Rules Team Rulings - 23 June 1998
LSJ
(Man I hate Netscape - sorry if you receive this message twice -
the first one was badly munged with many sections duplicated
excessively - I cancelled the newsgroup post, but cannot do the
same for the list server. My apologies).
===================================
Rules Team Rulings for 23 June 1998
===================================
Comments to rulings and errata (for further clarification ot to explain
the reasoning behind a rule) are identified by hash marks. Archivists
may safely delete the lines begining with hash marks to save room, as
necessary.
ERRATA TO THE RULES (OR CHANGES TO ERRATA TO THE RULES):
--------------------------------------------------------
Actions. An action is successful if it is unblocked and uncancelled, even
if it has no other effect. An unblocked bleed of zero or less is an
unsuccessful bleed, but is a successful action. An unblocked political
action is successful even if the referendum fails. The cost, if any,
of an action is paid if the action is successful, regardless of these
other factors.
#
# That is, you still pay for a Govern the Unaligned even if the bleed is
# reduced to zero or less (so long as it isn't blocked).
Blocking. The last step of a successful block vs. a Ready acting minion
is combat. Combat is not delayed until after the block. Thus, Cat's
Guidance would be played after the combat, not before.
#
# This helps straighten out a minor convolution caused by Form of Mist.
Locations: Changing the controller of a location has no other effect,
unless specified by card text. Exception: A location "on" another
controlled card is moved onto an appropriate card controlled by the
new controller of the location.
Contesting Titles: A vampire who cannot pay a blood to contest his title
must yield - he does not have the option of going to torpor (and then
yielding).
Damage Prevention cards: are not restricted to strike resolution.
#
# Combat cards can be played whenever appropriate during combat - and
# any time preventable damage is inflicted is an appropriate time for
# damage prevention.
Diablerie: can only be committed by Ready vampires. Vampires in Torpor
cannot commit Diablerie.
#
# To fix corner-cases presented by Kiss of Ra, Blood Brothers, etc.
GENERAL RULINGS:
----------------
Bleed: A minion's "current bleed" is the amount the minion would be
bleeding for when he announces a bleed action against his Prey.
#
# This affects only Justicar Retribution, but is a general ruling.
Combat cards:
By default, only apply to the round in which they are played. Explicit
card text is needed to overcome this default.
#
# See Blood of Acid, and note the errata returning Immortal Grapple to
# its Jyhad wording.
Weapon Damage: a weapon's "current damage" is the amount of damage that
the weapon would inflict if used as a strike by bearer against a
generic opponent.
#
# This affects Concealed Weapon, Illegal Search and Seizure, and Machine
# Blitz.
Moving cards: The rule against moving a card onto something it cannot
normally be played on is no longer in effect.
#
# It really only served to fix Beast, Leatherface of Detroit. See
# Beast's new card-specific errata. This ruling was reversed because
# it caused problems for other cards (and headaches for rulemongers).
Contesting: All card text on a contested card is ignored - including any
title. Contested vampires do not contest titles.
#
# The vampire will begin contesting his title when he returns to the
# controlled region, if the title is still held by another vampire
# at that time.
Titles can only be held by vampires of the appropriate clan or sect. A
clan Justicar title can only be held by a member of that clan,
Camarilla vampires cannot hold Sabbat titles and vice-versa, etc. If
a titled vampire changes clan or sect inappropriate to his title, he
loses the benefit of the title unless and until he changes his clan or
sect appropriately. If his title is contested while he is a member of
an inappropriate sect, he immediately yields the title.
(Losing capacity is not sufficient to lose the benefit of a title.)
ERRATA TO CARDS:
Antediluvian Awaking:
A player can burn a vampire (to burn the Antediluvian Awaking) only
during her untap phase.
Beast, Leatherface of Detroit:
New card text:
"Beast cannot perform action-card actions or recruit allies. He cannot
have or use equipment or retainers. As a (D) action, Beast can enter
combat with any Ready minion controlled by another Methuselah. +1 hand
damage."
Closed Session:
New card text:
"Only usable during a political action, before any votes are cast.
Non-Camarilla vampires cannot vote during the current political action."
#
# Does not have anything to do with blocking, since it isn't played until
# the referendum.
Deflection:
New card text:
"Only usable when a you are the target of a bleed. Choose another Methuselah.
You cannot choose the acting minion's controller. The acting minion is now
attempting to bleed the chosen Methuselah. The chosen Methuselah may attempt
to block. Tap this reacting vampire.
Superior: As above, but do not tap this vampire."
#
# That is, you cannot deflect to yourself.
Form of Mist:
New card text:
"Superior: Strike: Combat Ends. If this vampire is the acting vampire, this
vampire gets +1 stealth (and this card counts as an action modifier) and the
action continues as if unblocked."
Golconda:
Removes the selected vampire from the game instead of burning him.
#
# A vampire finding Golconda isn't destroyed - he simply has chosen
# not to participate in the Jyhad any further.
Immortal Grapple:
New card text:
"Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,) neither
minion can strike except with hand strikes.
Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the
range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the
Establish Range step for that round."
#
# The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
# duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis.
Kalinda:
New card text:
"As a (D) action, Kalinda may bleed with +1 bleed and +1 stealth. This action
costs 2 blood."
#
# Obvious intent.
Living Manse:
New card text:
"The vampire with this location gets +1 bleed. When the vampire with this
location is in combat, he or she can burn this card before range is
determined to end combat. A vampire may have only one Living Manse."
#
# Ending combat at any arbitrary time during the combat sequence is not
# a good thing.
March Halcyon:
New card text:
"If March is diablerized, no one can call a Blood Hunt against the
diablerizing vampire."
#
# Obvious intent.
Redirection:
New card text:
"Only usable when a you are the target of a bleed by a younger vampire.
Choose another Methuselah. You cannot choose the acting vampire's controller.
The acting vampire is now attempting to bleed the chosen Methuselah. The
chosen Methuselah may attempt to block. Tap this reacting vampire."
Superior: As above, but the acting vampire can be the same age or older."
#
# That is, you cannot redirect to yourself.
Reform Body:
New card text:
"This card can be played as a combat card or a reaction card. Only usable by
a vampire being burned. Not usable by an acting vampire. This vampire goes
to torpor instead of being burned.
Superior: As above, and this vampire gains 2 blood from the blood bank."
Return to Innocence:
Removes the acting vampire from the game instead of burning him.
#
# See explanation for Golconda
Ritual of the Bitter Rose:
New card text:
"This card can be played as a combat card or an action modifier. Each of
your ready vampires gains an amount of blood from the blood bank equal to
the amount of blood on a vampire being burned either by diablerie or while
in combat with this vampire."
#
# The VTES text munged the action-modifier aspect of this card when attempting
# to clarify the Jyhad text. Hopefully the above text is clear and correct.
Rutor's Hand:
A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.
New card text:
"Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the
damage."
#
# Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would have
# cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need for
# a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the
# damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
# prevent non-combat damage" errata.
Second Tradition: Domain, The:
New card text:
"Requires ready Prince or Justicar. +2 intercept. Also usable by a tapped
Prince or Justicar, even if intercept is not yet needed, to untap and attempt
to block with +2 intercept."
#
# Usable by an untapped P/J if he needs intercept, and usable by a
# tapped P/J even if he doesn't (yet) need intercept.
#
# Idea: being untapped and adding intercept are both "stuff for blocking",
# while stealth is "stuff for avoiding a block". The rule against unneeded
# stealth/intercept has been applied here as if it were "cannot do stuff
# for blocking unless you need stuff for blocking." Use that idea if it
# helps you understand this errata, ignore it if not.
#
# This idea doesn't extend to superior Bonding, since +bleed is not
# "stuff for avoiding a block", nor to plus-intercept-with-a-combat-bonus
# cards (like Spirit's Touch) since the combat bonus is not "stuff
# for blocking". Those cards can still be played only if the stealth/
# intercept is needed.
#
# (The idea for use by an untapped P/J comes from the original card text)
Taste of Vitae:
Is not cumulative. A Taste of Vitae will not count any blood loss counted
by a previous Taste of Vitae.
Tereza Rotas:
"If another Methuselah controls the Edge, Tereza may take the Edge as an
action directed at that Methuselah. This action costs 2 blood."
#
# Obvious intent. Also, the action cannot be thwarted by burning the Edge
# after the action is announced.
Telepathic Misdirection:
New card text:
"Superior: Only usable when a you are the target of a bleed. Choose another
Methuselah. You cannot choose the acting minion's controller. The acting
minion is now attempting to bleed the chosen Methuselah. The chosen
Methuselah may attempt to block. Tap this reacting vampire."
#
# That is, you cannot misdirect to yourself.
CARD RULINGS:
Anathema:
Burns the target vampire when the target is reduced to zero blood in combat,
regardless of the source of the loss of blood (card text). Still won't
burn a vampire just for entering a combat with zero blood, however - there
must be an actual "reduction" in blood.
Blood Brother Ambush:
Is only an action modifier when it is not in play, and is only an Ally
when it is in play.
Blood of Acid:
Only lasts for the current round.
Brujah Frenzy:
Can only be played if the acting Brujah is Ready (not in Torpor).
Burning Wrath:
All of the damage from the strike is aggravated (card text).
Charming Lobby:
The vote to be called is played/named when the action is declared, and is
called (by the acting minion) by the resolution of this action. This action
is a political action.
Code of Milan Suspended:
The "Methuselah with the Edge" is identified at the start of the referendum.
Burning the Edge during the referendum will not change the effects of the
vote, if successful.
Justicar Retribution:
Counts the bleed each minion would have when bleeding his prey.
Mask of a Thousand Faces:
Cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of
taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this
action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the
acting minion.
#
# Removes a lot of strangeness from the rulings.
Propaganda:
The Methuselah being bleed with superior Propaganda must choose an untapped
ready minion to tap if she has any.
#
# Obvious intent.
Rotschreck:
Play as written.
#
# That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
# his opponent in combat.
--
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
Eric Pettersen
All I can say is: FINALLY! Thank you LSJ!
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)
James Hamblin
LSJ wrote:
>
> ===================================
> Rules Team Rulings for 23 June 1998
> ===================================
[snip]
> Combat cards:
> By default, only apply to the round in which they are played. Explicit
> card text is needed to overcome this default.
> #
> # See Blood of Acid, and note the errata returning Immortal Grapple to
> # its Jyhad wording.
Argh!
I guess I'm just wondering why you made this decision. Since the Sabbat
text of IG does explicit say that the effect lasts for the entire
combat, why return it to the Jyhad wording?
By the way, I guess this answers my previous question to you in the
affirmative... :(
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
Eric Pettersen
One minor question...the rulings/errata on Kalinda and Tereza Rotas mean
that (like all other actions) the cost is paid only if the action is
successful. It also prevents the action from being undertaken if the
minion has less than 2 blood. Is that the correct interpretation?
(and thanks again!!!!)
Mike Bohlmann
LSJ wrote:
> Immortal Grapple:
> New card text:
> "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,)
> neither minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues,
> the range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip
> the Establish Range step for that round."
>
> # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the
> # default duration of combat cards, but is included here for
> # emphasis.
Can we possibly get some reasoning behind this ruling? It has several
effects that I want to make sure were considered.
First, when newer versions of cards came out, it was ruled that the
official reading of the card should be what is stated on the newest
one. The new ruling on IG goes against that. Is it really a good
idea (for simplicity's sake) to make exceptions to general rulings?
Why was IG singled out to go against that general ruling on card text?
Second, by making this ruling, a non-Celerity Potence deck must
effectively nearly double the IG's it needs. What I mean is that
a Nosferatu deck relied on the IG to last the whole combat because
Nosferatu don't generally have multiple strikes. The Nosferatu need
to get to the second round of combat to finish off the opposing
minion. However, a deck that uses Celerity with Potence, doesn't have
to worry about doing as much in a second round because of the
addtional
strikes. Sure, the Nos still have Hidden Lurker, but that requires
two
vampires to successfully do.
I can just see the number of decks using Presence and Fortitude
growing. With the pre-ruling IG, the S:CE had to still worry about
damage prevention or other means to end/survive combat. Against,
Cel/Pot they still have to worry about it, but against pure Pot, a
Pre/For deck now has a much higher chance of survival.
Just some thoughts.
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP mboh...@pdnt.com
Internet Strategy and Development Consultant
cbo...@apdi.net
> Damage Prevention cards: are not restricted to strike resolution.
So you can no longer play Damage Prevention (like Skin of Rock)
outside of combat?
> Golconda:
> Removes the selected vampire from the game instead of burning him.
> # A vampire finding Golconda isn't destroyed - he simply has chosen
> # not to participate in the Jyhad any further.
So you can no longer use Possession to bring this vampire back into play?
> Immortal Grapple:
> New card text:
> "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,) neither
> minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the
> range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the
> Establish Range step for that round."
> # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
> # duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis.
So on the second round of combat, the opposing minion is free to use any
kind of strike and is no longer restricted to hand strikes?
> Rutor's Hand:
> A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.
> New card text:
> "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the
> damage."
> # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would have
> # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need for
> # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the
> # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
> # prevent non-combat damage" errata.
Except that this is taking away the ability of the other Meths chances
of blocking the rescue from Torpor.
That doesn't seem very fair.
How about making it so that if you take Aggro damage in combat, if the
vamp has the blood, it can pay 2 to stay out of torpor? That's
effectively doing the same thing...
> Second Tradition: Domain, The:
> New card text:
> "Requires ready Prince or Justicar. +2 intercept. Also usable by a tapped
> Prince or Justicar, even if intercept is not yet needed, to untap and
> attempt to block with +2 intercept."
> # Usable by an untapped P/J if he needs intercept, and usable by a
> # tapped P/J even if he doesn't (yet) need intercept.
Looks like James (et. al) don't have anything more to argue about. :p
Sorrow
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Joshua Duffin
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
:Form of Mist:
: New card text:
: "Superior: Strike: Combat Ends. If this vampire is the acting vampire, this
: vampire gets +1 stealth (and this card counts as an action modifier) and the
: action continues as if unblocked."
I guess I don't see what this (and the new rule on combat being part of
the block) changes; could you give an example?
: Reform Body:
: New card text:
: "This card can be played as a combat card or a reaction card. Only usable by
: a vampire being burned. Not usable by an acting vampire. This vampire goes
: to torpor instead of being burned.
: Superior: As above, and this vampire gains 2 blood from the blood bank."
This still can't be played from torpor, correct? (But thanks for the
playable-by-tapped-vamps change!)
: Mask of a Thousand Faces:
: Cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of
: taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this
: action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the
: acting minion.
: #
: # Removes a lot of strangeness from the rulings.
I'm sure it will, but first I have to ask: What exactly do you mean by
'not capable' of taking the action? Does that include actions that vamp
couldn't take due to lack of a particular skill, etc; ie any action that
the vamp wishing to Mask couldn't personally initiate? Or is it just
specifically-prohibited actions (as in Beast wanting to Mask an
equip action)? (Same with the action mods.)
Thanks. ;-)
(I also would prefer to see Immortal Grapple left under the Sabbat wording,
and am dubious about the reworking of Rutor's Hand to make it better, but
others have brought those up already.)
Josh
PDB6
LSJ wrote:
"Immortal Grapple:
New card text:
"Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,) neither
minion can strike except with hand strikes.
Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the range
of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the Establish Range
step for that round."
#
# The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
# duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis."
Umm...What? The VTES and Sabbat text of this card clearly says that IG lasts
the entire combat. Tha Jyhad version is somewhat more ambiguous, but still
supports the "Entire combat" end. The above errata makes the card _far_ less
useful than it needs to be. The VTES/Sabbat version of this card gave a clear
exception to the default "only lasts this round of combat" rule that governs
combat cards. I fail to see why it was needed to remove this specific
exception. Why is this necessary?
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"I am the world's forgotten boy
the one who searches and destroys."
-Iggy Pop
jones
So it's "Blood Tears of Kephran" can't prevent the damage anymore?
Chris Berger
Thank you. Even without the 2nd Tradition ruling, this reaffirmed my
belief in Jyhad. So many of those rulings needed to be done.
One of them however, strikes me as harmful...
> Rotschreck:
> Play as written.
> #
> # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
> # his opponent in combat.
>
Why do this? Rotschreck was the only hoser against agg damage, and agg
damage is pretty damned powerful. People have gotten so used to
Rotschreck being played in that sensible way, why return it to the
strange wording and uselessness of this version?
-Chris
Chris Berger
still an amazingly useful card. The Jyhad version makes more sense,
IMO, anyway. When VTES "cleaned stuff up" it made a huge number of
mistakes. I think that it is LSJ's assertion that one of the mistakes
it made was in making IG last an entire combat. If that's his
assertion, I agree with him. In any case, I think that the "most recent
card wins" rule is not really a good one, and there are already plenty
of other exceptions where the VTES card was in error.
-Chris
MikeM...@my-dejanews.com
In article <358FED...@wizards.com>,
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
>
> Titles can only be held by vampires of the appropriate clan or sect. A
> clan Justicar title can only be held by a member of that clan,
> Camarilla vampires cannot hold Sabbat titles and vice-versa, etc. If
> a titled vampire changes clan or sect inappropriate to his title, he
> loses the benefit of the title unless and until he changes his clan or
> sect appropriately. If his title is contested while he is a member of
> an inappropriate sect, he immediately yields the title.
> (Losing capacity is not sufficient to lose the benefit of a title.)
>
Some months ago it was possible to give a non-Camarilla vamp a Writ of
Acceptance, let him seize Princedom, pass on the Paper and let the now
Non-Camarilla Prince keep his title and votes. Why now the change? It makes
sense in the logic of the roleplaying game, but this is a card game.
> ERRATA TO CARDS:
>
> Beast, Leatherface of Detroit:
> New card text:
> "Beast cannot perform action-card actions or recruit allies. He cannot
> have or use equipment or retainers. As a (D) action, Beast can enter
> combat with any Ready minion controlled by another Methuselah. +1 hand
> damage."
