Rules Team Rulings - 04/25/97

31 views
Skip to first unread message

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Apr 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/25/97
to

RULINGS FROM THE RULES TEAM
===========================

* Cards that go into an ash heap, hand, or library always go into their
owner's ash heap, hand, or library. This is true even if the card is
controlled by some other Methuselah at the tim it is sent/returned to
the ash heap, library, or hand.

* The rule about adding stealth/intercept only applies when attempting
to block. It does not apply at other times. In particular, it does
not restrict adding steath with Form of Mist during combat resulting
from a successful (unblocked) action like Bum's Rush.

* Only Methuselahs who control at least one Priscus are involved in the
Priscus vote.

As a consequence, Gratiano cannot cast his extra vote if his controller
doesn't control a Priscus (if Gratiano has been made a Cardinal, e.g.).

* With Disarming Presence played, a vampire becomes tapped as it casts its
votes. Note that a vampire is not required to decide what to do with
its votes as soon as it acquires them, so it could play Surprise
Influence, delay deciding what to do with those votes, play Dread Gaze,
cast all of its votes, and only then become tapped.


REVERSALS OF RTR RULINGS
========================

Of Noble Blood, Fire Dance - the target is chosen when the action is
announced, as usual for actions.


REVERSALS OF LSJ RULINGS
========================

Regarding a blocking vampire going to torpor after blocking a "leave torpor"
or similar action (via Kiss of Ra or as a result of combat with Blood
Brother Ambush) - the blocker (now in torpor) still has the option to
diablerize the acting vampire.

There's nothing in the rules requiring a diabolist to be Ready, and it is
not worth complicating the rules by issuing errata to these cards to cover
this corner case.


--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team

James E. Hamblin

unread,
Apr 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/25/97
to

L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> RULINGS FROM THE RULES TEAM
> ===========================

LSJ, could you clear this up for me?

> * The rule about adding stealth/intercept only applies when attempting
> to block. It does not apply at other times. In particular, it does
> not restrict adding steath with Form of Mist during combat resulting
> from a successful (unblocked) action like Bum's Rush.

I know I'm somehow misreading this, but this seems to imply that you can
add as much stealth as you want to an action as long as no one is
attempting to block. Could you just clean up the wording a bit?
Thanks.

James
--

James E. Hamblin
je...@cornell.edu

"There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the
darkness of the soul that has lost its way. ... Greater than
the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams.
Against this peril we can never surrender."

-- G'Kar, Babylon 5: "Z'ha'dum"

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Apr 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/25/97
to

James E. Hamblin wrote:
>
> L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> >
> > RULINGS FROM THE RULES TEAM
> > ===========================
>
> LSJ, could you clear this up for me?
>
> > * The rule about adding stealth/intercept only applies when attempting
> > to block. It does not apply at other times. In particular, it does
> > not restrict adding steath with Form of Mist during combat resulting
> > from a successful (unblocked) action like Bum's Rush.
>
> I know I'm somehow misreading this, but this seems to imply that you can
> add as much stealth as you want to an action as long as no one is
> attempting to block. Could you just clean up the wording a bit?
> Thanks.

Sorry. This was pointed out, but the RT decided not to
change the wording.

James E. Hamblin

unread,
Apr 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/26/97
to

L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> James E. Hamblin wrote:
> >
> > L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > RULINGS FROM THE RULES TEAM
> > > ===========================
> >
> > LSJ, could you clear this up for me?
> >
> > > * The rule about adding stealth/intercept only applies when attempting
> > > to block. It does not apply at other times. In particular, it does
> > > not restrict adding steath with Form of Mist during combat resulting
> > > from a successful (unblocked) action like Bum's Rush.
> >
> > I know I'm somehow misreading this, but this seems to imply that you can
> > add as much stealth as you want to an action as long as no one is
> > attempting to block. Could you just clean up the wording a bit?
> > Thanks.
>
> Sorry. This was pointed out, but the RT decided not to
> change the wording.

Does that mean that this _is_ the new ruling, i.e., I you decline to
block an action, the acting minion may add as much stealth as they want,
subject only to the one-of-each-action-modifier rule?

Sorrow

unread,
Apr 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/26/97
to

> > > * The rule about adding stealth/intercept only applies when
attempting
> > > to block. It does not apply at other times.
> > I know I'm somehow misreading this, but this seems to imply that you
can
> > add as much stealth as you want to an action as long as no one is
> > attempting to block. Could you just clean up the wording a bit?
> Sorry. This was pointed out, but the RT decided not to change the
wording.

sonofabitch.
Does this now mean that you can dump your hand full of stealth on an
action that isn't blocked in order to cycle cards?

