broken cards and combos.
> >> Fame? WTF?
> >> Why would anyone ever use that card again?
> >> This is just more than I can bear.
> >As others (including me) have pointed out, it is now an offensive card
> >(as in used on the offense) as opposed to an offensive card (as in
> >broken broken broken).
>
> But the effect is the exact same. It's just that the burden of abuse has
> moved from Fortitude decks to combat decks.
But that's in no way "the exact same". The old version of Fame allowed
a zillion different types of "masturbation" decks that did something
local to put the Famous vampire in torpor, without much anything the
other players could do about it. Fame + Day Operation + hunt is the
easiest example. Moving Fame to an offensive card makes it a lot
harder to expoit... it's a lot harder to come up with foolproof ways
to put other vampires in torpor than it is to put your own.
> >I agree here, as do others. Many non-net-able players are shocked and
> >dismayed when presented with a huge list of eratta. Which is why I
> >argue that it's just better to ban a card rather than completely change
> >its card text.
>
> Agreed.
That is true, although I hope that the new rulings will reduce the
total amount of errata for the game (many old rulings are no longer
needed).
LSJ and others: this game *REALLY* needs a single reference document
which has *all* the needed info, otherwise casual players will never
catch on to the game and will only retreat in confusion.
> >> >No vote pushing: Each Methuselah can only play no more than one
> >> > Political Action card to gain a vote during a political action,
> >> > including the Political Action card used to call the vote, if any.
> >> What was wrong with the way it currently works?
> >You could still make an effectively broken weenie vote push deck, which
> >the rule was intended to hinder.
>
> But now, the only effective vote decks will be those that pack *all*
> Princes or Presense.
Partly true, but that's not a bad thing IMHO. A Caitiff vote deck that
bowls over everyone else has always bothered me in the game world
sense, I myself would welcome some more dependance on titled vampires
and political disciplines (Presence, and Dominate to some degree).
Also, I've always hated the fact that "normal" rules and tourney rules
were different for this game.
> >> >Zip Gun:
> >> Hrmmm, I can pull ZG out and do a *max* of 1 point of damage
> >> (barring celerity) while I do a damage to myself. Alot of incentive
> >> there...
> >You're maneuvering to long range... against one of my decks, you take 1
> >point of damage instead of 7.
>
> Except that you can simply use a Maneuver card instead (there are
> disciplinless Maneuver cards) and not worry about hurting yourself.
> This is effectivly what LSJ changed the ZG into: a Maneuver card.
A maneuver card that also does damage, with a surprise factor. Zip Gun
can be a lifesaver for non-comabat decks against close-range combat
decks.
> >We'll see where this takes things.
>
> I'm kinda curious as well. But I'm afraid it will just take things down
> the crapper. But even so, I no longer care. I'm out.
To each his own, but I'm sort of surprised you're *so* negative
against this without giving things at least a try first. I for one see
the changes as a step in the right direction, with the biggest
problem in my mind being the large amount of errata scattered here and
there needed to play this game... something has to be done about that.
//Petri
LSJ
> >First point cannot be healed, and you're on your way to torpor.
> >Next X points deplete your X blood
> >And the final point burns you, since you cannot burn any more blood.
> >
> I have seen you write this a few times and I just wanted to make sure this
> is exactly what you mean. You said that the first point of agg damage
> _cannot_ be healed. No damage prevention? Did you mean if it is not
> prevented then the first point sends the vamp to torpor?
Preventing damage and healing damage are two distinct things.
Preventing damage (aggravated or not) requires a suitable "damage prevention"
effect (Flak Jacket, Skin of Rock, etc.)
Healing [unprevented] regular damage requires a blood.
You go to torpor if you cannot heal all the [unprevented] damage dealt.
[Unprevented] aggravated damage cannot be healed, so the vamp goes to torpor.
[Unprevented] aggravated damage done to a vampire who already has unhealed
damage (and is thus already on his way to torpor) requires the vampire to
burn a blood to prevent destruction. If he cannot, he is destroyed (burned)
outright.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
LSJ
[Re: TOR only matches transfers to the selected vampire "fix"]
>
> I'm the one that has continually said this for a long time. MOF, that was
> the way I played the card until someone pointed out to me that there was
> another way to read it. Changing one word is a hell of a lot easier to
> remember than creating a new card (clanless Ecoterrorist). AND it keeps the
> original intent.
>
> Will anyone listen?
That change doesn't make TORIII balanced - it still provides a
full recoupment of cost, and an extra blood and an extra four
transfers one the turn it is played, as has been pointed out
several times before.
I know this because I've been listening.
The RTR examined several variations on this card, including
*all* of the ones that had been proposed on this newsgroup.
LSJ
> >> Fame? WTF?
> > > But the effect is the exact same. It's just that the burden of abuse has
> > > moved from Fortitude decks to combat decks.