>
Beast used to be able to get a Zip Gun. With this new errata he is no longer
allowed to have it. Why? And what shall we do?
> Form of Mist:
> New card text:
> "Superior: Strike: Combat Ends. If this vampire is the acting vampire, this
> vampire gets +1 stealth (and this card counts as an action modifier) and the
> action continues as if unblocked."
>
Formerly FoM didn't count as an Action Mod, because it was a combat card...
Strange, this ruling excess. Why do the rules team (or YOU, LSJ) change all
that was once true?
> Golconda:
> Removes the selected vampire from the game instead of burning him.
> #
> # A vampire finding Golconda isn't destroyed - he simply has chosen
> # not to participate in the Jyhad any further.
>
Again logical in the sense of the game universe, but effectively you steal a
good pool gaining possibility from an already weak clan: the Giovanni.
> Immortal Grapple:
> New card text:
> "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,) neither
> minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the
> range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the
> Establish Range step for that round."
> #
> # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
> # duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis.
>
So does IG last for the entire combat or not? If it does, PLEASE INCLUDE IT IN
THE CARD TEXT INSTEAD OF "THIS ROUND".
> Return to Innocence:
> Removes the acting vampire from the game instead of burning him.
> #
> # See explanation for Golconda
>
See for Golconda for the same rant.
> Ritual of the Bitter Rose:
> New card text:
> "This card can be played as a combat card or an action modifier. Each of
> your ready vampires gains an amount of blood from the blood bank equal to
> the amount of blood on a vampire being burned either by diablerie or while
> in combat with this vampire."
> #
> # The VTES text munged the action-modifier aspect of this card when
attempting
> # to clarify the Jyhad text. Hopefully the above text is clear and correct.
>
So now it is possible to use RotBR on a vamp destroyed by Decapitate?
(another new one)
> Rutor's Hand:
> A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.
>
!!! I mean, this is a good restriction, but why so late?
> New card text:
> "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the
> damage."
> #
> # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would have
> # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need for
> # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the
> # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
> # prevent non-combat damage" errata.
>
Grrr. Please not so many good new ideas. Hint: Normally NO vamp using superior
Ruthor's Hand actually went to torpor when I played it. They always had some
Flack Jacket or else to prevent the damage.
This errata makes the game a little bit more unplayable correctly by players
without internet access.
It is a nice ruling, but think a little bit of new players which stick to the
card text!
> Second Tradition: Domain, The:
> New card text:
> "Requires ready Prince or Justicar. +2 intercept. Also usable by a tapped
> Prince or Justicar, even if intercept is not yet needed, to untap and
attempt
> to block with +2 intercept."
> #
> # Usable by an untapped P/J if he needs intercept, and usable by a
> # tapped P/J even if he doesn't (yet) need intercept.
> #
> # Idea: being untapped and adding intercept are both "stuff for blocking",
> # while stealth is "stuff for avoiding a block". The rule against unneeded
> # stealth/intercept has been applied here as if it were "cannot do stuff
> # for blocking unless you need stuff for blocking." Use that idea if it
> # helps you understand this errata, ignore it if not.
> #
> # This idea doesn't extend to superior Bonding, since +bleed is not
> # "stuff for avoiding a block", nor to plus-intercept-with-a-combat-bonus
> # cards (like Spirit's Touch) since the combat bonus is not "stuff
> # for blocking". Those cards can still be played only if the stealth/
> # intercept is needed.
> #
> # (The idea for use by an untapped P/J comes from the original card text)
>
And now it seems possible to use this card whether or not needing the
intercept, effectively braking the rule that you can only add intercept when
needed (overridden by new card text)
> Tereza Rotas:
> "If another Methuselah controls the Edge, Tereza may take the Edge as an
> action directed at that Methuselah. This action costs 2 blood."
> #
> # Obvious intent. Also, the action cannot be thwarted by burning the Edge
> # after the action is announced.
>
Aha. This makes sense, but is also new.
> CARD RULINGS:
>
> Anathema:
> Burns the target vampire when the target is reduced to zero blood in combat,
> regardless of the source of the loss of blood (card text). Still won't
> burn a vampire just for entering a combat with zero blood, however - there
> must be an actual "reduction" in blood.
>
Aha. Now Anathema triggers even for BURNING blood, which effectively causes
blood loss too?
> Blood of Acid:
> Only lasts for the current round.
>
and new.
> Burning Wrath:
> All of the damage from the strike is aggravated (card text).
>
and new (formerly only the additional damage was aggro)
> Charming Lobby:
> The vote to be called is played/named when the action is declared, and is
> called (by the acting minion) by the resolution of this action. This action
> is a political action.
>
So you need only 2 minions to use CL? This would be new and would remove CL
from the complete nuts list. I like this one.
> Code of Milan Suspended:
> The "Methuselah with the Edge" is identified at the start of the referendum.
> Burning the Edge during the referendum will not change the effects of the
> vote, if successful.
>
So even when the edge is spend during the vote, the acting Meth will get the
edge if the vote passes?
> Mask of a Thousand Faces:
> Cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of
> taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this
> action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the
> acting minion.
> #
> # Removes a lot of strangeness from the rulings.
>
Aha. It is now impossible to Mask actions with disciplines, the Masquerader
does not have? For example it is now illegal to give Wynn Ruthor's Hand
masking some Tremere?
> Propaganda:
> The Methuselah being bleed with superior Propaganda must choose an untapped
> ready minion to tap if she has any.
> #
> # Obvious intent.
>
New, but YES! This is the spirit of the original card text. Hossa!
> Rotschreck:
> Play as written.
> #
> # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
> # his opponent in combat.
>
Aha. Oppositely to the former ruling. Now it is to rescue a vamp, not to
intimidate the attacker.
All in all: Why this ruling frenzy? My play group will kill me when I present
all these changes to them ("Wizard's rulings last only from week to week! ..."
Please explain yourself, LSJ.
Michael Beer
V:EKN Prince of Dortmund
LSJ
(Eric Pettersen) wrote:
> One minor question...the rulings/errata on Kalinda and Tereza Rotas mean
> that (like all other actions) the cost is paid only if the action is
> successful. It also prevents the action from being undertaken if the
> minion has less than 2 blood. Is that the correct interpretation?
Correct.
> (and thanks again!!!!)
The pleasure is all mine :-)
--
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
jones <jo...@acronet.net> wrote:
>
> So it's "Blood Tears of Kephran" can't prevent the damage anymore?
Correct. The damage is unpreventable (card text, inferior).
Plus, the notion of preventing the damage ad-hoc isn't sensible from
the WoD POV - you are deliberating attempting to do damage to yourself
(to gain the extra untap). If you prevent that damage, well...
>
> LSJ wrote:
> Rutor's Hand:
> A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.
>
> New card text:
> "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the
> damage."
> #
> # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would
> have
> # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the
> need for
> # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for
> the
> # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
> # prevent non-combat damage" errata.
>
LSJ
pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote:
>
> LSJ wrote:
> "Immortal Grapple:
> New card text:
> "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,) neither
> minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the range
> of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the Establish Range
> step for that round."
> #
> # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
> # duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis."
>
> the entire combat.
Which is why this is errata, and not just a ruling.
> Tha Jyhad version is somewhat more ambiguous, but still
> supports the "Entire combat" end.
And supports the "this round" end just as much (more, if you consider
the implication of absence of the "do not determine range on the second
round" instruction for the inferior).
> The above errata makes the card _far_ less
> useful than it needs to be.
That's one opinion.
> The VTES/Sabbat version of this card gave a clear
> exception to the default "only lasts this round of combat" rule that governs
> combat cards.
They were re-written to cover the previous ruling from the rules team
that combat cards effects last the whole combat - the rewrite put onto
the card rather than into the rulebook for simplicity's sake.
> I fail to see why it was needed to remove this specific
> exception. Why is this necessary?
To make the card function as it originally should have (IMHO), and
to make it make sense (how can I continue to grapple you if you move
to long range?)
--
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
> outside of combat?
You cannot play combat cards outside of combat. Never could.
The old (overturned) errata on Rutor's Hand created a short
piece of combat (the strike resolution phase) from nowhere so
that combat cards and effects could be played. That oddity has
been removed.
> > Golconda:
> > Removes the selected vampire from the game instead of burning him.
> > # A vampire finding Golconda isn't destroyed - he simply has chosen
> > # not to participate in the Jyhad any further.
>
> So you can no longer use Possession to bring this vampire back into play?
? Right.
> > Immortal Grapple:
> > New card text:
> > "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,)
neither
> > minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> > Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the
> > range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the
> > Establish Range step for that round."
> > # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
> > # duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis.
>
> So on the second round of combat, the opposing minion is free to use any
> kind of strike and is no longer restricted to hand strikes?
? Right. (unless you play another IG in the second round).
> > Rutor's Hand:
> > A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.
> > New card text:
> > "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the
> > damage."
> > # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would have
> > # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need
for
> > # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the
> > # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
> > # prevent non-combat damage" errata.
>
> Except that this is taking away the ability of the other Meths chances
> of blocking the rescue from Torpor.
> That doesn't seem very fair.
? The previous version took away the same ability.
> How about making it so that if you take Aggro damage in combat, if the
> vamp has the blood, it can pay 2 to stay out of torpor? That's
> effectively doing the same thing...
If there was some underlying reason that the vamp should be given a boost
in preventing/circumventing the normal routine, sure.
The superior RHand was *supposed* to give you a way to prevent the damage.
(card text).
The original version of RHand failed at that because you cannot
prevent damage outside of combat except with Blood Tears. The (old) RT
errata was non-intuitive and caused a long stream of questions.
--
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
Mike Bohlmann <mboh...@pdnt.com> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Immortal Grapple:
> > New card text:
> > "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,)
> > neither minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> > Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues,
> > the range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip
> > the Establish Range step for that round."
> >
> > # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the
> > # emphasis.
>
> Can we possibly get some reasoning behind this ruling? It has several
> effects that I want to make sure were considered.
Original intent, and common sense (can't hold a grapple at long range,
you know).
> First, when newer versions of cards came out, it was ruled that the
> official reading of the card should be what is stated on the newest
> one. The new ruling on IG goes against that. Is it really a good
> idea (for simplicity's sake) to make exceptions to general rulings?
> Why was IG singled out to go against that general ruling on card text?
Card text was rewritten to quell the questions about the card. It went
with the ruling of the time (that combat cards' effects last the whole
combat by default). That is now no longer the ruling, so the "reminder"
text on IG has been errata'ed out.
> Second, by making this ruling, a non-Celerity Potence deck must
> effectively nearly double the IG's it needs. What I mean is that
> a Nosferatu deck relied on the IG to last the whole combat because
> Nosferatu don't generally have multiple strikes. The Nosferatu need
> to get to the second round of combat to finish off the opposing
> minion. However, a deck that uses Celerity with Potence, doesn't have
> to worry about doing as much in a second round because of the
> addtional
> strikes. Sure, the Nos still have Hidden Lurker, but that requires
> two
> vampires to successfully do.
OK.
> I can just see the number of decks using Presence and Fortitude
> growing. With the pre-ruling IG, the S:CE had to still worry about
> damage prevention or other means to end/survive combat. Against,
> Cel/Pot they still have to worry about it, but against pure Pot, a
> Pre/For deck now has a much higher chance of survival.
OK.
--
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
James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Combat cards:
> > By default, only apply to the round in which they are played. Explicit
> > card text is needed to overcome this default.
> > #
> > # See Blood of Acid, and note the errata returning Immortal Grapple to
> > # its Jyhad wording.
>
>
> I guess I'm just wondering why you made this decision. Since the Sabbat
> text of IG does explicit say that the effect lasts for the entire
To correct the wording, returning it to the original, sensical, meaning.
(Can't hold a grapple at long range).
--
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
MikeM...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> >
> > Titles can only be held by vampires of the appropriate clan or sect. A
> > clan Justicar title can only be held by a member of that clan,
> > Camarilla vampires cannot hold Sabbat titles and vice-versa, etc. If
> > a titled vampire changes clan or sect inappropriate to his title, he
> > loses the benefit of the title unless and until he changes his clan or
> > sect appropriately. If his title is contested while he is a member of
> > an inappropriate sect, he immediately yields the title.
> > (Losing capacity is not sufficient to lose the benefit of a title.)
>
> Some months ago it was possible to give a non-Camarilla vamp a Writ of
> Acceptance, let him seize Princedom, pass on the Paper and let the now
> Non-Camarilla Prince keep his title and votes. Why now the change? It makes
> sense in the logic of the roleplaying game, but this is a card game.
Because the old way introduced it's own set of problems, which eventually
would begin to create contradictory or at least ad-hoc "rulings".
It's usually better to go with the stuff that makes sense.
> > ERRATA TO CARDS:
> >
> > Beast, Leatherface of Detroit:
> > New card text:
> > "Beast cannot perform action-card actions or recruit allies. He cannot
> > have or use equipment or retainers. As a (D) action, Beast can enter
> > combat with any Ready minion controlled by another Methuselah. +1 hand
> > damage."
> >
>
> Beast used to be able to get a Zip Gun. With this new errata he is no longer
> allowed to have it. Why? And what shall we do?
To clear up the questions that the old wording presented.
Do?
> > Form of Mist:
> > New card text:
> > "Superior: Strike: Combat Ends. If this vampire is the acting vampire,
this
> > vampire gets +1 stealth (and this card counts as an action modifier) and
the
> > action continues as if unblocked."
> >
>
> Formerly FoM didn't count as an Action Mod, because it was a combat card...
> Strange, this ruling excess. Why do the rules team (or YOU, LSJ) change all
> that was once true?
To make the game work properly, hopefully ensuring it's continued existence.
> > Golconda:
> > Removes the selected vampire from the game instead of burning him.
> > #
> > # A vampire finding Golconda isn't destroyed - he simply has chosen
> > # not to participate in the Jyhad any further.
>
> Again logical in the sense of the game universe, but effectively you steal a
> good pool gaining possibility from an already weak clan: the Giovanni.
OK.
> > Immortal Grapple:
> > New card text:
> > "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,)
neither
> > minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> > Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the
> > range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the
> > Establish Range step for that round."
> > #
> > # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
> > # duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis.
>
> So does IG last for the entire combat or not? If it does, PLEASE INCLUDE IT IN
> THE CARD TEXT INSTEAD OF "THIS ROUND".
Not.
> > Return to Innocence:
> > Removes the acting vampire from the game instead of burning him.
> > #
> > # See explanation for Golconda
>
> See for Golconda for the same rant.
OK.
> > Ritual of the Bitter Rose:
> > New card text:
> > "This card can be played as a combat card or an action modifier. Each of
> > your ready vampires gains an amount of blood from the blood bank equal to
> > the amount of blood on a vampire being burned either by diablerie or while
> > in combat with this vampire."
>
> So now it is possible to use RotBR on a vamp destroyed by Decapitate?
> (another new one)
Clearly: yes.
> > Rutor's Hand:
> > A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.
>
> !!! I mean, this is a good restriction, but why so late?
I do what I can when I can.
> > New card text:
> > "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the
> > damage."
>
> Grrr. Please not so many good new ideas. Hint: Normally NO vamp using superior
It's been a few days shy of a year since the last RTR. Ideas have come up
since then, and this is the result. I wish I could have done this on
a case-by-case basis as they came up, but that was not possible. My apologies.
> Ruthor's Hand actually went to torpor when I played it. They always had some
> Flack Jacket or else to prevent the damage.
>
> This errata makes the game a little bit more unplayable correctly by players
> without internet access.
Without internet access, you couldn't play it "correctly" before - because of
that somewhat-unintuitive errata about spawning a piece of combat in which
to prevent the damage.
> It is a nice ruling, but think a little bit of new players which stick to the
> card text!
OK, then the superior would not be preventable at all (except with Blood
Tears). If you don't use Blood Tears, you'll be playing the official way
after all.
> > Second Tradition: Domain, The:
> > New card text:
> > "Requires ready Prince or Justicar. +2 intercept. Also usable by a tapped
> > Prince or Justicar, even if intercept is not yet needed, to untap and
> attempt
> > to block with +2 intercept."
>
> And now it seems possible to use this card whether or not needing the
> intercept, effectively braking the rule that you can only add intercept when
> needed (overridden by new card text)
Correct.
> > Tereza Rotas:
> > "If another Methuselah controls the Edge, Tereza may take the Edge as an
> > action directed at that Methuselah. This action costs 2 blood."
> > #
> > # Obvious intent. Also, the action cannot be thwarted by burning the Edge
> > # after the action is announced.
> >
>
> Aha. This makes sense, but is also new.
OK.
> > CARD RULINGS:
> >
> > Anathema:
> > Burns the target vampire when the target is reduced to zero blood in
combat,
> > regardless of the source of the loss of blood (card text). Still won't
> > burn a vampire just for entering a combat with zero blood, however - there
> > must be an actual "reduction" in blood.
>
> Aha. Now Anathema triggers even for BURNING blood, which effectively causes
> blood loss too?
Correct.
> > Blood of Acid:
> > Only lasts for the current round.
>
> and new.
New ruling, same card text.
> > Burning Wrath:
> > All of the damage from the strike is aggravated (card text).
>
> and new (formerly only the additional damage was aggro)
Same card text - and this ruling actually matches the punctuation used
on the card.
> > Charming Lobby:
> > The vote to be called is played/named when the action is declared, and is
> > called (by the acting minion) by the resolution of this action. This
action
> > is a political action.
>
> So you need only 2 minions to use CL? This would be new and would remove CL
> from the complete nuts list. I like this one.
Even better.
> > Code of Milan Suspended:
> > The "Methuselah with the Edge" is identified at the start of the
referendum.
> > Burning the Edge during the referendum will not change the effects of the
> > vote, if successful.