Sorrow
--
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Philippe DUCHON

unread,
Apr 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/28/97
to

L. Scott Johnson <vte...@regency.wizards.com> writes:
>RULINGS FROM THE RULES TEAM
>===========================
>
>* The rule about adding stealth/intercept only applies when attempting
> to block. It does not apply at other times. In particular, it does
> not restrict adding steath with Form of Mist during combat resulting
> from a successful (unblocked) action like Bum's Rush.
>

How does that interact with a card like the 2nd Tradition ?
From the card-specific rulings, there's an erratum on this one to read:

2nd Tradition: Domain, The - Reaction (Prince/Justicar):
Only usable by a tapped Prince or Justicar. This vampire untaps and
attempts to block at +2 intercept. (errata) [RTR]

Can this card be used when the action is at 0 stealth ? I understood that
one can't add intercept when none is needed, but this ruling says "when
attempting to block"; the tapped prince/justicar isn't yet attempting to block
since he's tapped, and will only be when the card is played ?

What's the current, official word on this ? At the moment I'm not using the
2nd trad. since I have to wait for stealth actions...

>REVERSALS OF LSJ RULINGS
>========================
>
>Regarding a blocking vampire going to torpor after blocking a "leave torpor"
> or similar action (via Kiss of Ra or as a result of combat with Blood
> Brother Ambush) - the blocker (now in torpor) still has the option to
> diablerize the acting vampire.
>
> There's nothing in the rules requiring a diabolist to be Ready, and it is
> not worth complicating the rules by issuing errata to these cards to cover
> this corner case.

Another Magic-ism, folks. I can live with wizards wrapping their hands in
flak jackets before cutting them off so it doesn't hurt as bad 'cause there's
such a "code-word" as "prevent damage", but torpor vampires diablerizing
other torpor vampires... _Why_not_ add a _single_ word to the rules to the
effect that only a _ready_ vampire can commit diablerie ? Hey, it wouldn't
even come into effect that often, it would just make us happy...

Philippe


L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Apr 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/28/97
to

Philippe DUCHON wrote:
> L. Scott Johnson <vte...@regency.wizards.com> writes:
> >RULINGS FROM THE RULES TEAM
> >===========================
> >* The rule about adding stealth/intercept only applies when attempting
> > to block. It does not apply at other times. In particular, it does
> > not restrict adding steath with Form of Mist during combat resulting
> > from a successful (unblocked) action like Bum's Rush.
>
> How does that interact with a card like the 2nd Tradition ?
> From the card-specific rulings, there's an erratum on this one to read:
>
> 2nd Tradition: Domain, The - Reaction (Prince/Justicar):
> Only usable by a tapped Prince or Justicar. This vampire untaps and
> attempts to block at +2 intercept. (errata) [RTR]
>
> Can this card be used when the action is at 0 stealth ? I understood that
> one can't add intercept when none is needed, but this ruling says "when
> attempting to block"; the tapped prince/justicar isn't yet attempting to block
> since he's tapped, and will only be when the card is played ?

That's the reading I get from the card - and I've asked the RT about
this. Until they issue a specific ruling for 2nd Trad (possibly one
saying that the Prince is somehow attempting to block), go by the text
above: which allows 2nd Tradition to be played even if intercept is
not needed (since the Prince isn't yet attempting to block).

> _Why_not_ add a _single_ word to the rules to the
> effect that only a _ready_ vampire can commit diablerie ? Hey, it wouldn't
> even come into effect that often, it would just make us happy...

The feeling is that too much errata makes the game harder to play.

Robert Goudie

unread,
Apr 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/28/97
to

L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> * The rule about adding stealth/intercept only applies when attempting
> to block. It does not apply at other times. In particular, it does
> not restrict adding steath with Form of Mist during combat resulting
> from a successful (unblocked) action like Bum's Rush.


This is saddening. Is there anyone who agrees that you should be able
to play FoM on a completed action? I don't recall seeing a post from a
single person who thought this made sense. Bummer.

Ok, now to think of some new decks to begin abusing the ruling!