> > (maybe even balanced).
>
> I dispute this assertion.
> During the heated debate about IG, you said time and time again that it
> still isn't difficult to put the opposing vamp into Torpor in the first
"Time and time again"?
I have never said this, certainly not "time and again".
Care to cite references to support your claim?
> round (while still under the effects of IG). And since Fame now is only
> effective in a combat deck (I pointed out Fame is useless in anything but),
> it can (and will) still be abused by combat decks.
Even if a standard Rush deck can torporize the random opponent without
difficulty (your supposition, not mine), Fame is unique and a Master
card. To "abuse" it (as someone - James? - pointed out), your combat
deck would have to be diluted, weakening the intensive-card-cycling
deck, probably to the point of not being abusive.
> > > >> >No vote pushing: Each Methuselah can only play no more than one
> > > But now, the only effective vote decks will be those that pack *all*
> > > Princes or Presense.
> > Or auspex and vote denial. See Ventrue Antitribu.
> [snip]
> > Or Bribery.
>
> Why should a vote deck *have* to pack bribery just to pass it's votes?
It doesn't. It can (for example) use Princes or Presence, as
asserted above.
> > Or Justicar votes w/ Praxes.
>
> Yeah, but if your Justicar/PS votes get voted down (which is easy to
> do) early in the game, then your deck is so screwed.
You get a minimum of two votes on the Justciar vote. "Early in the game",
the other players will likely not have their own titled vampires.
That's a pretty big *if*. But yeah, it's not a sure thing. It's
politics.
> >> >Zip Gun:
> > > Except that you can simply use a Maneuver card instead (there are
> > > disciplinless Maneuver cards) and not worry about hurting yourself.
> > > This is effectivly what LSJ changed the ZG into: a Maneuver card.
> > If so, then it is effectively balanced with Fake Out, eh?
>
> How? Fake Out doesn't cause a damage to be done to the vamp.
It's your quote you're arguing with.
I'm just following the thread.
"effectivly ... a Maneuver card." (above)
And I started with "If so".
> [snip the argument]
LSJ
> > one of her minions, or a card a Methuselah controls. Cards that
> > involve directed actions have a "(D)" in the card text. Nondirected
> > actions are actions that are not directed against a Methuselah or one
> > of her minions. Hunting, equipping a minion, recruiting an ally, and
> > employing a retainer are examples of nondirected actions.
>
> Let me see if I've got this straight: an action that has the (D) symbol,
> but that has no text restricting it to cards controlled by another
> methuselah, can now be directed at a card you control? And, if so, is it
> resolved as an undirected action?
Yes and yes.
> For example, can you now Derange one of your own vampires (as long as it's
> not a Malk Anti)? And, if you try, can your predator and prey attempt to
> block normally without needing Eagles's Sight or Anneke?
Yes and yes.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
LSJ
Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > > > Directed actions are actions that directly affect another Methuselah,
> > > omni-directable? I think that the old ruling is _so_ old that I don't
> > > really know how this will affect things. Hmm...
> >
> > No more omni-directabilty, correct.
> >
> Umm... that doesn't follow at all. Nowhere in the rules (or in your new
> rulings) does it say that bleeds must be directed at your prey.
Section 6.4, under the sentence "To have one of your minions commit a
bleed action:" specifies "Prey".
> The
> normal "cardless" bleed action, as defined in the rulebook is, "(D)
> Bleed your prey."
Not in any of the rulebooks I've seen. What section are you quoting?
> [snip]
> Or is there to be new errata for all such bleed cards?
If errata were needed, it would be issued. So either way...
CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
> "Todd Banister" <T_Ban...@Premier-Lending.com> wrote:
> > >First point cannot be healed, and you're on your way to torpor.
> > >Next X points deplete your X blood
> > >And the final point burns you, since you cannot burn any more blood.
> > >
> > I have seen you write this a few times and I just wanted to make sure this
> > is exactly what you mean. You said that the first point of agg damage
> > _cannot_ be healed. No damage prevention? Did you mean if it is not
> > prevented then the first point sends the vamp to torpor?
>
> Preventing damage and healing damage are two distinct things.
>
> Preventing damage (aggravated or not) requires a suitable "damage prevention"
> effect (Flak Jacket, Skin of Rock, etc.)
>
> Healing [unprevented] regular damage requires a blood.
> You go to torpor if you cannot heal all the [unprevented] damage dealt.
> [Unprevented] aggravated damage cannot be healed, so the vamp goes to torpor.
> [Unprevented] aggravated damage done to a vampire who already has unhealed
> damage (and is thus already on his way to torpor) requires the vampire to
> burn a blood to prevent destruction. If he cannot, he is destroyed (burned)
> outright.
>
as the V:TES rules, except that a vampire only gets burned when he takes 2
points of aggro damage and has no blood left instead of 1.