>
> So even when the edge is spend during the vote, the acting Meth will get the
> edge if the vote passes?
? No. I'm not following you at all here, sorry.
> > Mask of a Thousand Faces:
> > Cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of
> > taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this
> > action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the
> > acting minion.
> > #
> > # Removes a lot of strangeness from the rulings.
> >
>
> Aha. It is now impossible to Mask actions with disciplines, the Masquerader
> does not have? For example it is now illegal to give Wynn Ruthor's Hand
> masking some Tremere?
Unless he has been given thaumaturgy, right.
> > Propaganda
> > The Methuselah being bleed with superior Propaganda must choose an
untapped
> > ready minion to tap if she has any.
> > #
> > # Obvious intent.
>
> New, but YES! This is the spirit of the original card text. Hossa!
I do what I can.
> > Rotschreck:
> > Play as written.
> > #
> > # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
> > # his opponent in combat.
>
> Aha. Oppositely to the former ruling. Now it is to rescue a vamp, not to
> intimidate the attacker.
>
> All in all: Why this ruling frenzy? My play group will kill me when I present
> all these changes to them ("Wizard's rulings last only from week to week! ..."
The last set of new errata/changes came on 30 June 1997.
I don't understand the "week to week" statement.
In the intervening year, new questions came up.
Also, some questions had not (IMHO) been answered adequately/properly up
to that point, so here's the result.
--
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:
>
> Thank you. Even without the 2nd Tradition ruling, this reaffirmed my
> belief in Jyhad. So many of those rulings needed to be done.
Thank *you*.
> One of them however, strikes me as harmful...
>
> > Rotschreck:
> > Play as written.
> > #
> > # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
> > # his opponent in combat.
> >
> Why do this? Rotschreck was the only hoser against agg damage, and agg
> damage is pretty damned powerful. People have gotten so used to
> Rotschreck being played in that sensible way, why return it to the
> strange wording and uselessness of this version?
Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
Agg damage has another (common) answer: damage prevention, which is now
even usable against Pulled Fangs and other non-strike-resolution effects.
The "strange" wording is card text. The errata was the "strange wording"
in my view.
--
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
Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
>
> :Form of Mist:
> : New card text:
> : "Superior: Strike: Combat Ends. If this vampire is the acting vampire, this
> : vampire gets +1 stealth (and this card counts as an action modifier) and the
> : action continues as if unblocked."
>
> the block) changes; could you give an example?
As an action modifier, you cannot play more than one per action.
Example:
vampire A bleeds his prey.
vampire B blocks.
vampire A plays sup. FoM to continue the action at +1 stealth
vampire C blocks.
During the combat between vampire A and C, vampire A cannot use
superior FoM, since he has already used that action modifier once
this combat.
> : Reform Body:
> : New card text:
> : "This card can be played as a combat card or a reaction card. Only usable by
> : a vampire being burned. Not usable by an acting vampire. This vampire goes
> : to torpor instead of being burned.
> : Superior: As above, and this vampire gains 2 blood from the blood bank."
>
> This still can't be played from torpor, correct? (But thanks for the
> playable-by-tapped-vamps change!)
Correct.
> : Mask of a Thousand Faces:
> : Cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of
> : taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this
> : action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the
> : acting minion.
> : #
> : # Removes a lot of strangeness from the rulings.
>
> I'm sure it will, but first I have to ask: What exactly do you mean by
> 'not capable' of taking the action? Does that include actions that vamp
> couldn't take due to lack of a particular skill, etc; ie any action that
> the vamp wishing to Mask couldn't personally initiate? Or is it just
> specifically-prohibited actions (as in Beast wanting to Mask an
> equip action)? (Same with the action mods.)
If the would-be Masker could not have personally initiated the action,
then he cannot mask it.
> (I also would prefer to see Immortal Grapple left under the Sabbat wording,
> and am dubious about the reworking of Rutor's Hand to make it better, but
> others have brought those up already.)
? What about the Sabbat wording appeals to you?
cbo...@apdi.net
>>> Immortal Grapple:
>> So on the second round of combat, the opposing minion is free to use any
>> kind of strike and is no longer restricted to hand strikes?
> ? Right. (unless you play another IG in the second round).
This is so messed up.
You asked in a previous mention what the person you were responding to
liked about the Sabbat Text of IG.
Umm, I might be going out on a limb here, but the fact that it says that
it lasts the entire combat?
I've it said it once, I'll say it again: pure Potence Decks have now
become so much weaker against S:CE. So much for playing Nos, Lasombra,
Giovanni (w/o TB)....
>>> Rutor's Hand:
>>> # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would have
>>> # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need
>>> # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the
>>> # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
>>> # prevent non-combat damage" errata.
>> Except that this is taking away the ability of the other Meths chances
>> of blocking the rescue from Torpor.
>> That doesn't seem very fair.
> ? The previous version took away the same ability.
Almost true. You had to have certain cards in your deck to take care of
this contingency. This ruling circumvents that. Instead of having at least
2 cards (including the Rutor's Hand) to keep yourself out of Torpor, you
don't need any.
> > How about making it so that if you take Aggro damage in combat, if the
> > vamp has the blood, it can pay 2 to stay out of torpor? That's
> > effectively doing the same thing...
> If there was some underlying reason that the vamp should be given a boost
> in preventing/circumventing the normal routine, sure.
If you think about it, most combat strike cards *imply* that that strike
can be prevented, else you couldn't prevent it during Strike Resolution.
The only exception being cards that specifically say 'not preventable by
<whatever>'. So why not take this one step further and say you can 'prevent'
the aggro damage (and as such, remain out of torpor) by paying an extra 2
blood?
I'm being overly facecious/sarcastic, but it just seems to me the ruling
for Rutor's Hand is saying just that...
> The superior RHand was *supposed* to give you a way to prevent the damage.
> (card text).
Yes, but that prevention needed to come from some external source (such as
another card that prevented damage).
Not that they didn't need it, but this gives an incredible boost to the
Tremere.
Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans
kub...@imsa.edu
In article <6mqq1j$4j1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
>
> James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
> > Argh!
> >
> > I guess I'm just wondering why you made this decision. Since the Sabbat
> > text of IG does explicit say that the effect lasts for the entire
> > combat, why return it to the Jyhad wording?
>
> To correct the wording, returning it to the original, sensical, meaning.
> (Can't hold a grapple at long range).
Perhaps at superior level the hand strike limit could last into the
second round, as it will be automatically at close range.
>
> --
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the > Coast.
I understand the need to tone down IG. My playgroup recently
switched from 4CL to NL. I played the Nosferatu POT/ANI/for
deck that was posted here recently. One of the observations
made was that barring Thoughts Betrayed or Fortitude prevention,
there is no effective way to deal with this style of combat.
Safe Haven protects one vampire, and Elysium was easily
torchable by the Justicar/Princes of the Nosferatu.
I've read comments in this newsgroup before that things that
force other decks into particular playing styles out of necessity
are BAD THINGS. (RtI necessitating Archon Investigation or
bounce comes to mind)
All of this IMHO, of course.
Scott Harris
kub...@imsa.edu
Sorrow
>> I guess I'm just wondering why you made this decision. Since the
>>Sabbat text of IG does explicit say that the effect lasts for the entire
>> combat, why return it to the Jyhad wording?
>To correct the wording, returning it to the original, sensical, meaning.
>(Can't hold a grapple at long range).
Except that there is no "Long Range" when used at superior.
I know, I know - "Then just use another IG in the second round".
This effectivley means that you have to pack twice the number of
IG in your deck.
Man, Potence decks have just went down the crapper. I know
I'll never play one again because Presence decks have just
become exponentially stronger against them.
Sorrow
-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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cbo...@apdi.net
> > > Rotschreck:
> > > Play as written.
> > Why do this? Rotschreck was the only hoser against agg damage, and agg
> > damage is pretty damned powerful.
> Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
Perhaps I'm not drawing the coorelation.
How is this a hoser against S:CE? S:CE doesn't do agg damage.
The way I read the original ruling
> Agg damage has another (common) answer: damage prevention, which is now
> even usable against Pulled Fangs and other non-strike-resolution effects.
So you can now use SoS, SoR, etc to prevent damage from Pulled Fangs,
Weather Control, etc?
Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
LSJ
cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> >>> Immortal Grapple:
> >> So on the second round of combat, the opposing minion is free to use any
> >> kind of strike and is no longer restricted to hand strikes?
> > ? Right. (unless you play another IG in the second round).
>
> This is so messed up.
> You asked in a previous mention what the person you were responding to
> liked about the Sabbat Text of IG.
> Umm, I might be going out on a limb here, but the fact that it says that
> it lasts the entire combat?
The current errata fixes that (back to the original card text).
> I've it said it once, I'll say it again: pure Potence Decks have now
> become so much weaker against S:CE. So much for playing Nos, Lasombra,
> Giovanni (w/o TB)....
If you say so. Fortunately, there are other clans for you to play, and
others can continue to play those clans (or not) as they see fit.
> >>> Rutor's Hand:
> >>> # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would
have
> >>> # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need
> >>> # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the
> >>> # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
> >>> # prevent non-combat damage" errata.
> >> Except that this is taking away the ability of the other Meths chances
> >> of blocking the rescue from Torpor.
> >> That doesn't seem very fair.
> > ? The previous version took away the same ability.
>
> Almost true. You had to have certain cards in your deck to take care of
> this contingency. This ruling circumvents that. Instead of having at least
> 2 cards (including the Rutor's Hand) to keep yourself out of Torpor, you
> don't need any.
No, you just need 4 blood. What a deal! (sarcasm alert)
> > > How about making it so that if you take Aggro damage in combat, if the
> > > vamp has the blood, it can pay 2 to stay out of torpor? That's
> > > effectively doing the same thing...
> > If there was some underlying reason that the vamp should be given a boost
> > in preventing/circumventing the normal routine, sure.
>
> If you think about it, most combat strike cards *imply* that that strike
> can be prevented, else you couldn't prevent it during Strike Resolution.
Uh, OK. (?)
> The only exception being cards that specifically say 'not preventable by
> <whatever>'. So why not take this one step further and say you can 'prevent'
> the aggro damage (and as such, remain out of torpor) by paying an extra 2
> blood?
Because most strikes *imply* that you cannot. The only exception to this
being strike cards that specifically say 'pay an extra two blood to prevent'
(which don't exist).
> I'm being overly facecious/sarcastic, but it just seems to me the ruling
> for Rutor's Hand is saying just that...
OK, hope you don't mind that I've responded in kind.
> > The superior RHand was *supposed* to give you a way to prevent the damage.
> > (card text).
>
> Yes, but that prevention needed to come from some external source (such as
> another card that prevented damage).
> Not that they didn't need it, but this gives an incredible boost to the
> Tremere.
The only external source available before errata was Blood Tears.
The new errata simply replaces the old errata - now you need three extra
blood instead of an extra card.
--
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
cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> > > > Rotschreck:
> > > > Play as written.
> > > Why do this? Rotschreck was the only hoser against agg damage, and agg
> > > damage is pretty damned powerful.
> > Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
>
> Perhaps I'm not drawing the coorelation.
> How is this a hoser against S:CE? S:CE doesn't do agg damage.
Example:
My Gangrel blocks the acting vampire.
Acting vampire plays S:CE.
I strike: hands with Claws.
I play Rotschreck - acting vampire goes to torpor.
> > Agg damage has another (common) answer: damage prevention, which is now
> > even usable against Pulled Fangs and other non-strike-resolution effects.
>
> So you can now use SoS, SoR, etc to prevent damage from Pulled Fangs,
> Weather Control, etc?
No (card text), yes, etc. ... yes, no (card text).
You can prevent preventable damage with appropriate damage prevention
cards. You obviously cannot prevent non-strike damage with
prevent-damage-from-strike cards, and you obviously cannot prevent
unpreventable damage.
--
LSJ
"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
>
> >> I guess I'm just wondering why you made this decision. Since the
> >>Sabbat text of IG does explicit say that the effect lasts for the entire
> >> combat, why return it to the Jyhad wording?
> >To correct the wording, returning it to the original, sensical, meaning.
> >(Can't hold a grapple at long range).
>
> Except that there is no "Long Range" when used at superior.
There is in the third round.
Besides, the superior can't justify silliness in the inferior.
> I know, I know - "Then just use another IG in the second round".
If you like.
> This effectivley means that you have to pack twice the number of
> IG in your deck.
If you don't plan on doing sufficient damage in the first round, sure.
> Man, Potence decks have just went down the crapper. I know
Hardly.
> I'll never play one again because Presence decks have just
> become exponentially stronger against them.
Possibly your play group will need some time to adjust.
I've tested this new ruling for quite some time now, and
my potence decks do just fine.
How many games did you play before observing this exponential
growth in strength of Presence decks vs. Potence decks?
--
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 ==-----
Steven Bucy
Michael,
The rules team (LSJ) obviously made these rulings to fixed preceived
problems with the game. Certain rulings (RTI and Golconda for example)
appear to have been made specifically to stop abusive strategies that have
hurt the game. I'm surprised you would even ask why they where made.
Steve Bucy
MikeM...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6mq4iv$aa6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
cbo...@apdi.net
>> You asked in a previous mention what the person you were responding to
>> liked about the Sabbat Text of IG.
>> Umm, I might be going out on a limb here, but the fact that it says that
>> it lasts the entire combat?
> The current errata fixes that (back to the original card text).
I'm kinda curious why it was felt this card needed changing.
>> I've it said it once, I'll say it again: pure Potence Decks have now
>> become so much weaker against S:CE. So much for playing Nos, Lasombra,
>> Giovanni (w/o TB)....
> If you say so. Fortunately, there are other clans for you to play, and
> others can continue to play those clans (or not) as they see fit.
This is indeed true. However, this ruling on IG greatly weakens a very
popular (and before now) viable deck style.
>> Almost true. You had to have certain cards in your deck to take care of
>> this contingency. This ruling circumvents that. Instead of having at least
>> 2 cards (including the Rutor's Hand) to keep yourself out of Torpor, you
>> don't need any.
> No, you just need 4 blood. What a deal! (sarcasm alert)
All I am saying is that if a player using Rutor's Hand and did not have the
necessary damage prevention (either in the deck or in hand), then they would
have to weigh the benifit of RH against the possiblity that the recue attempt
would get blocked. This ruling completely alleviates those worries and as
such, takes the advantage (of possibly keeping the vamp in torpor or
diablerizing) away from the players opponents. Yet another benefit to the
vamp who just received the benifit of untaping every turn.
>> If you think about it, most combat strike cards *imply* that that strike
>> can be prevented, else you couldn't prevent it during Strike Resolution.
> Uh, OK. (?)
What didn't make sense?
> Because most strikes *imply* that you cannot. The only exception to this
> being strike cards that specifically say 'pay an extra two blood to prevent'
> (which don't exist).
Well, you said that the ruling for RH was made because the superior said that
the damage was preventable. I do not see where the phrase "damage is
preventable" *implies* that you can pay x extra blood to remain out of
torpor. Again, using my previous analogy, damage in combat is preventable
(except in those occasions where the card specifically says it is not). We
know that combat damage is preventable because in the rules (and card text),
it says you can use damage prevention cards (to prevent x damage, damage from
a strike, etc). So, by taking your interpretation of the phrase on RH
"damage is preventable" and turning that into a ruling that says you can pay
X blood to stay out of torpor, couldn't you apply that to (aggro) damage a
vamp receives in combat?
> > I'm being overly facecious/sarcastic, but it just seems to me the ruling
> > for Rutor's Hand is saying just that...
> OK, hope you don't mind that I've responded in kind.
Not at all.
>>> The superior RHand was *supposed* to give you a way to prevent the damage.
>>> (card text).
>> Yes, but that prevention needed to come from some external source (such as
>> another card that prevented damage).
> The only external source available before errata was Blood Tears.
> The new errata simply replaces the old errata - now you need three extra
> blood instead of an extra card.
It still doesn't make any sense.
It seems to me that this ruling is introducing something completely brand
new into the game. What precedents are there to this ruling?
Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
cbo...@apdi.net
>>>To correct the wording, returning it to the original, sensical, meaning.
>> >(Can't hold a grapple at long range).
>> Except that there is no "Long Range" when used at superior.
> There is in the third round.
Not if they S:CE.
> Besides, the superior can't justify silliness in the inferior.
How is the inferior silly?
>> I know, I know - "Then just use another IG in the second round".
> If you like.
It seems like your responses have been really glib to anything anyone
has said about how this ruling greatly weakens IG.
>> This effectivley means that you have to pack twice the number of
>> IG in your deck.
> If you don't plan on doing sufficient damage in the first round, sure.
There is only so much damage a pure Potence (not Cel/Pot) deck can dish
w/o getting into a 5+ card combo.
>> Man, Potence decks have just went down the crapper. I know
> Hardly.
See above. Without being able to rely on IG, you must rely on large
number card combos. And this is either inconsistant or will water
your deck down alot.
>> I'll never play one again because Presence decks have just
>> become exponentially stronger against them.
> Possibly your play group will need some time to adjust.
> I've tested this new ruling for quite some time now, and
> my potence decks do just fine.
Plain, straight potence?
I'd love to see one of these decks.
> How many games did you play before observing this exponential
> growth in strength of Presence decks vs. Potence decks?
I will grant you that I haven't played in any with this new ruling.
However, in a pure Presence S:CE vs. a pure Potence big strike deck,
the S:CE will win out. Now, the Potence deck has to rely on too
many cards to make dish out enough damage to put the opposing vamp
into Torpor. Such combos are not consistant enough to be effective
over the course of the game. If you don't have an IG in your hand
the second round and you didn't have enough cards in your hand to
put the other vamp into torpor, you just lost the chance. Before,
you could at least use Torn Signpost, IG and press a few rounds.
Sorrow
cbo...@apdi.net
>>> Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
>> Perhaps I'm not drawing the coorelation.