Robert
--
......................................................................
:The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings:
:and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. :
: :
:Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com:
:LA Tourny Info -> http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~ezix/other/rg/vtourn_1.html:
:....................................................................:
:Da pony run, he jump he pitch. He t'row my master in da ditch. :
:He died and da jury wondered why. Da verdict was the blue tail fly.:
:....................................................................:

Martin Ward

unread,
Apr 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/28/97
to

In article <3364A4...@regency.wizards.com>, "L. Scott Johnson" <vte...@regency.wizards.com> wrote:


>The feeling is that too much errata makes the game harder to play.
>

This is not a flame against you LSJ, as you're just stating your opinion, but
this brings up an interesting question... what makes these card games hard to
play?

It's just not Jyhad. All the card games take time to learn and there's always
some new rule I find out about. I think it's simply that the producers rushed
out the cards to get in on the card craze, without testing their game much and
not writing the rules clearly. Compared with a RPG you have rule books. With
card games you have a rule book and text on the cards, making it more
complicated.

The next thing these producers find is that they have to continously issue
errata. Lots of extra work that they, probably, don't think is worth it.
Instead, just issue a new edition, slap on some new artwork, add some new
cards and annoy your players with another set to buy. :)

Thoughts?

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Apr 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/28/97
to

Martin Ward wrote:
>
> In article <3364A4...@regency.wizards.com>, "L. Scott Johnson" <vte...@regency.wizards.com> wrote:
> >The feeling is that too much errata makes the game harder to play.
>
> This is not a flame against you LSJ, as you're just stating your opinion, but

Sorry for being unclear.
I do not have any authority to decide when to or not to issue errata.
My opinions are not at issue, nor reflected in the quote.
The Rules Team (of which I am not a member) feels that too much
errata makes the game hard to play.

> this brings up an interesting question... what makes these card games hard to
> play?
>
> It's just not Jyhad. All the card games take time to learn and there's always
> some new rule I find out about. I think it's simply that the producers rushed
> out the cards to get in on the card craze, without testing their game much and
> not writing the rules clearly. Compared with a RPG you have rule books. With
> card games you have a rule book and text on the cards, making it more
> complicated.
>
> The next thing these producers find is that they have to continously issue
> errata. Lots of extra work that they, probably, don't think is worth it.
> Instead, just issue a new edition, slap on some new artwork, add some new
> cards and annoy your players with another set to buy. :)
>
> Thoughts?

Now, to my own opinions, as I see the decision to issue errata:

Jyhad/Vampire is already more difficult to learn to play at a basic
proficiency than Magic. Granted, some of the timing rules on Magic
may make achieving a high proficiency more difficult. But this
latter fact doesn't create the same levels of frustration for the
new players.

You can move from basic proficiency to high proficiency at your own
pace while still enjoying the game.

You cannot enjoy the game without basic proficiency, however. And
basic proficiency is hindered by having a stack of errata pages
printed out that you have to refer to before you play your cards.

Once you reach a high proficiency, of course, the need for errata
becomes more clear, and the lack of errata may then be
frustrating. Perhaps moreso, given the investment that may be
represented by playing long enough to develop such proficiency.

As a business, WotC has to find the balance between the two
(to get new customers and maintain current customers so that
their total number of customers is maximized) while not spending
too much time and effort (person-hours) which would eat up
whatever profit they make on this game.

Currently, the decision is to not issue any errata unless absolutely
necessary.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Apr 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/28/97
to

James E. Hamblin wrote:
> L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> > James E. Hamblin wrote:
> > > L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > RULINGS FROM THE RULES TEAM
> > > > ===========================
> > > > * The rule about adding stealth/intercept only applies when attempting
> > > > to block. It does not apply at other times. In particular, it does
> > > > not restrict adding steath with Form of Mist during combat resulting
> > > > from a successful (unblocked) action like Bum's Rush.
> > >
> > > I know I'm somehow misreading this, but this seems to imply that you can
> > > add as much stealth as you want to an action as long as no one is
> > > attempting to block. Could you just clean up the wording a bit?
> >
> > Sorry. This was pointed out, but the RT decided not to
> > change the wording.
>
> Does that mean that this _is_ the new ruling, i.e., I you decline to
> block an action, the acting minion may add as much stealth as they want,
> subject only to the one-of-each-action-modifier rule?

The literal reading of the rule yields "yes", and that's all I can
offer. Sorry again.

This also means that you can play a Fata Morgana on a successful
(unblocked) bleed. (Which isn't such a bad thing.)