LSJ's current ruling is *very* confusing, especially for foreigners.
BTW, I'm not at ease with the new rulings (esp. Wake!!!).
-Carl
mboh...@my-dejanews.com
Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> point anyway. For cryin' out loud, make some new decks. Frankly, I
> think that the fact that many of my existing decks are unusable is a
> good sign that LSJ is on the right track.
Many of your existing decks are now unusable? Assuming this is not an
exageration, do we really want the game to be changed that much? Jeez,
come on. A small group of players (LSJ and whoever he tests these rules
out with) have now decided that they know better about how the game should
be than the rest of us do.
I think that's where a lot of people's frustration is coming from. And
mine isn't getting much better.....
Mike "Ban or simple changes, none of this whole rewrite crap" Bohlmann
LSJ
> Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Sorrow wrote:
> > > Why did you
> > > change the rules for Vote Pushing? The current rules for PAs
> > > (not replacing until the end of the turn) were fine.
> >
> > That is a tournament rule. The regular V:TES rules have no prohibitions
> > against vote pushing.
>
> Not just a tournament rule -- it's also a Sabbat rule. Vote replenishment
> occurs at the end of the minion phase by Sabbat rules.
Like the Sabbat Widthdrawal Rule, that replenishment rule has been
relegated to the "optional" pile. They are no longer part of the
standard rules (if they ever were).
Sorry they weren't included in the RTR. My mistake.
LSJ
> > > So it is indeed true that you cannot use a (D) bleed to bleed cross table?
> > Right, unless card text says otherwise.
>
> Umm, I don't understand this.
> Most (all?) bleed cards say:
>
> (D) Bleed with +X bleed.
>
> It doesn't say anything about bleeding another methuselah (the otherwise).
> So, now cards like Social Charm and Govern the Unaligned cannot be used
> to bleed my Predator? Or even my Grand Pred?
Right. It doesn't say that it doesn't follow the normal rules
for the "bleed" action, so it follows the normal rules for the
"bleed" action.
Explicit card text is needed to break the rules.
LSJ
>
> >Correct.
> >And if I banned cards instead of fixing them, some
> >(more) people would be (more) upset.
>
> More people? You based your opinion on what statistic?
Those "mores" are parenthetic.
> >> But if that's the point, so why don't you bring back for example
> >> "Madness of the Bard" and change it's text? I payed for that
> >> card and i'm not worried about knowing it's a banned card!
> >
> >It is banned for tournament reasons (namely, that it penalizes
> >non-native speakers, and it is hard to fairly "judge" what
> >is a rhyme).
>
> Yes, but the point is that there is a list of banned cards...
> so, ** for tournament reasons** why not ban some cards?
> The list isn't that huge: TB, ToR, RTI,...
Those are broken in general, not just hard to work into a
tournament situation.
> >> I always felt that WWEF should be replaced after i played it.
> >
> >Even before combat was concluded?
> >I hadn't heard that one before.
>
> Well, there's always a first time for everything in life.
> Yes, i always think that WWEF should be played as Forced
> Awakening: play it and draw immediatly a new card.
Well, I can't argue with that. :-)
> >> 2- A second edition of the cards should be printed, because NOW i
> >> can't explain to the NEW players of V:tES that there are many cards that
> >> what they read in the card text is NOT what the card really does...
> >> How do you explain this point to the new players, LSJ?
> >> "Please don't read the card text! Instead of it, please consult
> >> these 8 pages and search for the new card text."...!
> >
> >The same way you explain that Hidden Lurker is an action modifier,
> >that Blythe has only inferior auspex, that Catatonic Fear's damage
> >is dealt after combat, etc.
>
> Please understand that i show to a new player Hidden Lurker card and
> point to it and say "This is an AM card". This is quite different to show
> him a card with a text and say: "Please don't read the card text. Here's
> a 8 page 'erratabook'. Search for that card..."
No, as an AM, Hidden Lurker requires substantial changes to card text.
As listed in the erratabook.
LSJ
> These changes you've been making have been making have, although being
> drastic, been good - sometimes on closer inspection, but nevertheless.
> The idea of fixing powerful cards is a jolly good idea. However, in
> our local playing there has been one powerful card which hasn't been
> touched by the rulings. Now I know this card hasn't really gotten a lot
> of coverage on the newsgroup, not that I've noticed anyway, as being
> powerful but trust me it is, if you need an explanation just ask.
> That card is Hostile Takeover. And the reason why I'm mentioning
> this now, apart from being of the opinion that something should be
> done about it, is because a new rule makes it more powerful.
Well, that one was never on the list of cards to consider fixing,
you're right. I'll keep a lookout for it at tournaments, though.
If anyone running a tournament notices Hostile Takeover being
abused, please drop me a line.