>> How is this a hoser against S:CE? S:CE doesn't do agg damage.
> Example:
> My Gangrel blocks the acting vampire.
> Acting vampire plays S:CE.
> I strike: hands with Claws.
> I play Rotschreck - acting vampire goes to torpor.
Maybe I read it wrong, but the card text, but I seem to remember
it saying to me the Gangrel would go to torpor.
> You can prevent preventable damage with appropriate damage prevention
> cards. You obviously cannot prevent non-strike damage with
> prevent-damage-from-strike cards, and you obviously cannot prevent
> unpreventable damage.
So can you now prevent damage from Catatonic Fear (I think that's the
right one) with Skin of Rock? It's damage from a Strike. And now you
can use damage prevention cards at any time...?
Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
LSJ
cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> >>> Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
> >> Perhaps I'm not drawing the coorelation.
> >> How is this a hoser against S:CE? S:CE doesn't do agg damage.
> > Example:
> > My Gangrel blocks the acting vampire.
> > Acting vampire plays S:CE.
> > I strike: hands with Claws.
> > I play Rotschreck - acting vampire goes to torpor.
>
> Maybe I read it wrong, but the card text, but I seem to remember
> it saying to me the Gangrel would go to torpor.
You read it wrong. What you propose is the old (overturned) errata
to the card.
Try reading the post again:
-----
Rotschreck:
Play as written.
#
# That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
# his opponent in combat.
-----
> > You can prevent preventable damage with appropriate damage prevention
> > cards. You obviously cannot prevent non-strike damage with
> > prevent-damage-from-strike cards, and you obviously cannot prevent
> > unpreventable damage.
>
> So can you now prevent damage from Catatonic Fear (I think that's the
> right one) with Skin of Rock? It's damage from a Strike. And now you
> can use damage prevention cards at any time...?
Sigh. Where'd you get "any time"?
No, since the damage is done outside of combat, and Skin of Rock
is a combat card.
Try reading the post again:
-----
Damage Prevention cards: are not restricted to strike resolution.
#
# Combat cards can be played whenever appropriate during combat - and
# any time preventable damage is inflicted is an appropriate time for
# damage prevention.
-----
--
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
Then see the original post, or any of several of my follow-ups
since then.
> a strike, etc). So, by taking your interpretation of the phrase on RH
> "damage is preventable" and turning that into a ruling that says you can pay
> X blood to stay out of torpor, couldn't you apply that to (aggro) damage a
> vamp receives in combat?
It's not a ruling, it's "errata" to the card. See the difference?
> It seems to me that this ruling is introducing something completely brand
> new into the game. What precedents are there to this ruling?
None, and none are needed: it's errata.
ber...@cco.caltech.edu
In article <6mrb0u$o88$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
>
> > I know, I know - "Then just use another IG in the second round".
>
> If you like.
>
No kidding. For the longest time, I assumed that you needed another IG. And
I usually had one if I needed it. IG was still an amazingly strong card.
> > This effectivley means that you have to pack twice the number of
> > IG in your deck.
>
> If you don't plan on doing sufficient damage in the first round, sure.
>
Because Potence decks have so much trouble doing damage. I can't think of any
time when a Potence deck did 8 damage with one strike, can you?
> > Man, Potence decks have just went down the crapper. I know
>
> Hardly.
>
You are completely correct here. Come on people, stop whining. If you want
multi-round combat, Potence is really not the way to go about it anyway. The
amount by which Potence has been weakened is microscopic. The amount by
which Protean, Thaumaturgy, and Quietus have been strengthened (by
Rotschreck) is much larger. In fact non-Potence combat may start to be
comparable to Potence... Nah, Potence wasn't weakened that much...
>
> How many games did you play before observing this exponential
> growth in strength of Presence decks vs. Potence decks?
>
Ouch... scathing replies here... Even in the middle of those 2nd Tradition
debates I didn't get LSJ to be *that* nasty... 8)
-Chris
Karl and Sam
LSJ wrote:
> Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you. Even without the 2nd Tradition ruling, this reaffirmed my
> > belief in Jyhad. So many of those rulings needed to be done.
>
> Thank *you*.
>
> > One of them however, strikes me as harmful...
> >
> > > Rotschreck:
> > > Play as written.
> > > #
> > > # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
> > > # his opponent in combat.
> > >
> > Why do this? Rotschreck was the only hoser against agg damage, and agg
> > damage is pretty damned powerful. People have gotten so used to
> > Rotschreck being played in that sensible way, why return it to the
> > strange wording and uselessness of this version?
>
> Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
> Agg damage has another (common) answer: damage prevention, which is now
> even usable against Pulled Fangs and other non-strike-resolution effects.
>
> The "strange" wording is card text. The errata was the "strange wording"
> in my view.
>
How can it be an S:CE Hoser?? unless of course you also plan to make a ruling
on MOOT being playable on your own turn.
Karl
James Coupe
In article <358FED...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes
>Second Tradition: Domain, The:
> New card text
Spoil-sport.... :(
Oi, mister, can we have our ball back please?
<grin>
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
James Coupe
In article <6mq4iv$aa6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, MikeMirathe@my-
dejanews.com writes
>Grrr. Please not so many good new ideas. Hint: Normally NO vamp using superior
>Ruthor's Hand actually went to torpor when I played it. They always had some
>Flack Jacket or else to prevent the damage.
You mean they hadn't played Fame first? Wow, what some people will
overlook........ (obviously for game balance, of course, and not having
boring decks ;)
ber...@cco.caltech.edu
>
> All I am saying is that if a player using Rutor's Hand and did not have the
> necessary damage prevention (either in the deck or in hand), then they would
> have to weigh the benifit of RH against the possiblity that the recue attempt
> would get blocked. This ruling completely alleviates those worries and as
> such, takes the advantage (of possibly keeping the vamp in torpor or
> diablerizing) away from the players opponents. Yet another benefit to the
> vamp who just received the benifit of untaping every turn.
>
Yay! I get the benefit of spending 3 extra blood. Alright!
> Well, you said that the ruling for RH was made because the superior said that
> the damage was preventable. I do not see where the phrase "damage is
> preventable" *implies* that you can pay x extra blood to remain out of
> torpor. Again, using my previous analogy, damage in combat is preventable
> (except in those occasions where the card specifically says it is not). We
> know that combat damage is preventable because in the rules (and card text),
> it says you can use damage prevention cards (to prevent x damage, damage from
> a strike, etc). So, by taking your interpretation of the phrase on RH
> "damage is preventable" and turning that into a ruling that says you can pay
> X blood to stay out of torpor, couldn't you apply that to (aggro) damage a
> vamp receives in combat?
>
Okay, here's the idea: One thing was removed, one thing was added. The
damage is no longer preventable (and let's face it, the damage was almost
always prevented anyway). Instead, you now must either take 1 agg damage or
3 normal damage. Swapping out preventable for burn 3 blood to prevent is an
even switch, as far as I'm concerned. It's true you no longer need to keep
damage prevention handy. But now, you must keep extra blood and then must
work hard to get that blood back. The reason that this is far preferable to
the damage prevention is that the prevention rulings were confusing and hurt
the game. For one thing, they allowed the play of combat cards outside of
combat. That, IMO, is a "Bad Thing." The new effect, while completely new
and mostly unrelated, is amazingly less confusing. Since it is comparable in
power, the change is a Good Thing.
ber...@cco.caltech.edu
>
> >>> Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
> >> Perhaps I'm not drawing the coorelation.
> >> How is this a hoser against S:CE? S:CE doesn't do agg damage.
> > Example:
> > My Gangrel blocks the acting vampire.
> > Acting vampire plays S:CE.
> > I strike: hands with Claws.
> > I play Rotschreck - acting vampire goes to torpor.
>
> Maybe I read it wrong, but the card text, but I seem to remember
> it saying to me the Gangrel would go to torpor.
>
That's the errata. The original says (albeit very unclearly) that the one
about to get hit by the agg damage is sent to torpor.
> > You can prevent preventable damage with appropriate damage prevention
> > cards. You obviously cannot prevent non-strike damage with
> > prevent-damage-from-strike cards, and you obviously cannot prevent
> > unpreventable damage.
>
> So can you now prevent damage from Catatonic Fear (I think that's the
> right one) with Skin of Rock? It's damage from a Strike. And now you
> can use damage prevention cards at any time...?
>
Umm... I think that Catatonic Fear is still considered to be dealt after
combat ends, in which case you could only prevent it with Blood Tears. I
may, however, be wrong.
cbo...@apdi.net
> Try reading the post again:
> -----
> Rotschreck:
> Play as written.
> #
> # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
> # his opponent in combat.
> -----
It says "Play as written". As written, from what I *remember*, it sends
the aggro inflicting vamp to torpor. Again, I will have to read the
card again to make sure.
>> So can you now prevent damage from Catatonic Fear (I think that's the
>> right one) with Skin of Rock? It's damage from a Strike. And now you
>> can use damage prevention cards at any time...?
> Sigh. Where'd you get "any time"?
> No, since the damage is done outside of combat, and Skin of Rock
> is a combat card.
> Try reading the post again:
> -----
> Damage Prevention cards: are not restricted to strike resolution.
> #
> # Combat cards can be played whenever appropriate during combat - and
> # any time preventable damage is inflicted is an appropriate time for
> # damage prevention.
> -----
This is where I got "any time" -- "and any time preventable damage is
inflicted is an appropriate time for damage prevention". Nowhere does
it say on Catatonic Fear that the damage is not preventable.
Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
JDS
So if I understand correctly, if Basilia is reacting and is at long range
all she has to do is attempt to strike with her hands, and regardless of the
opposing vampire's strike her Methuselah can play Rotschreck and the
opposing vampire will go to torpor with the Rotschreck on her?
Thanks
Eric Pettersen
Mike Bohlmann <mboh...@pdnt.com> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Immortal Grapple:
> > New card text:
> > "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,)
> > neither minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> > Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues,
> > the range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip
> > the Establish Range step for that round."
> >
> > # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the
> > # emphasis.
>
> Can we possibly get some reasoning behind this ruling?
Well, as LSJ has also said, without the errata IG's restriction to hand
strikes applied even at long range -- and that was plain nuts.
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)
Eric Pettersen
cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> >>> Rutor's Hand:
> >> Except that this is taking away the ability of the other Meths chances
> >> of blocking the rescue from Torpor. That doesn't seem very fair.
> > ? The previous version took away the same ability.
>
> of this contingency. This ruling circumvents that. Instead of having
> at least 2 cards (including the Rutor's Hand) to keep yourself out of
> Torpor, you don't need any.
Any deck that made real use of Rutor's Hand essentially never went to
torpor when doing so (unless they wanted to, e.g. the cheezy Fame maneuver
is now eliminated here).
> Not that they didn't need it, but this gives an incredible boost to the
> Tremere.
You're ignoring the restriction of one RT/minion. This is a significant
restriction for decks focused on RT.
LSJ
Karl and Sam wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > > > Rotschreck:
> > > > Play as written.
> on MOOT being playable on your own turn.
Um, play it on someone else's turn? (Say, when your Tremere/Gangrel
blocks and they try to S:CE out of combat.)
Quicksilver
LSJ wrote:
> ===================================
> Rules Team Rulings for 23 June 1998
> ===================================
>
> Comments to rulings and errata (for further clarification ot to explain
> the reasoning behind a rule) are identified by hash marks. Archivists
> may safely delete the lines begining with hash marks to save room, as
> necessary.... <massive snip>
My GOD!!! I'm practically speechless! I like evey $%& ruling in this post. It's
like a wave of sanity! It's like God himself came down and righted something
wrong! You even fixed Rotz. You made 2nd Tradition work the right way (sorry,
couldn't resist that dig). How the $#&% did you manage this marvel?
What happened? I am stunned and happily bewildered.
I want MORE!!! How about fixing Thoughts Betrayed and Tomb of Ramses III.
MORE, MORE, MORE, MORE!!!!!!!
Quicksilver
cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> > > > Rotschreck:
> > > > Play as written.
> > > Why do this? Rotschreck was the only hoser against agg damage, and agg
> > > damage is pretty damned powerful.
> > Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
>
> Perhaps I'm not drawing the coorelation.
> How is this a hoser against S:CE? S:CE doesn't do agg damage.
> The way I read the original ruling
>
> > Agg damage has another (common) answer: damage prevention, which is now
> > even usable against Pulled Fangs and other non-strike-resolution effects.
>
> So you can now use SoS, SoR, etc to prevent damage from Pulled Fangs,
> Weather Control, etc?
>
> Sorrow
> -Prince of New Orleans
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
You play Rotz before strikes are resolved. So a blocking Gangrel can play a
Bone Spur in response to a S:CE and then play a Rotz to send the acting
vampire
to topor before the nasty fellow can escape.
Acting vampire: Strike Majesty
Blocking vampire: Strike hands
Blocking vampire: Play Bone Spur to make damage aggravated
Reacting Methuselah: Play Rotz, acting vampire goes to topor.
JDS
Quicksilver wrote in message <35915D8C...@lmco.com>...
YES,YES,YES,YES,!!!!!
Why wasn't anything done for Thought's Betrayed anyways?
What about making it only usable for the first round only?
Any thoughts?
PDB6
Now don't get me wrong here, I appreciate the fact that these rulings have been
made, and think pretty much every one is great, but this whole weakening of
Immortal Grapple is sheer madness.
"Possibly your play group will need some time to adjust.
I've tested this new ruling for quite some time now, and
my potence decks do just fine."
The kneecapping of Immortal Grapple has done little more than:
A) Increase the power of Strike:Combat Ends cards, which are already arguably
broken.
B) Make the Nosferatu (and any Pot clan without Cel) far less capable than
before.
C) Make Pressess even more useless than they are.
I fail to see how any of this is a favorable outcome.
Before this erratta, Rush decks were already the most difficult of all deck
designs to suceed with, due to the numerous easy ways to foil them. Immortal
Grapple was the only card that made Potence combat even somewhat viable. Now,
as it only lasts one round, Potence decks have become even _more_ card
dependant, easier to foil, and far less likely to actually work. How is this a
good thing? At this point, you need to either use Celerity (i.e. be the
Brujah) for multiple strikes, have immense first round strikes (i.e. have lots
of Rare Fists of Death), or be playing with 20 Immortal Grapples to have a
slightly viable Potence combat deck. None of these are in anyway an
improvement on the game.
I understand that the way the card worked was kind of wonky at times, but if
you were just going to up and change the wording on the card, why not change it
to something like "Once Immortal Grapple has been played, neither minion may
manuver or use any strikes other than hand strikes for the remainder of
combat"? This would have solved the ambiguity problem, as well as maintaining
the use of the card.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"I am the world's forgotten boy
the one who searches and destroys."
-Iggy Pop
Joshua Duffin
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
: >
: > :Form of Mist:
[example deleted]
Okay, I guess I get it after all - I was thinking that there was
something more than just the action-modifier addition.
[other clarifications deleted - thanks]
: > (I also would prefer to see Immortal Grapple left under the Sabbat wording,
: > and am dubious about the reworking of Rutor's Hand to make it better, but
: > others have brought those up already.)
: ? What about the Sabbat wording appeals to you?
It says 'for the remainder of combat.' ;-)
As a long-time player of strong and mighty potence-using combat decks,
I liked Immortal Grapple the way it was. However, I can see your point
that staying Grappled at long range isn't very realistic. How about
adding to the superior that, if there is another round of combat, only
hand strikes may be made in that round as well? Since it's guaranteed
(at superior) to be at close range, I think the clear intent is that
the Grapple is keeping your opponent from getting away - so it seems
reasonable to me that they would remain fully Grappled.
Also - since it seems that perhaps everything in the game is now up
for debate ;-) - is there any chance of getting (as someone else also
asked) the often-deemed-abusive cards changed? (That is, the ones you
haven't touched already - Thoughts Betrayed, Tomb of Rameses III, maybe
Dreams of the Sphinx.)
And while I'm at it, what would you think of altering Pulled Fangs to
use the Disarm template? That is, instead of inflicting agg damage (which
is now preventable, and under the VTES changes to agg damage made PF
capable of burning vamps), have it instead just send the vamp getting
the dental work to torpor.
Josh
...actually interacting with the rules team, hard to believe this day
has come...
James Hamblin
Josh Duffin begat:
> As a long-time player of strong and mighty potence-using combat decks,
> I liked Immortal Grapple the way it was. However, I can see your point
> that staying Grappled at long range isn't very realistic.
That is, _if_ you view the card as a "two vampires throttling each other
card" as opposed to "a potence card which prevents the other minion from
striking other than with hands". I thought that the Torn Signpost
arguments had clearly shown that real-world arguments don't always apply
to the world of Jyhad, the card game.
Ever since I've been playing this game, Immortal Grapple worked the way
it until-so-recently has done. So, it seems to me LSJ's two arguments
for changing the card:
(1) You can't choke your opponent from long range
and
(2) This is the way it was originally supposed to work
don't hold water for me. Besides which, LSJ has said (2) in another
post:
"To make the card function as it originally should have (IMHO)"
This sort of irks me, since it doesn't seem that your opinion is very
humble when you're applying it to the entire Jyhad community. I know
that you are the ultimate authority now, LSJ, but this seems a little
(and I hesitate to use this word) megalomaniacal to me.
Another little nit; if the "extra" text on the V:tES and Sabbat versions
of this card were just "reminders" (as you have said in yet another
post), why were they not in parentheses like all other reminder text?
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
Gomi no Sensei
>How is the inferior silly?
Pre-June 23 IG (inf) allowed a grapple to continue in to the second round
at long range. I believe this is what LSJ (blessings upon him and peace)
referred to as 'silliness.'
>It seems like your responses have been really glib to anything anyone
>has said about how this ruling greatly weakens IG.
mainly because it's hard to see that IG has been 'greatly' weakened.
>>> This effectivley means that you have to pack twice the number of
>>> IG in your deck.