Martin Ward

unread,
Apr 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/29/97
to

In article <3364DF...@regency.wizards.com>, "L. Scott Johnson" <vte...@regency.wizards.com> wrote:

>Currently, the decision is to not issue any errata unless absolutely
>necessary.

Okay, what you outlined makes sense and I can see the RTR wanting to keep
things balanced. Most of us on the group are highly proficient and I wonder if
we got this way because we have access to such a forum, whereas others have
the Duelist which has nothing of late. (Oops, there I go criticising again. :)

Anyway, I greatly appreciate that you are here to help us out.

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
Apr 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/29/97
to

Sorrow wrote:
>
> > > > * The rule about adding stealth/intercept only applies when
> attempting
> > > > to block. It does not apply at other times.
> > > I know I'm somehow misreading this, but this seems to imply that you
> can
> > > add as much stealth as you want to an action as long as no one is
> > > attempting to block. Could you just clean up the wording a bit?
> > Sorry. This was pointed out, but the RT decided not to change the
> wording.
>
> sonofabitch.
> Does this now mean that you can dump your hand full of stealth on an
> action that isn't blocked in order to cycle cards?

The literal reading of the rule yields "yes", and that's all I can
offer. Sorry again.

--

Ryan Anderson

unread,
Apr 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/30/97
to

On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, L. Scott Johnson wrote:

> > > > > RULINGS FROM THE RULES TEAM
> > > > > ===========================

> > > > > * The rule about adding stealth/intercept only applies when attempting

> > > > > to block. It does not apply at other times. In particular, it does
> > > > > not restrict adding steath with Form of Mist during combat resulting
> > > > > from a successful (unblocked) action like Bum's Rush.
> > > >

> > > > I know I'm somehow misreading this, but this seems to imply that you can
> > > > add as much stealth as you want to an action as long as no one is
> > > > attempting to block. Could you just clean up the wording a bit?
> > >
> > > Sorry. This was pointed out, but the RT decided not to
> > > change the wording.
> >

> > Does that mean that this _is_ the new ruling, i.e., I you decline to
> > block an action, the acting minion may add as much stealth as they want,
> > subject only to the one-of-each-action-modifier rule?
>

> The literal reading of the rule yields "yes", and that's all I can
> offer. Sorry again.


This is a *RATHER* severe change to the way the game has been played -
does the Rule Team realize that stealth-bleed decks just lost one of their
major counters by this rules change? (bleed-bounc just sat there and
ignored the s&b deck and messed their hand up with stealth.. if they can
just dump it now, that's going to have a major effect on the game..)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Anderson - <Pug Majere> "Who knows, even the horse might sing"
rand...@ece.eng.wayne.edu "May you live in interesting times"
PGP Fingerprint - 7E 8E C6 54 96 AC D9 57 E4 F8 AE 9C 10 7E 78 C9
finger rand...@ece.eng.wayne.edu for my public key.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Rob LeGood

unread,
Apr 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/30/97
to

Robert Goudie wrote:
>
> L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> >

> > * The rule about adding stealth/intercept only applies when attempting
> > to block. It does not apply at other times. In particular, it does
> > not restrict adding steath with Form of Mist during combat resulting
> > from a successful (unblocked) action like Bum's Rush.
>

> This is saddening. Is there anyone who agrees that you should be able
> to play FoM on a completed action? I don't recall seeing a post from a
> single person who thought this made sense. Bummer.
>
> Ok, now to think of some new decks to begin abusing the ruling!
>
> Robert

Well, let's see....

20 Governing the Unaligned.
20 Conditioning
Any combination of 50 Stealth Cards. (i.e. Lost in Crowds, Cloak the
Gathering, Mask of 1000 faces, etc.)

Sit back for a few rounds and let all other Meth. bring out a few
vampires (to get thier pool a bit lower; we don't want to do all the
work), bring out some smaller vamps yourself and block nothing.
Around the third or fourth round, keep bleeding for 1 (or just hunt)
and add stealth until both Gov. and Cond. appear in your hand. (You
should be able to cycle 2 or 3 cards per hunt or bleed.
When the time is right, bleed for at least 6 (1 + 2(Gov.) + 3(Con.).
You should be able to get the stealth to somewhere between 2 and 4.
Continue the cycle.

Even better might be to replace the Gov. and Cod. with the counterparts
that bleed for less, but also cost no blood. This way your vamp's will
not run out as fast.