>> If you don't plan on doing sufficient damage in the first round, sure.
>There is only so much damage a pure Potence (not Cel/Pot) deck can dish
>w/o getting into a 5+ card combo.
Oh? Cel/Pot is already combo-intensive; at a bare minimum, you need
a reliable 3-card combo (IG, torn signpost, blur), and at that you need
heavy supporting roles for Flash and Pot strikes, which puts you comfily
in the 5-card combo land. And that's not counting Rushes and Tastes as
part of the combo.
pot can match pot/cel for single-round damage dealt, and POT matches
pot/CEL or POT/cel as well; only when you get into POT/CEL do the combos
start to pack 20 to 33% more damage, and in general, the difference between
6 and 9 damage won't come into play all that often, given the prevalence
of smaller vampires and the lowish blood status of midgame larger ones.
Take the standard pot/cel combo: IG/Torn Signpost/Blur. it generates
4 damage at pot/cel, 6 at POT/cel or pot/CEL, and 9 at POT/CEL.
With potence alone, you'd use IG/TS/Pushing the Limit, or something
similar (of thine own ingenium devise others, as Crowley said). That
combo generates 4 at pot and 6 at POT -- and vampires with POT are cheaper
and easier to come by than POT/cel, pot/CEL, or POT/CEL, as a rule. The
total blood cost of the combo (1) is even equivalent to the pot/cel combo.
>Plain, straight potence?
>I'd love to see one of these decks.
I haven't any put together currently, but I love a challenge. I'm
oustbait in JOL71, and in JOL80 I'll be using something special, but
i'll be happy to design and use a weenie pot/POT rush-o-tastic for a
future JOL.
>I will grant you that I haven't played in any with this new ruling.
>However, in a pure Presence S:CE vs. a pure Potence big strike deck,
>the S:CE will win out.
How you figure? They still can't SCE under IG.
>Now, the Potence deck has to rely on too
>many cards to make dish out enough damage to put the opposing vamp
>into Torpor. Such combos are not consistant enough to be effective
>over the course of the game. If you don't have an IG in your hand
>the second round and you didn't have enough cards in your hand to
>put the other vamp into torpor, you just lost the chance. Before,
>you could at least use Torn Signpost, IG and press a few rounds.
ya, but you're not counting the presses are part of the combo, now
are you? IG, TS and 3 presses are still a '5 card combo' like the ones
you've derided above.
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
Sorry to disagree with you, but the entire "hand strikes only - even
if a mile away at long range" thing sucks. That said, I realize that
the effect of IG only lasting for 1 combat round does have a slight
neutering effect on the card.
I would humbly propose this fix #1: the Grapple (hand strikes only)
lasts for the entire combat, but only while at close range.
or
I would humbly propose this fix #2: the Grapple (hand strikes only)
lasts for the first two rounds of combat, but only while at close range.
Jaysen
Chris Berger
> >Second Tradition: Domain, The:
> > New card text
>
> Spoil-sport.... :(
>
> Oi, mister, can we have our ball back please?
>
> <grin>
>
quote that movie back and forth to each other for hours. Other people
throw stuff at us. One scene we changed a little so that we could do it
in infinite loop...
Me: Books are good.
Her: Paradin''s better.
Me: Parading?
Her: You know... (This part we don't know well... Usually we make
something up like the following) Walkin' the streets, seein' the sights,
living!
Me: I *am* living.
Her: You? Living? If yer not beating away at them pagan skins, ye've
got yer hooter scraping away at that book.
Me: Yeah... a bloomin' book!
Her(switching voices): Books are good.
Me: Paradin''s better.
...
And so on, switching accents each time. 8)
-Chris
PDB6
Chris Berger wrote:
"You are completely correct here. Come on people, stop whining. If you want
multi-round combat, Potence is really not the way to go about it anyway."
Before this change to Immortal Grapple, multi round, non celerity augmented,
potence combat was a perfectly viable strategy. Now, it is much less so.
"The amount by which Potence has been weakened is microscopic. The amount by
which Protean, Thaumaturgy, and Quietus have been strengthened (by Rotschreck)
is much larger. In fact non-Potence combat may start to be comparable to
Potence... Nah, Potence wasn't weakened that much..."
But it was weakened, and I fail to see how this was in any way a good thing.
Combat decks are already fighting an uphill battle against Bleed/Vote decks.
You know this and I know this. With this change to Immortal Grapple, they
become simply less effective. The degree to which the become less effective is
debateable, but they clearly become less effective. Again, I fail to see how
this improves the game environment in any way.
Chris Berger
>
> As a long-time player of strong and mighty potence-using combat decks,
> I liked Immortal Grapple the way it was. However, I can see your point
> adding to the superior that, if there is another round of combat, only
> hand strikes may be made in that round as well? Since it's guaranteed
> (at superior) to be at close range, I think the clear intent is that
> the Grapple is keeping your opponent from getting away - so it seems
> reasonable to me that they would remain fully Grappled.
>
especially good at grappling, you can hold your opponent long enough to
prevent them from getting away from you. Thus, you get a second round
of combat at close range. If you work to continue grappling them (use
another IG), then you can hold them for another round. If you don't try
to keep ahold of them, then you lose the grip, and they get away.
>
> And while I'm at it, what would you think of altering Pulled Fangs to
> use the Disarm template? That is, instead of inflicting agg damage (which
> is now preventable, and under the VTES changes to agg damage made PF
> capable of burning vamps), have it instead just send the vamp getting
> the dental work to torpor.
>
I don't like making it completely unpreventable, especially since you
can now use damage prevention cards on it. My favorite ruling for the
card is that it is unchanged except that the damage from Pulled Fangs
cannot burn a vampire. This fixes just about all the problems with it
and does not introduce the new problems that "that vampire goes to
torpor" would add.
-Chris
Chris Berger
> Ever since I've been playing this game, Immortal Grapple worked the way
> it until-so-recently has done.
>
now. Half of that time IG worked the correct way. Half of the time we
got the bastardized V:TES way. Now it's back to the way things should
be done. The Rules Team is dead, long live the Rules Team (LSJ). 8)
>
> "To make the card function as it originally should have (IMHO)"
>
> This sort of irks me, since it doesn't seem that your opinion is very
> humble when you're applying it to the entire Jyhad community. I know
> that you are the ultimate authority now, LSJ, but this seems a little
> (and I hesitate to use this word) megalomaniacal to me.
>
I actually sort of agree with you. Remove the "(IMHO)" and it doesn't
seem megalomaniacal. I'm sure that's the way LSJ meant to post it,
since the card was originally printed to only work for a round.
-Chris
Petri Wessman
pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer (Eric Pettersen) writes:
> One minor question...the rulings/errata on Kalinda and Tereza Rotas mean
> that (like all other actions) the cost is paid only if the action is
> successful. It also prevents the action from being undertaken if the
> minion has less than 2 blood. Is that the correct interpretation?
...dunno about that, but another semi-related question: why does Seeds
of Corruption have the ruling that the 1 or 2 blood are burned for
even attempting actions, even though the card text implies a "burn
blood for successful actions" ruling?
//Petri
LSJ
"JDS" <ste...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> So if I understand correctly, if Basilia is reacting and is at long range
> all she has to do is attempt to strike with her hands, and regardless of the
> opposing vampire's strike her Methuselah can play Rotschreck and the
> opposing vampire will go to torpor with the Rotschreck on her?
Good question. I believe the answer is "yes", but I'll have to put it on the
list for the RT to review.
--
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
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> As a long-time player of strong and mighty potence-using combat decks,
> I liked Immortal Grapple the way it was. However, I can see your point
> that staying Grappled at long range isn't very realistic. How about
> adding to the superior that, if there is another round of combat, only
> hand strikes may be made in that round as well? Since it's guaranteed
> (at superior) to be at close range, I think the clear intent is that
> the Grapple is keeping your opponent from getting away - so it seems
> reasonable to me that they would remain fully Grappled.
IMHO, the intent was to show that you had a slightly longer hold
on the opponent at the inferior than at the superior - which is
why you get a press and he cannot maneuver away in the second round
at superior.
This is enough of a bonus for superior.
Besides, the errata merely sets it back to its original intent -
I'm not inthe business of issuing errata soley to make game-world
sense.
> Also - since it seems that perhaps everything in the game is now up
> for debate ;-) - is there any chance of getting (as someone else also
> asked) the often-deemed-abusive cards changed? (That is, the ones you
> haven't touched already - Thoughts Betrayed, Tomb of Rameses III, maybe
> Dreams of the Sphinx.)
A full list of changes is being debated by the RT - but these changes
will be more upsetting to the current tournament-scene, so the
changes have been delayed to let the easy changes settle in.
The next round of changes will be published about a month before
they will apply to any DCI tournaments.
The things you addressed are also addressed in that upcoming set.
Patience, please.
cbo...@apdi.net
> >How is the inferior silly?
> Pre-June 23 IG (inf) allowed a grapple to continue in to the second round
> at long range. I believe this is what LSJ (blessings upon him and peace)
> referred to as 'silliness.'
Except that in the second round, you *can't* maneuver. It's restricted
by card text.
> >It seems like your responses have been really glib to anything anyone
> >has said about how this ruling greatly weakens IG.
> mainly because it's hard to see that IG has been 'greatly' weakened.
Umm, you need one for *every* round whereas before you needed one just
for the entirety of the combat?
> >Plain, straight potence?
> >I'd love to see one of these decks.
> I haven't any put together currently, but I love a challenge. I'm
> oustbait in JOL71, and in JOL80 I'll be using something special, but
> i'll be happy to design and use a weenie pot/POT rush-o-tastic for a
> future JOL.
I'd love to see it.
>>I will grant you that I haven't played in any with this new ruling.
>>However, in a pure Presence S:CE vs. a pure Potence big strike deck,
>>the S:CE will win out.
> How you figure? They still can't SCE under IG.
You can in the second round. If the player isn't packing the 15-20
necesary for a multi-round combat, then the opposing vamp is free to
S:CE away. Unless you are using enough cards to put a vamp into torpor
in the first round (where before, you had the opportunity to string it
out), then the opposing vamp is going to slip from your grasp, so to
speak.
> ya, but you're not counting the presses are part of the combo, now
> are you? IG, TS and 3 presses are still a '5 card combo' like the ones
> you've derided above.
Except that (sup) IG came w/an automatic press. At POT, against a
vamp w/o fortitude, you could send a 8 point vamp into torpor with
3 cards in 2 rounds. TS, IG and Pushing the Limit.
Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
LSJ
Petri Wessman wrote:
> ...dunno about that, but another semi-related question: why does Seeds
> of Corruption have the ruling that the 1 or 2 blood are burned for
> even attempting actions, even though the card text implies a "burn
> blood for successful actions" ruling?
Seeds uses "performs" in card text. Which could mean "attempts" or
"finishes (blocked or not)" or "successfully takes", depending on
your frame of mind, without actually implying any of these over the
others.
Because the text is ambiguous, a ruling is necessary to choose one
of the availble interpretations as official, and that ruling has
been made to read "performs" as "attempts".
Not everyone will agree with that interpretation, by virtue of
the ambiguity, and that cannot be helped. That is the nature
of "rulings".
Lambach
JDS wrote:
:
: So if I understand correctly, if Basilia is reacting and is at long
range
: all she has to do is attempt to strike with her hands, and regardless
of the
: opposing vampire's strike her Methuselah can play Rotschreck and the
: opposing vampire will go to torpor with the Rotschreck on her?
:
: >Rotschreck:
: > Play as written.
: > #
: > # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage
from
: > # his opponent in combat.
I'm puzzled here... If the Rotzed vampire is supposed to be "to recieve
aggro from his opponent", how can attempting a non-ranged strike at long
range be sufficient for playing Rotz?
L~R
Eric Pettersen
pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote:
> Now don't get me wrong here, I appreciate the fact that these rulings have been
> made, and think pretty much every one is great, but this whole weakening of
> Immortal Grapple is sheer madness.
>
>
> Before this erratta, Rush decks were already the most difficult of all deck
> designs to suceed with, due to the numerous easy ways to foil them. Immortal
> Grapple was the only card that made Potence combat even somewhat viable. Now,
> as it only lasts one round, Potence decks have become even _more_ card
> dependant, easier to foil, and far less likely to actually work. How is this a
> good thing? At this point, you need to either use Celerity (i.e. be the
> Brujah) for multiple strikes, have immense first round strikes (i.e. have lots
> of Rare Fists of Death), or be playing with 20 Immortal Grapples to have a
> slightly viable Potence combat deck. None of these are in anyway an
> improvement on the game.
Well, you know, all the damage from Burning Wrath is now aggravated. So
I don't think you need FoD to do adequate first round damage, with an
excellent chance of burning the opposing vamp.
Eric Pettersen
Quicksilver <michael...@lmco.com> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > ===================================
> > Rules Team Rulings for 23 June 1998
> > ===================================
>
> MORE, MORE, MORE, MORE!!!!!!!
>
Yes, the only response I got from my playgroup when I informed them of
these rulings was some disappointment that some other cards weren't fixed
also. All the RTR fixes met with approval. The kind of fixes my playgroup
wanted were to make some of the ridiculously-unplayable cards of the DS
expansion (e.g. Pere LaChaise, Oxford University) errataed to be at least
marginally useful. I can see why LSJ wouldn't go that far though, so I'm
not calling for such changes.
Mike Bohlmann
Eric Pettersen wrote:
> Well, you know, all the damage from Burning Wrath is now aggravated. So
> I don't think you need FoD to do adequate first round damage, with an
> excellent chance of burning the opposing vamp.
To just do a BW, you need 4 blood unless you plan on preventing the
opponent's damage or going to torpor. I wouldn't exactly call that
a great alternative.
How about a modified errata like:
Immortal Grapple lasts until a round of combat is at long range.
With that, it still maintains its pre-errata usefulness but adds one
more way out for the opponent. Plus it's simple. It also makes game
world sense. After all, it doesn't exactly make game world sense with
the new errata either: why would the vampire using the immortal
grapple
just let go at the end of a round? Vampire combat etiquette?
Did your test groups try this possibility, LSJ?
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP mboh...@pdnt.com
Internet Strategy and Development Consultant
Jaysen Knight
Chris Berger wrote:
> >
> > As a long-time player of strong and mighty potence-using combat decks,
> > I liked Immortal Grapple the way it was. However, I can see your point
> > that staying Grappled at long range isn't very realistic. How about
> > adding to the superior that, if there is another round of combat, only
> > hand strikes may be made in that round as well? Since it's guaranteed
> > (at superior) to be at close range, I think the clear intent is that
> > the Grapple is keeping your opponent from getting away - so it seems
> > reasonable to me that they would remain fully Grappled.
> >
> Not really. You can Grapple for one round with one card. If you are
> especially good at grappling, you can hold your opponent long enough to
> prevent them from getting away from you. Thus, you get a second round
> of combat at close range. If you work to continue grappling them (use
> another IG), then you can hold them for another round. If you don't try
> to keep ahold of them, then you lose the grip, and they get away.
>
> >
> > And while I'm at it, what would you think of altering Pulled Fangs to
> > use the Disarm template? That is, instead of inflicting agg damage (which
> > is now preventable, and under the VTES changes to agg damage made PF
> > capable of burning vamps), have it instead just send the vamp getting
> > the dental work to torpor.
> >
> I don't like making it completely unpreventable, especially since you
> can now use damage prevention cards on it. My favorite ruling for the
> card is that it is unchanged except that the damage from Pulled Fangs
> cannot burn a vampire. This fixes just about all the problems with it
> and does not introduce the new problems that "that vampire goes to
> torpor" would add.
>
> -Chris
Call me crazy, but isn't it just easier to make it 1 pt. of unpreventable
damage. Sure the card loses its 'instant torpor' effect, but on the plus
side: it is no longer the cheap vamp burner it is now and since the damage
is unpreventable it will send its fair share of vamps to torpor anyways.
What do you think LSJ? The card text doesn't change much at all.
"Pulled Fangs Combat
Usable by a minion who inflicts more damage at close range than the
victim vampire. Pulled Fangs inflicts 1 {pt. unpreventable} damage, and
the victim cannot hunt. Any vampire may burn this card by taking two
actions, which would be at +1 Stealth. If the victim must hunt, it
instead goes to torpor. Not usable by a vampire going to torpor or by
a dying ally.
Artist: Edward Beard, Jr."
Jaysen
Eric Pettersen
Mike Bohlmann <mboh...@pdnt.com> wrote:
> Eric Pettersen wrote:
>
> > Well, you know, all the damage from Burning Wrath is now aggravated.
> > So I don't think you need FoD to do adequate first round damage, with
> > an excellent chance of burning the opposing vamp.
>
> To just do a BW, you need 4 blood unless you plan on preventing the
> opponent's damage or going to torpor. I wouldn't exactly call that
> a great alternative.
Taste of Vitae is fairly standard in combat decks. BW is really only an
alternative for mid- to large-cap vamps, agreed.
Gomi no Sensei
>> >How is the inferior silly?
>> Pre-June 23 IG (inf) allowed a grapple to continue in to the second round
>> at long range. I believe this is what LSJ (blessings upon him and peace)
>> referred to as 'silliness.'
>Except that in the second round, you *can't* maneuver. It's restricted
>by card text.
Only at superior; you will note that I specified inferior above.
>> I haven't any put together currently, but I love a challenge. I'm
>> oustbait in JOL71, and in JOL80 I'll be using something special, but
>> i'll be happy to design and use a weenie pot/POT rush-o-tastic for a
>> future JOL.
>I'd love to see it.
Groovy. Go sign up; you know the way.
>> How you figure? They still can't SCE under IG.
>You can in the second round. If the player isn't packing the 15-20
>necesary for a multi-round combat, then the opposing vamp is free to
>S:CE away. Unless you are using enough cards to put a vamp into torpor
>in the first round (where before, you had the opportunity to string it
>out), then the opposing vamp is going to slip from your grasp, so to
>speak.
This may be a peculiarity of your particular environment; do combats
often go multiple rounds in your vicinity? Typically, I won't even
pick a fight if I'm not reasonably certain of putting the punching
bag away in one round. Prolonging the engagement is asking for trouble.
>> ya, but you're not counting the presses are part of the combo, now
>> are you? IG, TS and 3 presses are still a '5 card combo' like the ones
>> you've derided above.
>Except that (sup) IG came w/an automatic press. At POT, against a
>vamp w/o fortitude, you could send a 8 point vamp into torpor with
>3 cards in 2 rounds. TS, IG and Pushing the Limit.
Right. IG *has* been weakened; you won't find me debating that.
I don't feel that it has been 'greatly,' or even unduly, weakened,
or that pure potence rush (or even non-celerity potence rush, like
the very strong ani/pot) has been rendered nonviable.
James Hamblin
Eric Pettersen wrote:
>
> Mike Bohlmann <mboh...@pdnt.com> wrote:
> > Eric Pettersen wrote:
> >
> > > Well, you know, all the damage from Burning Wrath is now aggravated.
> > > So I don't think you need FoD to do adequate first round damage, with
> > > an excellent chance of burning the opposing vamp.
I honestly don't remember ever seeing that all of the damage from BW
_wasn't_ aggravated. My old playgroup certainly would have played it
that way if anyone had ever used the card. Why didn't anyone use it?
'Cause it sucks, for the following reason:
> > To just do a BW, you need 4 blood unless you plan on preventing the
> > opponent's damage or going to torpor. I wouldn't exactly call that
> > a great alternative.
>
> Taste of Vitae is fairly standard in combat decks. BW is really only an
> alternative for mid- to large-cap vamps, agreed.
So it really isn't an alternative to Immortal Grapple, now is it?
Besides which, now Potence combat has no really effective way of dealing
with the Ventrue, for example. It used to be that you could at least
try to sap out all of their fortitude by continually pressing, but now
you'd need an IG for every subsequent round. Any decision or game
change which makes combat less effective makes the combat deck, already
terribly difficult to win with, closer to completely defunct.
Immortal Grapple is the staple, the bread and butter of any potence
combat deck. This one card is the reason the majority of universally
effective combat decks involve potence, since only potence can easily
and reliably deal with combat countermeasures. Combat decks, already
few and far between in the tournament scene, will probably now all but
disappear. There are at least twice as many anti-combat cards as good
combat cards, which used to be OK, because of cards like Immortal
Grapple. Now IG has been hamstrung so that a Potence combat deck now
either has to have at least twice as many or is forced to play with
Celerity. So why is combat worth playing anymore? And hence, why is
the game worth playing anymore?
Joshua Duffin
Chris Berger (ber...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: >
: > As a long-time player of strong and mighty potence-using combat decks,
: > I liked Immortal Grapple the way it was. However, I can see your point
: > that staying Grappled at long range isn't very realistic. How about
: > adding to the superior that, if there is another round of combat, only
: > hand strikes may be made in that round as well? Since it's guaranteed
: > (at superior) to be at close range, I think the clear intent is that
: > the Grapple is keeping your opponent from getting away - so it seems
: > reasonable to me that they would remain fully Grappled.
: Not really. You can Grapple for one round with one card. If you are
: especially good at grappling, you can hold your opponent long enough to
: prevent them from getting away from you. Thus, you get a second round
: of combat at close range. If you work to continue grappling them (use
: another IG), then you can hold them for another round. If you don't try
: to keep ahold of them, then you lose the grip, and they get away.
This from Mr. Second Tradition? ;-) In what way is it not 'reasonable'
to make IG at superior continue its effect for the second round? I'm
aware that it *doesn't* under its errataed wording; I'm just saying
that in 'real life' terms, it would be a reasonable effect to give it,
which seems like an appropriate argument given that one of the reasons
put forward for the change was that having a Grapple continue at long
range was silly.
(At superior, you have kept the grip well enough that the opposing
minion has no chance of getting to long range. They haven't exactly
'gotten away', as far as I can see. I think it's plausible that the
grip might be maintained well enough to keep the Grapple effect up.)
: >
: > And while I'm at it, what would you think of altering Pulled Fangs to
: > use the Disarm template? That is, instead of inflicting agg damage (which
: > is now preventable, and under the VTES changes to agg damage made PF
: > capable of burning vamps), have it instead just send the vamp getting
: > the dental work to torpor.
: I don't like making it completely unpreventable, especially since you
: can now use damage prevention cards on it. My favorite ruling for the
: card is that it is unchanged except that the damage from Pulled Fangs
: cannot burn a vampire. This fixes just about all the problems with it
: and does not introduce the new problems that "that vampire goes to
: torpor" would add.
Note that Disarm is completely unpreventable. Pulled Fangs, from what
I've seen, is generally used over Disarm because of its ability to
burn vampires like balled-up newspaper. Simply making PF damage
explicitly unable to burn vamps is dubious from my point of view
because it weakens the card in two ways (since the damage is now
preventable and can't burn anyone) from its current status, whereas
switching it to Disarm wording gives it the same utility it had in
its original Jyhad form, back when 1 pt of agg could never burn a
vamp. (Shouldn't you be in favor of that? ;-)
Josh
devil's advocate
Joshua Duffin
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
[re: my proposal for a better superior for Immortal Grapple]
: IMHO, the intent was to show that you had a slightly longer hold
: on the opponent at the inferior than at the superior - which is
: why you get a press and he cannot maneuver away in the second round
: at superior.
: This is enough of a bonus for superior.
I'm just saying I'd like a bigger one ;-)
: Besides, the errata merely sets it back to its original intent -
: I'm not inthe business of issuing errata soley to make game-world
: sense.
That's kind of implausible, considering the justification given for
the Golconda and Return to Innocence changes. ;-) Are you seriously
going to stand by the position that changes will not be made for game-
world sense? If so, will the Golconda and RtI errata be rescinded?
Even issuing errata for 'intent' seems to me to tread very close to
the idea of game-world sense. Unless you actually communicate with
the actual card designers (do you?), I don't think any of us here can
speak with authority on the true intent of a card. We can say what
we think it was meant to do, and we can say what we think would be
reasonable for it to do, but what the 'intent' was... that's awfully
nebulous.
I apologize if I'm giving you too much of a hard time, but I feel
like your position on what are appropriate grounds and methods for
card and rule changes hasn't been put forth clearly enough on the
newsgroup. From what I've seen, it feels like it's not resting on
a very sound base, though that may just be because I don't know enough
of your thought process yet.
: > Also - since it seems that perhaps everything in the game is now up
: > for debate ;-) - is there any chance of getting (as someone else also
: > asked) the often-deemed-abusive cards changed? (That is, the ones you
: > haven't touched already - Thoughts Betrayed, Tomb of Rameses III, maybe
: > Dreams of the Sphinx.)
: A full list of changes is being debated by the RT - but these changes
: will be more upsetting to the current tournament-scene, so the
: changes have been delayed to let the easy changes settle in.
: The next round of changes will be published about a month before
: they will apply to any DCI tournaments.
: The things you addressed are also addressed in that upcoming set.
: Patience, please.
I'll be patient. I'm no Siddhartha, but I can wait. (If you (and the
RT? there are other people on it still?) are even going to address
these issues, I'll be happy to wait as long as it takes.)
However, as I mentioned above, I think we the peons ;-) would be pleased
if we could see some of the thoughts going into such proposed changes
before they get handed down.
Thanks for your time,
Josh
can never leave well enough alone
Chris Berger
Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> Chris Berger (ber...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
> : >
> : > As a long-time player of strong and mighty potence-using combat decks,
> : > I liked Immortal Grapple the way it was. However, I can see your point
> : > that staying Grappled at long range isn't very realistic. How about
> : > adding to the superior that, if there is another round of combat, only
> : > hand strikes may be made in that round as well? Since it's guaranteed
> : > (at superior) to be at close range, I think the clear intent is that
> : > the Grapple is keeping your opponent from getting away - so it seems
> : > reasonable to me that they would remain fully Grappled.
>
> : Not really. You can Grapple for one round with one card. If you are
> : especially good at grappling, you can hold your opponent long enough to
> : prevent them from getting away from you. Thus, you get a second round
> : of combat at close range. If you work to continue grappling them (use
> : another IG), then you can hold them for another round. If you don't try
> : to keep ahold of them, then you lose the grip, and they get away.
>
> This from Mr. Second Tradition? ;-) In what way is it not 'reasonable'
> to make IG at superior continue its effect for the second round? I'm
> aware that it *doesn't* under its errataed wording; I'm just saying
> that in 'real life' terms, it would be a reasonable effect to give it,
> which seems like an appropriate argument given that one of the reasons
> put forward for the change was that having a Grapple continue at long
> range was silly.
>
"real-life" (or even pretend-life) garbage. It's true that the game
emulates a certain game world, and thus the mechanics in the game should
tend to match the mechanics in the game world. However, once a card
leaves the printing press, whether or not it matches the game world is
not the most important point. It would be nice if the card matched the
game world. In fact, give the choice between two equally reasonable
alternatives, I think matching the game world is preferrable. However,
a card shouldn't be changed just so it's more like "real-life."
Second, my argument above is based on "real-life" mechanics. To tell
you the truth, I think that the two different versions of IG are almost
equally reasonable. I prefer the original because a) it's how the game
started and was changed without reason, and b) it weakens a too-powerful
card. Now, I'm not saying Potence combat is too powerful. Far from
it. Immortal Grapple, however, *is* too powerful.
Back to game world mechanics though... my point is if you want to keep a
hold on someone, you must continually exert some effort. In V:TM, I
believe that to keep a hold, you must continually roll your strength
against your opponent and when they get enough successes against you
(and it's inevitable that they will - you can't hold them forever), they
break free. In V:TES terms, you play one Immortal Grapple. If you are
inferiorly Potent, they break free in just under one round and can leave
or at least maneuver away from you. If you are superiorly Potent, they
break free in just over one round. They don't have time to maneuver
before you hit them again, but at least they have time to dodge your
punch. In order to cancel this escape, you must keep up the Grapple,
symbolized by playing another IG.
> (At superior, you have kept the grip well enough that the opposing
> minion has no chance of getting to long range. They haven't exactly
> 'gotten away', as far as I can see. I think it's plausible that the
> grip might be maintained well enough to keep the Grapple effect up.)
>
What, forever (that is, an entire combat)? Not to mention that you can
make it last almost literally forever with Traps and stuff like
Bonecraft (or Memories of Mortality).
> : >
> : > And while I'm at it, what would you think of altering Pulled Fangs to
> : > use the Disarm template? That is, instead of inflicting agg damage (which
> : > is now preventable, and under the VTES changes to agg damage made PF
> : > capable of burning vamps), have it instead just send the vamp getting
> : > the dental work to torpor.
>
> : I don't like making it completely unpreventable, especially since you
> : can now use damage prevention cards on it. My favorite ruling for the
> : card is that it is unchanged except that the damage from Pulled Fangs
> : cannot burn a vampire. This fixes just about all the problems with it
> : and does not introduce the new problems that "that vampire goes to
> : torpor" would add.
>
> Note that Disarm is completely unpreventable. Pulled Fangs, from what
> I've seen, is generally used over Disarm because of its ability to
> burn vampires like balled-up newspaper. Simply making PF damage
> explicitly unable to burn vamps is dubious from my point of view
> because it weakens the card in two ways (since the damage is now
> preventable and can't burn anyone) from its current status, whereas
> switching it to Disarm wording gives it the same utility it had in
> its original Jyhad form, back when 1 pt of agg could never burn a
> vamp. (Shouldn't you be in favor of that? ;-)
>
That's not true. Altering it to mimic Disarm makes it more powerful
than it should be. I'm not totally against the Jyhad damage rules
(they're fucking confusing, but definitely more "real-world," and
probably better for the game), but going back to Jyhad agg damage would
still allow you to prevent Pulled Fangs. I don't like it being
unpreventable, period. Whether it's unpreventable burning or
unpreventable "go the hell to torpor" doesn't matter. I prefer that it
just can't burn vamps. And it's always been preventable. Just now it
can also be prevented by combat cards (which it always should have
been).
-Chris
rai...@mich.com
In article <3592F370...@math.wisc.edu>,
James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
> So it really isn't an alternative to Immortal Grapple, now is it?
> Besides which, now Potence combat has no really effective way of dealing
> with the Ventrue, for example. It used to be that you could at least
> try to sap out all of their fortitude by continually pressing, but now
> you'd need an IG for every subsequent round. Any decision or game
> change which makes combat less effective makes the combat deck, already
> terribly difficult to win with, closer to completely defunct.
>
> Immortal Grapple is the staple, the bread and butter of any potence
> combat deck. This one card is the reason the majority of universally
> effective combat decks involve potence, since only potence can easily
> and reliably deal with combat countermeasures. Combat decks, already
> few and far between in the tournament scene, will probably now all but
> disappear. There are at least twice as many anti-combat cards as good
> combat cards, which used to be OK, because of cards like Immortal
> Grapple. Now IG has been hamstrung so that a Potence combat deck now
> either has to have at least twice as many or is forced to play with
> Celerity. So why is combat worth playing anymore? And hence, why is
> the game worth playing anymore?
>
> James
> --
> James Hamblin
> ham...@math.wisc.edu
The point the POT people seem to be missing, is that any clan using any
single discipline is doomed to failure. If you are playing a POT deck, and
nothing else, and crying because the famous IG has been power reduced to make
the single discipline POT a non viable strategy, you deserve to have your
decks defeated.
Around here most Pot themed decks take out the oposing minion in one round,
very seldom does the combat even go a second round! The POT theme decks ONLY
use the IG to prevent the S:CE or dodges.
Raille
LSJ
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
> : Besides, the errata merely sets it back to its original intent -
> : I'm not inthe business of issuing errata soley to make game-world
> : sense.
>
> That's kind of implausible, considering the justification given for
> the Golconda and Return to Innocence changes. ;-) Are you seriously
> going to stand by the position that changes will not be made for game-
> world sense? If so, will the Golconda and RtI errata be rescinded?
Golconda and RTI's errata are a response to a need for the errata -
the cards offer a broken combination with Soul Gem without the errata.
> Even issuing errata for 'intent' seems to me to tread very close to
> the idea of game-world sense. Unless you actually communicate with
> the actual card designers (do you?), I don't think any of us here can
> speak with authority on the true intent of a card. We can say what
> we think it was meant to do, and we can say what we think would be
> reasonable for it to do, but what the 'intent' was... that's awfully
> nebulous.
Yes, that's why I used to put "IMHO" on the "the intent of the
card was...", but some people felt sleighted by that.
> I apologize if I'm giving you too much of a hard time, but I feel
> like your position on what are appropriate grounds and methods for
> card and rule changes hasn't been put forth clearly enough on the
> newsgroup. From what I've seen, it feels like it's not resting on
> a very sound base, though that may just be because I don't know enough
> of your thought process yet.
Errata is issued to:
1. Fix a broken card/combo.
2. Make the card function as intended.
3. Make the game simpler
(3) is almost never possible, since errata by nature makes the game
less simple.
James Hamblin
rai...@mich.com wrote:
>
> The point the POT people seem to be missing, is that any clan using any
> single discipline is doomed to failure. If you are playing a POT deck, and
> nothing else, and crying because the famous IG has been power reduced to make
> the single discipline POT a non viable strategy, you deserve to have your
> decks defeated.
I'm not talking about the all-Potence deck, which exists and used to be
mildly effective. Maybe I'm talking about a successful Nosferatu Rush
deck. They used to be effective. Now I'm not so sure.
If we're going around reducing power, why didn't we (sorry, I should say
why didn't LSJ; none of us had any input into these decisions) do
something to reduce the power of the single discipline DOM deck, which
has kicked my ass more than once?
> Around here most Pot themed decks take out the oposing minion in one round,
> very seldom does the combat even go a second round! The POT theme decks ONLY
> use the IG to prevent the S:CE or dodges.
The best damage a POT combat deck can do in one round is about 5 (TS +
US). Maybe 6 if you're using Pushing the Limit. That's not going to
torporize anyone with a capacity higher than that. And if you go to the
next round, *poof*, your IG disappears. So the only way to deal with it
is to put in something like Fists of Death, Pulled Fangs, or Disarm, all
of which are rare.
I mean, sure, it used to be this way. When IG was rare, for a while
hardly anyone knew what it did, or even owned one. Combat happened
rarely, and when it did, there was always a Strike: Combat Ends, for
which there was basically no counter.
Then someone clever realized that IG was a useful card. They conned
their friends into trading their copies, and made a Rush combat deck.
For a while it killed everyone around, and people had to have it
explained to them why their Majesties suddenly weren't working. But the
deck was still hard to pull off, and hard to construct, requiring many
multiple copies of that rare card.
Slowly people began to realize that these decks were viable. Hard to
win with, but certainly viable. People complained that they couldn't
build their own rush deck because IG was rare and there were likely only
enough for one deck's worth in any one play group. Then Sabbat came
out, making the card uncommon. Suddenly potence combat decks are
becoming more widespread and more accepted.
Now we change IG so that potence combat (without celerity) doesn't
really work as well. To make it work better, we need multiple copies of
hard-to-find rare cards. Maybe LSJ was feeling nostalgia for the "good
old days" when effective combat decks were few and far between. I don't
know. But this is far from crying about a card which I liked which was
changed. This is being very angry about the Nosferatu, Lasombra, and
Giovanni becoming much less useful. They really didn't need this; they
were pretty weak to begin with. This is being very angry about a change
to a card which _will_ encourage people (not everyone, but some people)
to stop playing with their combat decks, and try something more
effective and easier to construct. And those people might even stop
playing Jyhad. Is this good for the game? LSJ seems to think so, but I
must strongly disagree.
James Coupe
In article <6mv59i$8...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin
<du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> writes
>Simply making PF damage
>explicitly unable to burn vamps is dubious from my point of view
>because it weakens the card in two ways (since the damage is now
>preventable and can't burn anyone) from its current status, whereas
>switching it to Disarm wording gives it the same utility it had in
>its original Jyhad form, back when 1 pt of agg could never burn a
>vamp. (Shouldn't you be in favor of that? ;-)
Don't forget, though, that (from the wotc text files) Pulled Fangs isn't
unpreventable damage. Now that damage prevention can be played for any
damage in a combat (not just strikes/strike resolution), it is
preventable using Skin of Rock etc.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
JDS
First of all I'd just like to say there has been unanimous celebration here
regarding your erratas, and rulings,etc. I applaud you for making the
changes and for taking so much flak afterwards. Geez. At least there's
SENSE in all your rulings. I remember the days when I'd ask the Rules Team
if Majesty could be played after an Immortal Grapple and I'd constantly get
back a YES. But I've got a beef as well. It's regarding Rutor's Hand:
> A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.
Why can a vampire only have one Rutors? Especially with the new superior
text, hasn't it been *fixed*? Cannot the vampire grow back another hand
and eyeball after removing them from his body and try again? Do you see the
multiple Rutors as broken?
> New card text:
> "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the
> damage."
> #
> # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would
have
> # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need
for
> # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the
> # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
> # prevent non-combat damage" errata.
I remember you mentioning somewhere that there are more changes in store.
Any hints?
Just my 2 Canadian cents (1.4 cents)
Thanks,
Dave Stevers (Prince of Toronto)
LSJ
James Hamblin wrote:
> The best damage a POT combat deck can do in one round is about 5 (TS +
> US). Maybe 6 if you're using Pushing the Limit. That's not going to
You realize, of course, that the only way TS can be used with US
is if you're using the Jyhad text over the VTES text, right?
Does that bother you as well?
> torporize anyone with a capacity higher than that. And if you go to the
You're overlooking Increased Strength, which even stacks with itself.
At +2 each, two should be plenty.
> next round, *poof*, your IG disappears. So the only way to deal with it
> is to put in something like Fists of Death, Pulled Fangs, or Disarm, all
> of which are rare.
Or another IG, which is not.
Perhaps you haven't fully examined the situation.
Kevin M Kelly
> Combat decks are already fighting an uphill battle against Bleed/Vote decks.
Maybe in your group but I don't agree with this overall.
> You know this and I know this. With this change to Immortal Grapple, they
> become simply less effective. The degree to which the become less effective is
> debateable, but they clearly become less effective.
I agree. What it does though is limit the ability of a single vampire
to easily kill anouther in one round of combat without that vampire
doing anything about it. I have never like pure rush decks (playing
or against) any more than I like pure stealth bleed decks. To me they
are *boring*. If this limits that and makes players come up with
different ways of dealing with combat I think it is a great thing.
If you don't think that the current ruling is the original intent look
at the card. It is set up to be able to play multiples if supperior.
That is *why* you don't choose range the next second turn (easier to
play anouther IG).
> Again, I fail to see how
> this improves the game environment in any way.
I think it does improve the gaming enviroment. I do have a problem with
errata in general though (unless it is glaringly obvious - like a typo).
It is to hard to remember all of them.
Kevin
LSJ
JDS wrote:
> First of all I'd just like to say there has been unanimous celebration here
> regarding your erratas, and rulings,etc. I applaud you for making the
> changes and for taking so much flak afterwards. Geez. At least there's
> SENSE in all your rulings. I remember the days when I'd ask the Rules Team
> if Majesty could be played after an Immortal Grapple and I'd constantly get
> back a YES.
Thanks for that.
> But I've got a beef as well. It's regarding Rutor's Hand:
>
> > A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.
>
> Why can a vampire only have one Rutors? Especially with the new superior
> text, hasn't it been *fixed*? Cannot the vampire grow back another hand
> and eyeball after removing them from his body and try again? Do you see the
> multiple Rutors as broken?
As over-powerful, yes. Especially with some of the stronger Tremere
(Muaziz comes to mind). With just one, some balance is returned,
while not weakening the card unnecessarily (it is still a very
useful card).
> I remember you mentioning somewhere that there are more changes in store.
> Any hints?
Not at this time. I've got my hands full right now. :-)
> Just my 2 Canadian cents (1.4 cents)
> Thanks,
My pleasure.
James Hamblin
LSJ wrote:
>
> James Hamblin wrote:
> > The best damage a POT combat deck can do in one round is about 5 (TS +
> > US). Maybe 6 if you're using Pushing the Limit. That's not going to
Note to whomever cares: that first line should have said "can [expect
to] do...". I am well aware that there are a few ways to increase this.
> You realize, of course, that the only way TS can be used with US
> is if you're using the Jyhad text over the VTES text, right?
> Does that bother you as well?
The VTES Torn Signpost text was mistaken, and was fixed immediately
after it was released. Immortal Grapple worked the way
until-just-recently has since before VTES or Sabbat came out. What
bothers me is snide pedantry.
> > next round, *poof*, your IG disappears. So the only way to deal with it
> > is to put in something like Fists of Death, Pulled Fangs, or Disarm, all
> > of which are rare.
>
> Or another IG, which is not.
OK, would you like to pay for the 3-5 boxes of Sabbat it would require
for me to get enough Immortal Grapples to make a non-Brujah potence
combat deck successful again? Not that any more cards are ever going to
be printed anyway.
> Perhaps you haven't fully examined the situation.
Perhaps you're trying to piss me off, because if so it's working.
You're trying to tell me that IG being uncommon in Sabbat _justifies_
the errata!?
I'm dumbfounded! Let me recap, for anyone who's keeping score:
(1) You think that the changed version is the original intent of the
card, which you cannot verify. However, you think that your perceptions
of the designer's intent is enough justification to change a card which
has worked the same way for at least three years, regardless of the
detrimental effect this has on the decks that use it.
(2) You agree that decks using potence are weakened by this change, but
you made it anyway. You seem to feel some kind of loyalty to a mythical
"pristine" Jyhad, which, if it ever existed, has not been played in
years. However, now that you have been given your "powers", you feel it
is your duty to impose this will on the rest of the Jyhad community,
regardless of who agrees and who does not.
(3) You claim that decks using potence are not "greatly" weakened by
this change because it can be replaced or supplemented with more
Immortal Grapples or other rare cards from various sets. However, this
only serves to make the combat deck _more_ combo-intensive, thus
weakening it as an all-around deck strategy.
If this was a conversation I was having with a person in a room, I would
have left the room by now. If these were things said by the president,
I would have left the country by now. As it is, I am perilously close
to never playing this game again. Thanks, LSJ.
Eric Pettersen
James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Eric Pettersen wrote:
> > Mike Bohlmann <mboh...@pdnt.com> wrote:
> > > To just do a BW, you need 4 blood unless you plan on preventing the
> > > opponent's damage or going to torpor. I wouldn't exactly call that
> > > a great alternative.
> >
> > Taste of Vitae is fairly standard in combat decks. BW is really only
> > an alternative for mid- to large-cap vamps, agreed.
>
The discussion was about doing "enough" damage during the first round of
combat with a Potence deck. I don't know where you're getting the "BW as
an alternative to IG" from.
Eric Pettersen
James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
> The best damage a POT combat deck can do in one round is about 5 (TS +
> US). Maybe 6 if you're using Pushing the Limit. That's not going to
> is to put in something like Fists of Death, Pulled Fangs, or Disarm, all
> of which are rare.
Increased Strength (common, stackable), Burning Wrath (common), Death of
My Conscience (uncommon), Twisting the Knife (rare)...
Karl and Sam
I don't feel quite as strongly as James does about IG but I do agree with
him about the errata to IG being unecessary. Perhaps if LSJ were to enlighten us
(and me) as to how he (and his respective Rules team) came to the decision to
change IG in this manner,we might better understand his opinion.
Surely the number, and the passion of the replys sent in response to the IG
errata is reason enough to at least consider and discuss the recent ruling??? I
understand that as the official Rules team you can basically do what you want,
but I would hope that the opinions of the Vampire community would be at least
considered.
I don't want to give the wrong impression here, I think LSJ has kept this
game alive and vibrant through the abuse at the hands of its marketers. I
heartily congratulate him on officially claiming the position (Rulesmonger) he
has always held among our community. I hope that he continues to shake up the
crazy rulings and correct the cards that make this game a little less fun to
play. But I hope also that we will be included in the decision making process
and not just issued regular errata on how things are going to be.
Karl
Lambach
James Hamblin wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you haven't fully examined the situation.
>
> Perhaps you're trying to piss me off, because if so it's working.
> You're trying to tell me that IG being uncommon in Sabbat _justifies_
> the errata!?
> I'm dumbfounded! Let me recap, for anyone who's keeping score:
>
> (1) You think that the changed version is the original intent of the
> card, which you cannot verify. However, you think that your perceptions
> of the designer's intent is enough justification to change a card which
> has worked the same way for at least three years, regardless of the
> detrimental effect this has on the decks that use it.
>
> (2) You agree that decks using potence are weakened by this change, but
> you made it anyway. You seem to feel some kind of loyalty to a mythical
> "pristine" Jyhad, which, if it ever existed, has not been played in
> years. However, now that you have been given your "powers", you feel it
> is your duty to impose this will on the rest of the Jyhad community,
> regardless of who agrees and who does not.
>
> (3) You claim that decks using potence are not "greatly" weakened by
> this change because it can be replaced or supplemented with more
> Immortal Grapples or other rare cards from various sets. However, this
> only serves to make the combat deck _more_ combo-intensive, thus
> weakening it as an all-around deck strategy.
Hi all,
I often disagree with LSJ's rulings, but here I feel you're
overreacting. LSJ's position on "the original intent" is debatable, but
it's true that the text card in Jyhad implied that the effect of IG
lasts for one round: the superior version of the card neatly "fit in"
with the necessity of being at close range to use a second IG on the
second round.
Arguments like "I'm gonna have to buy a zillion boxes just to make my
Lasombra-Nosferatu deck playable again!" aren't really convincing: if
your deck suddenly lacks IG, then buy 20 more, for just 10$ or so. If
really POT decks are gone forever, the price should even sink below
that...
Saying that "This card has ben like that for three years." doesn't mean
much. Thoughts betrayed has worked the way it does for quite as long,
and it doesn't suck less for it!
The part about LSJ's loyalties to the Jyhad of Christmas Pasts and his
"duty" to impose it on us poor peons, I'll let LSJ himself answer it.
Neither you nor me can say anything sensible about *his* views.
I, for one, as many players in my area, don't believe Combat decks are
fighting an uphill battle against other decks. Yes, S:CB can be a pain,
but so can Rush. After you've faced them ten times, both get tiresome.
Why should this *marginal* weakening of IG be such a terrible event in
the Gaming History? What was and still is powerful about IG is its
effect, not its duration. I guess that people who feel like you are just
more vocal about it.
>
> If this was a conversation I was having with a person in a room, I would
> have left the room by now.
That would be your right.
> If these were things said by the president,
> I would have left the country by now.
That too. But it wouldn't be a very responsible course of action in a
democracy. Besides, your president and mine do say worse things than
that. Neither of us are exiles yet, I presume...
> As it is, I am perilously close
> to never playing this game again. Thanks, LSJ.
Please do not abandon the game. It would be childish. Besides, since
combat decks are about to tumble down into Oblivion, they'll need loyal
defenders like you ;)
L~R
rai...@mich.com
In article <359479E3...@infomatch.com>,
Karl and Sam <in...@infomatch.com> wrote:
Surely the number, and the passion of the replys sent in response to the
IG
errata is reason enough to at least consider and discuss the recent ruling???
I
understand that as the official Rules team you can basically do what you want,
but I would hope that the opinions of the Vampire community would be at least
considered.
I don't want to give the wrong impression here, I think LSJ has kept this
game alive and vibrant through the abuse at the hands of its marketers. I
heartily congratulate him on officially claiming the position (Rulesmonger)
he
has always held among our community. I hope that he continues to shake up the
crazy rulings and correct the cards that make this game a little less fun to
play. But I hope also that we will be included in the decision making process
and not just issued regular errata on how things are going to be.
Karl
Well just to get my voice in on the IG discussion, I am in favor of the
current RTR on the IG. Most Decks I've come across around here, will burn
just about ANY vampire in one round, seldom does combat even go two rounds
with the POT decks. The change is good and harms the game in no way.
Raille
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Joshua Duffin
Chris Berger (ber...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: First off, my arguments on 2nd Tradition had nothing to do with
: "real-life" (or even pretend-life) garbage. It's true that the game
: emulates a certain game world, and thus the mechanics in the game should
: tend to match the mechanics in the game world. However, once a card
: leaves the printing press, whether or not it matches the game world is
: not the most important point. It would be nice if the card matched the
: game world. In fact, give the choice between two equally reasonable
: alternatives, I think matching the game world is preferrable. However,
: a card shouldn't be changed just so it's more like "real-life."
Well, I pretty much agree with that perspective. I was trying to
put forth 'real-world' arguments in favor of a stronger IG because
it seemed to me at the time that 'real-world' arguments had been used
in justifying the weaker IG.
: Second, my argument above is based on "real-life" mechanics. To tell
: you the truth, I think that the two different versions of IG are almost
: equally reasonable. I prefer the original because a) it's how the game
: started and was changed without reason, and b) it weakens a too-powerful
: card. Now, I'm not saying Potence combat is too powerful. Far from
: it. Immortal Grapple, however, *is* too powerful.
It's been a number of years since the initial change of IG to last for
an entire combat, and my history-of-Jyhad is a little fuzzy at this point.
How long had Jyhad been in circulation before the ruling that combat
cards last the entire combat was issued? I can't remember ever playing
it the other way.
IG being too powerful is (as always with things like this) debatable.
It seems to me that it is no more powerful than Strike: Combat Ends,
which has existed *in its current level of power* for the entire life
of the game, without getting nearly its share of complaints. IG exists
almost-solely to counter S:CE, which is (except for the existence of IG)
the end-all and be-all of combat defense. I would find arguments that
IG is too powerful in its strong version more persuasive if the
proponents were also in favor of substantially weakening S:CE.
It seems to me that cards like Immortal Grapple ought to be considered
in a gestalt view of the game when possible. In this case, I feel that
it's hard to believe that IG is too powerful if Potence combat (as a
strategy) is not too powerful. IG does also screw a number of second-
tier combat strategies. However, all of those are screwed by Strike:
Combat Ends just as much as they are screwed by IG. Thus they are
essentially nonviable strategies whether IG is weak or strong. Given
that, I feel that IG ought to be strong rather than weak because it
is such a key factor in making combat decks a semi-viable force in
the game.
: Back to game world mechanics though... my point is if you want to keep a
: hold on someone, you must continually exert some effort. In V:TM, I
: believe that to keep a hold, you must continually roll your strength
: against your opponent and when they get enough successes against you
: (and it's inevitable that they will - you can't hold them forever), they
: break free. In V:TES terms, you play one Immortal Grapple. If you are
: inferiorly Potent, they break free in just under one round and can leave
: or at least maneuver away from you. If you are superiorly Potent, they
: break free in just over one round. They don't have time to maneuver
: before you hit them again, but at least they have time to dodge your
: punch. In order to cancel this escape, you must keep up the Grapple,
: symbolized by playing another IG.
Or, if you're superiorly Potent, maybe you're Potent enough to not only
keep them at close range, but also keep up the Grapple for a second
round of combat. With only two levels of Potence, the difference in
magnitude between them isn't real clearly defined.
: > (At superior, you have kept the grip well enough that the opposing
: > minion has no chance of getting to long range. They haven't exactly
: > 'gotten away', as far as I can see. I think it's plausible that the
: > grip might be maintained well enough to keep the Grapple effect up.)
: >
: What, forever (that is, an entire combat)? Not to mention that you can
: make it last almost literally forever with Traps and stuff like
: Bonecraft (or Memories of Mortality).
Forever in real-life, people-playing-the-game time, yes; nothing like
forever in in-game, vampires-roughing-each-other-up time. My actual
proposal is just that the Grapple continue for the second round of
combat at the superior level.
: > Note that Disarm is completely unpreventable. Pulled Fangs, from what
: > I've seen, is generally used over Disarm because of its ability to
: > burn vampires like balled-up newspaper. Simply making PF damage
: > explicitly unable to burn vamps is dubious from my point of view
: > because it weakens the card in two ways (since the damage is now
: > preventable and can't burn anyone) from its current status, whereas
: > switching it to Disarm wording gives it the same utility it had in
: > its original Jyhad form, back when 1 pt of agg could never burn a
: > vamp. (Shouldn't you be in favor of that? ;-)
: That's not true. Altering it to mimic Disarm makes it more powerful
: than it should be. I'm not totally against the Jyhad damage rules
: (they're fucking confusing, but definitely more "real-world," and
: probably better for the game), but going back to Jyhad agg damage would
: still allow you to prevent Pulled Fangs. I don't like it being
: unpreventable, period. Whether it's unpreventable burning or
: unpreventable "go the hell to torpor" doesn't matter. I prefer that it
: just can't burn vamps. And it's always been preventable. Just now it
: can also be prevented by combat cards (which it always should have
: been).
I'm not clear on which part you're saying isn't true. Altering it to
mimic Disarm makes it as powerful as it would be under Jyhad damage rules,
but with the damage-prevention-only-in-strike-resolution ruling. For
most of PF's life, it has been more powerful than that, because it could
burn vampires, *and* was unpreventable. It seems to me that the *intent*
of the original PF design was to operate essentially just like Disarm.
Also, the symmetry of having the two cards operate the same way appeals
to me.
That said, I don't strenuously object to having PF do a point of preventable
agg damage, as it is under the new rulings. I'd just like to have it
completely unable to burn vampires, and to me, using the Disarm wording
is cleaner and more consistent than giving PF an explicit 'this card
never burns vampires' exception to the agg-damage rules.
Josh
also likes arguing
Joshua Duffin
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
: Golconda and RTI's errata are a response to a need for the errata -
: the cards offer a broken combination with Soul Gem without the errata.
It seems to me that they are not as broken as things like Tomb of
Rameses III and Thoughts Betrayed are all by themselves. But that's
a matter of opinion, of course.
However, the comments on the rulings didn't mention broken combinations
at all, and instead gave 'game-world sense' reasons for the changes.
So am I correct in hearing now that those are not the true reasons?
(I'm not trying to trap you, but there seems to have been a change of
methodology between the rulings we got the other day and the feedback
we're getting now.)
: > Even issuing errata for 'intent' seems to me to tread very close to
: > the idea of game-world sense. Unless you actually communicate with
: > the actual card designers (do you?), I don't think any of us here can
: > speak with authority on the true intent of a card. We can say what
: > we think it was meant to do, and we can say what we think would be
: > reasonable for it to do, but what the 'intent' was... that's awfully
: > nebulous.
: Yes, that's why I used to put "IMHO" on the "the intent of the
: card was...", but some people felt sleighted by that.
I think what people took issue with was the 'humble' part of the IMHO
phrase. Personally I've generally used simply 'IMO' when I wanted to
indicate that kind of thing, since 'humble' is rarely part of anyone's
opinion, in my experience. ;-)
Because intent is so nebulous, I've been arguing for things based on
what I think is reasonable and appropriate for the game. Is this a
good approach, or should I give it up?
: Errata is issued to:
: 1. Fix a broken card/combo.
: 2. Make the card function as intended.
: 3. Make the game simpler
: (3) is almost never possible, since errata by nature makes the game
: less simple.
How true. Okay: On Immortal Grapple. My opinion is that the new
errata (changing the card from the VTES/Sabbat wordings to bring
it in accordance with its primordial operation) worses the game
balance between combat and other strategies. I feel that, in this
case, making the card function as originally intended should be
subordinated to allowing Potence-combat decks more of their previous
functionality. For that reason, I've been proposing a 'compromise'
alteration to the new errata wording, allowing the superior of IG
to maintain the Grapple into the second round of combat. It won't
make the game simpler, but then, neither does erasing the wording
on all those Sabbat and VTES cards. ;-)
And as I said above, these are not the precepts that appeared to be
guiding the recent set of errata and rulings.
Josh
not as vitriolic as i used to be
Gomi no Sensei
In article <35941300...@math.wisc.edu>,
James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
>LSJ wrote:
>The VTES Torn Signpost text was mistaken, and was fixed immediately
>after it was released. Immortal Grapple worked the way
>until-just-recently has since before VTES or Sabbat came out. What
>bothers me is snide pedantry.
It seems that the 2ndT discussion exhausted all of your patience, and now
you're getting hot under the collar at LSJ (who has, as far as I can
determine, been unfailingly polite) for having the effrontery to
continue to disagree with you.
We've *had* snide NetReps in the past, and, my opinions on IG aside, I
don't think LSJ is being unreasonable -- just answering your points with
his own points.
IG *has* been weakened, and Potence decks *have* been weakened
in consequence -- I don't think anyone disagrees with the basic
fact of that. But many of us here don't feel that's a Bad Thing --
and certainly not on the apocalyptic scale I've seen bruited about
the froup for the last few days.
Quietus, Thaumaturgy, and Protean are benefited by the change -- now these
disciplines have a chance to go toe to toe with Potence decks. While SCE
continues to be a problem, there are ways -- and I'm sure I don't need
to go into them -- to deal with SCE sans Potence. I won't try to tell
you that these methods are as effective as pre-June 23 IG, but they *are*
viable; I've made effective use of them.
>Perhaps you're trying to piss me off, because if so it's working.
>You're trying to tell me that IG being uncommon in Sabbat _justifies_
>the errata!?
I don't think that was what he said, actually. He merely corrected your
point that only with rares could one make up for the weakened IG. LSJ,
in so far as I am able to determine from his posts, feels that the
2nd-round long-range continuance of IG's effects, coupled with the new
ruling on the duration of combat card's effects, justified errata removing
the (now inaccurate) reminder text from IG.
>(2) You agree that decks using potence are weakened by this change, but
>you made it anyway.
Are you saying that weakening is, ipso facto, wrong? Because we all,
I think, can agree that potence decks have been weakened; where we diverge
is on our opinions as to whether this is good, bad, or irrelevant to
the game's playability.
>If this was a conversation I was having with a person in a room, I would
>have left the room by now. If these were things said by the president,
>I would have left the country by now. As it is, I am perilously close
>to never playing this game again. Thanks, LSJ.
You have shown yourself in the past to be an intelligent and valuable
contributor to the group, and I for one would regret the loss of your
insight. However, you seem to be arguing more and more from your
emotional reaction to perceived slights, and the tenor of discussion in
the froup has taken a decidedly warmer tone ever since the 2ndT fiasco.
It is, perhaps, the nature of the medium; tempers are lost more quickly
over text than in person. It is, however, slightly saddening -- this has
always been, by and large, a polite sort of place.
DOUGDWISE
Scott,
Thanks for the effort to clear up so many things. I can't find fault with any
of your rulings and I particularly applaud the ones for Second Tradition,
Rotschreck, Immortal Grapple, RTI, and Golconda.
Well done, Sir!
Doug Dunaway
Lambach
Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> Or, if you're superiorly Potent, maybe you're Potent enough to not only
> keep them at close range, but also keep up the Grapple for a second
> round of combat. With only two levels of Potence, the difference in
> magnitude between them isn't real clearly defined.
Well, it seems to me that in Jyhad/VtES the discipline powers are
*usually* one-use-per-card. Of course, there must be tons of
counter-examples, but it is striking that someone with Celerity cannot
always strike twice, or that someone with potence sometimes gives
"normal" strikes (as opposed to the +1HD capacity, which is closer to
the "Potence" of Vampires in "the Masquerade"), or that Majestic people
tend to get burned sometimes, because they don't currently have Majesty
in hand. The point I'm trying to make here is that "real world"
arguments like "why should you let him go after one round?" aren't
relevant in Jyhad combats.
L~R
The Corrupter
Thank you LSJ.
This set of rulings was the finest that I have _EVER_ seen (and as we
both know, I have seen a few here and there)...
So LSJ, are you now the "rules team"? Are you in direct control of the
direction of the game? What does this mean?
In any case, thanks LSJ.
This last set of rulings was a breath of fresh air.
@#$ Adrian Sullivan $#@ Game Theorist Coffee Addict Eccentric $#@
@#$ The Corrupter $#@ Opinionated Gynophile Hedonist MHSTHSTS $#@
@#$ Cabal Rogue $#@ GAT/CS/WS C(+++)$ N++ PS++@ R+++* r+ z++**? $#@
...watching the lake turn the sky / into blue-green smoke...
LSJ
James Hamblin wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > > The best damage a POT combat deck can do in one round is about 5 (TS +
> > > US). Maybe 6 if you're using Pushing the Limit. That's not going to
>
> to] do...". I am well aware that there are a few ways to increase this.
[.. snip ..]
> > > next round, *poof*, your IG disappears. So the only way to deal with it
> > > is to put in something like Fists of Death, Pulled Fangs, or Disarm, all
> > > of which are rare.
> >
> > Or another IG, which is not.
[.. snip ..]
> > Perhaps you haven't fully examined the situation.
>
> Perhaps you're trying to piss me off, because if so it's working.
> You're trying to tell me that IG being uncommon in Sabbat _justifies_
> the errata!?
No, I'm saying that your statements "the best you can do..." and
"the only way to deal with this..." were overlooking some obvious
points, which led me to believe that you hadn't examined the
situation fully enough to make the gloom and doom projections
you have made.
Rarity or commonality should never be a factor when
determining whether a card is balanced or not, as
that other game has proven.
> If this was a conversation I was having with a person in a room, I would
> have left the room by now. If these were things said by the president,
> I would have left the country by now. As it is, I am perilously close
> to never playing this game again. Thanks, LSJ.
You would be missed, and I'm sorry for any miscommunication.
But I'm not sorry for trying to repair the game.
Eventually some seriously broken cards will be repaired as well, and
the players who have come to depend on those cards will likely make
the same protestations. But the game will be better as a whole when
the cards are fixed, IMO.
LSJ
Karl and Sam wrote:
> I don't feel quite as strongly as James does about IG but I do agree with
> him about the errata to IG being unecessary. Perhaps if LSJ were to enlighten us
> (and me) as to how he (and his respective Rules team) came to the decision to
> change IG in this manner,we might better understand his opinion.
See my other posts in this thread.
> Surely the number, and the passion of the replys sent in response to the IG
> errata is reason enough to at least consider and discuss the recent ruling??? I
> understand that as the official Rules team you can basically do what you want,
> but I would hope that the opinions of the Vampire community would be at least
> considered.
They are - which is one of the reasons why there has always been
a representative reading this newsgroup and the VTES-L mailing
list. Passion and numbers are good, but logic and balance and
cohesiveness are also good.
> I don't want to give the wrong impression here, I think LSJ has kept this
> game alive and vibrant through the abuse at the hands of its marketers. I
> heartily congratulate him on officially claiming the position (Rulesmonger) he
> has always held among our community. I hope that he continues to shake up the
> crazy rulings and correct the cards that make this game a little less fun to
> play. But I hope also that we will be included in the decision making process
> and not just issued regular errata on how things are going to be.
As has been shown by the latest 2ndT debate and the myriad of debates
that preceded it, this is not a good forum for decision-making.
But the discussions here are still useful, and will hopefully
continue to influence the decisions of the RT, especially the
well-reasoned arguments (as opposed to the standard heated
conversations).
LSJ
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
> : Golconda and RTI's errata are a response to a need for the errata -
> : the cards offer a broken combination with Soul Gem without the errata.
>
> It seems to me that they are not as broken as things like Tomb of
> Rameses III and Thoughts Betrayed are all by themselves. But that's
> a matter of opinion, of course.
A common opinion, shared by the RT.
> However, the comments on the rulings didn't mention broken combinations
> at all, and instead gave 'game-world sense' reasons for the changes.
> So am I correct in hearing now that those are not the true reasons?
The comments were comments. Some intended to aid in remembering and
explaining the ruling (by providing "real world" descriptions to
make the changes less abstract).
> (I'm not trying to trap you, but there seems to have been a change of
> methodology between the rulings we got the other day and the feedback
> we're getting now.)
The comments, as noted in the header to the RTR, are not part of
the rulings. They're just comments. If they present a problem, then
please ignore them.
If they are too much of a problem/distraction, I can omit them
from future rulings. But I don't think this is the case - I think
that the comments are simply being read in the wrong light.
> Because intent is so nebulous, I've been arguing for things based on
> what I think is reasonable and appropriate for the game. Is this a
> good approach, or should I give it up?
Sounds fine to me.
> : Errata is issued to:
>
> : 1. Fix a broken card/combo.
> : 2. Make the card function as intended.
> : 3. Make the game simpler
>
> : (3) is almost never possible, since errata by nature makes the game
> : less simple.
>
> How true. Okay: On Immortal Grapple. My opinion is that the new
> errata (changing the card from the VTES/Sabbat wordings to bring
> it in accordance with its primordial operation) worses the game
> balance between combat and other strategies.
I see that it shifted the balance between multi-round-combat and
other strategies.
> I feel that, in this
> case, making the card function as originally intended should be
> subordinated to allowing Potence-combat decks more of their previous
> functionality.
"previous" meaning "post-RT-ruling-on-duration-of-combat-cards".
Since the original intent of the card was never broken nor too
weak (and makes more sense from a "real world" POV), I see no
reason not to use it.
> For that reason, I've been proposing a 'compromise'
> alteration to the new errata wording, allowing the superior of IG
> to maintain the Grapple into the second round of combat. It won't
> make the game simpler, but then, neither does erasing the wording
> on all those Sabbat and VTES cards. ;-)
:-). I don't see how this fixes anything that would not be fixed by
using one of the two existing templates.
> And as I said above, these are not the precepts that appeared to be
> guiding the recent set of errata and rulings.
? They are clearly guiding the IG errata. Which errata do you
feel that the precepts did not guide?
James Hamblin
LSJ wrote:
>
> Eventually some seriously broken cards will be repaired as well, and
> the players who have come to depend on those cards will likely make
> the same protestations. But the game will be better as a whole when
> the cards are fixed, IMO.
This will be the last post I make on this subject; I'll stand aside for
the more eloquent and less excitable among us... I just want to admit
that I will be generally mollified if there are some other reasonable
rulings on some of the more broken cards. In general, I agreed with the
rulings you made, LSJ, and I see the reasonings behind your change to
IG. What I contended with is the effect that has on the game itself,
and I argue (as others have) that this detrimental effect is reason
enough to leave the card alone.
Legbiter
As a fully paid-up member of the Order of Doomed but Fun Combat decks I'd
like to say that I agree with the new rulings. I don't believe that combat
as a strategy has been weakened overall, though certain IG-based decks
clearly have. I think the new and correct ruling on Rotshreck creates
AWESOME combat possibilities for a !Gangrel allies deck.
Joshua Duffin
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
[re: thoughts betrayed and tomb being broken]
: A common opinion, shared by the RT.
Well, that's heartening. (Who is the RT now, anyhow? Is it still the
people it used to be, plus you? Or is it just you? Or something else
entirely?)
: The comments, as noted in the header to the RTR, are not part of
: the rulings. They're just comments. If they present a problem, then
: please ignore them.
: If they are too much of a problem/distraction, I can omit them
: from future rulings. But I don't think this is the case - I think
: that the comments are simply being read in the wrong light.
I think you're right. I was reading the comments as the justification
for the rulings presented, and the reasoning behind them. That they
are meant only as commentary makes them very different. (And less
useful, at least to me. ;-) What would be better than comments (from
my point of view) is reasons and justifications, if it's possible to
provide those with the errata/rulings posts instead. (Or in addition.)
: > : Errata is issued to:
: >
: > : 1. Fix a broken card/combo.
: > : 2. Make the card function as intended.
: > : 3. Make the game simpler
: >
: > : (3) is almost never possible, since errata by nature makes the game
: > : less simple.
: >
: > How true. Okay: On Immortal Grapple. My opinion is that the new
: > errata (changing the card from the VTES/Sabbat wordings to bring
: > it in accordance with its primordial operation) worses the game
: > balance between combat and other strategies.
: I see that it shifted the balance between multi-round-combat and
: other strategies.
I'm sure it does, and I admit that I haven't played with the new rulings
yet. But it seems to me that the IG change will not make non-IG combat
strategies more effective, because they are still just as hosed by
Strike: Combat Ends as they ever were. All they gain is less danger
from the more effective IG-potence-combat archetype, which I don't
think is enough to make them truly viable.
If what you mean is that it changed the balance, and that that isn't
necessarily a bad thing, between POT combat and the other viable
strategies, then you're right. It's a matter of opinion. But my opinion
is that POT IG combat is the most viable form of combat deck (in terms
of tourney viability, mainly), and so weakening it is nearly identical
to weakening the tourney potential of combat decks.
And, from what I've seen of tourney reports, combat has been the underdog
in terms of tourney success for the most part. Given that, I feel that
weakening POT IG combat equates to worsening the combat/other balance.
: > For that reason, I've been proposing a 'compromise'
: > alteration to the new errata wording, allowing the superior of IG
: > to maintain the Grapple into the second round of combat. It won't
: > make the game simpler, but then, neither does erasing the wording
: > on all those Sabbat and VTES cards. ;-)
: :-). I don't see how this fixes anything that would not be fixed by
: using one of the two existing templates.
It doesn't. I was just hoping that you'd be more receptive to it,
based on thinking at the time that you wanted 'real-world' sense
maintained.
So. I would prefer that IG be returned to its 'combat-cards-last-
the-entire-combat' operation. What I don't know is, why was the
ruling that combat cards now last only one round issued? I realize
that I've drifted now from 'Errata' to 'Rulings', but I'm guessing
that the standards of 'Brokenness, Intent, Simplicity' still apply.
I can't think of any combat cards that were too good (broken) by
lasting for the entire combat instead of just a round. Nor is
it really any simpler to have them last one round instead of entire
combat. So I think it can only be because the rules as originally
created, and in their operation with the original cardset, were
intended to have combat cards last only one round unless they said
otherwise.
But we've been playing with the 'entire-combat' rules for a long time
now. And I don't see any problems that it created. (If there were
some, I'm sure you'll let me know. ;-) And I think IG
is a much more useful anti-S:CE balancing force under those rules.
So I guess I'd like to either see IG specifically worded such that
it lasts the entire combat, or else the ruling on combat cards in
general returned to the full-combat-duration rule.
: > And as I said above, these are not the precepts that appeared to be
: > guiding the recent set of errata and rulings.
: ? They are clearly guiding the IG errata. Which errata do you
: feel that the precepts did not guide?
I'm sorry. The emphasis in that sentence should have been on 'appeared';
I wrote that under the impression that the comments were more than
comments. In that light, the rulings and errata seemed to based on
things other than the three precepts (eg real-world sense etc).
Eric Pettersen
> errata is reason enough to at least consider and discuss the recent ruling??? I
> understand that as the official Rules team you can basically do what you want,
> but I would hope that the opinions of the Vampire community would be at least
> considered.
I agree somewhat; if 80% (say) of the VTES community preferred IG the
"pre-RTR" way I'd bite the bullet and play with it that way despite my
disagreement (I've been doing so for years, after all). I just want to
point out that if may be difficult to judge what "most people" want. I
know that I'm most motivated to post an article when I disagree with
something strongly. If I'm typical, reaction to the IG decision may seem
more negative than it actually is. It's hard to judge how big the "I
agree with the RTR so see no need to post" faction is.