Obviously there are problems with the deck, but with this 'fun' new
ruling the deck is very dangerous. I'll try to build one in the next few
days and let everyone know how it does.

--
rob. (rfle...@ix.netcom.com)

NOTE: If you wish to respond to me via email, please remove the * from
the
return address!

The Corrupter

unread,
May 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/2/97
to

On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, L. Scott Johnson wrote:

> Sorrow wrote:
> > Does this now mean that you can dump your hand full of stealth on an
> > action that isn't blocked in order to cycle cards?

> The literal reading of the rule yields "yes", and that's all I can
> offer. Sorry again.

WHAT!? I've been silent on the newsgroup for a while (mostly because of
the Other Games Pro-Tour, but also because of a job search), but this
just shook me out of my torpor...

WHAT!?

One of the major hinderances of Stealth and * decks is their need to have
some way to cycle. It is their inability to cycle Stealth if unblocked
that really limits the Stealth deck to a manageable level. At this
point, the best way a Rush deck can handle a S&B deck is to include
Intercept, Blood Gain, or Bounce in previously unthought of amounts.

Were this change to be instituted and not rectified, I can't imagine
calling Jyhad a good game.

LSJ, is anything going on with this? (BTW, I'll get that deck to you
ASAP (could be a week or two)).

@#$ The Corrupter $#@ @#$ Adrian Lee Sullivan $#@ Truth is as
@#$ Game Theory - Coffee - Opinion - Hedonism $#@ subjective as
@#$ <http://upl.cs.wisc.edu/~adrian/jyhad> $#@ Reality ...
GAT/CS/WS C(+++) USX+ P++ N++ PS++@ PE@ b++(+++) X+++ R+++* r+ z++**?

[Please Reply-To <adr...@cs.wisc.edu>. My newsreader there is giving me
headaches. Until the situation is corrected, I am _temporarily_ here. ]


salem christ....

unread,
May 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/5/97
to

> > How does that interact with a card like the 2nd Tradition ?
> > From the card-specific rulings, there's an erratum on this one to read:
> >
> > 2nd Tradition: Domain, The - Reaction (Prince/Justicar):
> > Only usable by a tapped Prince or Justicar. This vampire untaps and
> > attempts to block at +2 intercept. (errata) [RTR]
> >
> > Can this card be used when the action is at 0 stealth ? I understood that
> > one can't add intercept when none is needed, but this ruling says "when
> > attempting to block"; the tapped prince/justicar isn't yet attempting to block
> > since he's tapped, and will only be when the card is played ?
>
> That's the reading I get from the card - and I've asked the RT about
> this. Until they issue a specific ruling for 2nd Trad (possibly one
> saying that the Prince is somehow attempting to block), go by the text
> above: which allows 2nd Tradition to be played even if intercept is
> not needed (since the Prince isn't yet attempting to block).

> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)

heeeeey...you told me it couldn't be played unless i needed the
intercept. and now i can play it. has this only been overturned because
of the recent ruling?

salem christ.....

L. Scott Johnson

unread,
May 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/5/97
to

salem christ.... wrote:
>
> > > How does that interact with a card like the 2nd Tradition ?
> > > From the card-specific rulings, there's an erratum on this one to read:
> > >
> > > 2nd Tradition: Domain, The - Reaction (Prince/Justicar):
> > > Only usable by a tapped Prince or Justicar. This vampire untaps and
> > > attempts to block at +2 intercept. (errata) [RTR]
> > >
> > > Can this card be used when the action is at 0 stealth ? I understood that
> > > one can't add intercept when none is needed, but this ruling says "when
> > > attempting to block"; the tapped prince/justicar isn't yet attempting to block
> > > since he's tapped, and will only be when the card is played ?
> >
> > That's the reading I get from the card - and I've asked the RT about
> > this. Until they issue a specific ruling for 2nd Trad (possibly one
> > saying that the Prince is somehow attempting to block), go by the text
> > above: which allows 2nd Tradition to be played even if intercept is
> > not needed (since the Prince isn't yet attempting to block).
>
> heeeeey...you told me it couldn't be played unless i needed the
> intercept. and now i can play it. has this only been overturned because
> of the recent ruling?

Yes. Before 4/25/97, you couldn't play 2nd Tradition unless you
needed the intercept to block. Now, that requirement doesn't apply
since you're not attempting to block untial after you play 2nd T.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages