What happened to Wake?

25 views
Skip to first unread message

Eric Topp

unread,
Apr 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/15/99
to
"Wake is not replaced until your next untap phase. [RTR 980707]"

Why was Wake errated? This ruling makes a useful card (certainly not a
broken card) into a useless card.

Please explain.

--
Eric Topp
eric...@interact.net.au

LSJ

unread,
Apr 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/15/99
to
Eric Topp wrote:
>
> "Wake is not replaced until your next untap phase. [RTR 980707]"
>
> Why was Wake errated? This ruling makes a useful card (certainly not a
> broken card) into a useless card.
>
> Please explain.

It is hardly useless. Sometimes blood on your vampire is more important
than a card in your hand. When this is true, WwEF is better than
Forced Awakening.

The debate on Wake has been covered sufficiently on the newsgroup.
One particularly well written article was posted in 1996 by The Corruptor:
http://www.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=153749163

For a slew of other articles (of varying quality), search for
"Wake* & (powerful | fix)" in "rec.*.jyhad" on Dejanews.

--
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

Derek S. Ray

unread,
Apr 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/15/99
to
On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:33:27 +1000, "Eric Topp"
<eric...@interact.net.au> wrote:

>"Wake is not replaced until your next untap phase. [RTR 980707]"
>
>Why was Wake errated? This ruling makes a useful card (certainly not a
>broken card) into a useless card.

Far from useless. But, it was intended to prevent gratuitously
beneficial card-cycling, for example:

my predator is a pool gain/stealth/bleed deck. I have an untapped
vampire with superior DOM which I would just love to use to bounce
some bleeds that I know will be coming my way, and I will likely oust
my prey if I can bounce even one. But.. i don't have any Deflections
in hand. I was worried about Misdirection, so I packed a TON of Wake
cards in my deck, and now about four of them are in my hand because my
predator isn't . My predator takes a 5th tradition action to reload
one of his guys - I cycle three Wake cards on my other three minions,
saying "each of these guys Wakes and attempts to block. Damn. I have
no intercept in hand and can't generate any. I fail to block." With
OLD card text, since combat is over, I redraw all the Wakes, totally
clearing my hand jam and probably fetching a Deflection that I need.
This is basically wrong - you shouldn't be able to put 20 Wakes in a
deck knowing that you can always get rid of a bunch of them on a
moment's notice with no penalty. With NEW card text, now I can still
play those 3 Wakes to get rid of them, but I will NOT be drawing a
Deflection, and I had better hope I survive until my next untap, since
I'm playing with a four-card hand until then.

As regards useless... I don't see how its -real- utility is remotely
diminished, sorry. It is a disciplineless, no-blood-cost card that
permits a vampire to take an action and still make reactions out of
his own turn. The new restriction merely gives it an "opportunity
cost" of use, so to speak.

-- Derek
(replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

Bob

unread,
Apr 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/15/99
to
Why not "don't replace if block is unsuccessful"? No need to make the card
worse than forced awake.

Derek S. Ray wrote in message
<2B829BE077A8FF89.B55E4D10...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...


>On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:33:27 +1000, "Eric Topp"
><eric...@interact.net.au> wrote:
>>"Wake is not replaced until your next untap phase. [RTR 980707]"
>>
>>Why was Wake errated? This ruling makes a useful card (certainly not a
>>broken card) into a useless card.
>Far from useless. But, it was intended to prevent gratuitously
>beneficial card-cycling, for example:

<snip>


>This is basically wrong - you shouldn't be able to put 20 Wakes in a
>deck knowing that you can always get rid of a bunch of them on a
>moment's notice with no penalty.

<snip>
>-- Derek

PDB6

unread,
Apr 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/16/99
to
Bob wrote:
>>Why not "don't replace if block is unsuccessful"? No need to make the card
worse than forced awake>>

It isn't worse than Forced. If you want to block, you use Forced. If you want
to play reaction cards and don't want to spend a lot of blood doing it, you use
Wake. How many times do you want to pay 2 blood to deflect someone?

Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com

"I dunno, Marge.
Trying is the first step towards failure."
-Homer

LSJ

unread,
Apr 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/16/99
to
"Eric Topp" <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote:
> >It is hardly useless. Sometimes blood on your vampire is more important
> >than a card in your hand. When this is true, WwEF is better than
> >Forced Awakening.
>
> If you play with six (or less) cards in your hand until your next untap
> phase, you are dead meat to any serious tournament deck.

So Aggressive Tactics is a game breaker, in your estimation, eh?

And, are you "dead meat" if you use a Wakey on the last action of your
Predator's minion phase (say, to Deflect that mega-bleed he finishes up
with after all your untapped vampires have blocked the previous actions)?

> I hate the idea of changing the card text of a common card that has been
> around since Jyhad.

I agree; it's not a task to be taken lightly.

--
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Richard Zopf

unread,
Apr 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/16/99
to

Eric Topp wrote in message <7f7guc$mam$1...@black.interact.net.au>...

>>It is hardly useless. Sometimes blood on your vampire is more important
>>than a card in your hand. When this is true, WwEF is better than
>>Forced Awakening.
>>
>
>If you play with six (or less) cards in your hand until your next untap
>phase, you are dead meat to any serious tournament deck.
>
While we all appreciate your concern, it seems to me that you haven't had a
chance to play errataed WWEF in a tournament environment yet (unless you
held one since your original post on 4/15...). You'll be happy to know that
it still does just fine.


James Coupe

unread,
Apr 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/16/99
to
In article <2wxR2.212$0%.1773@server1.news.adelphia.net>, Bob
<hairy...@yahooyahoo.com> writes

>Why not "don't replace if block is unsuccessful"? No need to make the card
>worse than forced awake.

The card isn't worse though, it's different.

Which do you value more? Hand size or blood on a minion? For me, it's
mostly the latter though it would depend on my deck.

--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)

Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

Eric Topp

unread,
Apr 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/17/99
to
>It is hardly useless. Sometimes blood on your vampire is more important
>than a card in your hand. When this is true, WwEF is better than
>Forced Awakening.
>

If you play with six (or less) cards in your hand until your next untap
phase, you are dead meat to any serious tournament deck.

I hate the idea of changing the card text of a common card that has been
around since Jyhad.

Eric Topp

unread,
Apr 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/17/99
to

>So Aggressive Tactics is a game breaker, in your estimation, eh?
>

Don't be facetious - Aggressive Tactics costs 2 pool and can be burnt by a
directed action. The cost of the card gives an indication of how the people
who designed and playtested the Sabbat expansion viewed a reduction in hand
size.

>And, are you "dead meat" if you use a Wakey on the last action of your
>Predator's minion phase (say, to Deflect that mega-bleed he finishes up
>with after all your untapped vampires have blocked the previous actions)?
>

No - you are dead meat when you play a Wake to try to block the first action
of your predator (or even the last action of your prey).

>> I hate the idea of changing the card text of a common card that has been
>> around since Jyhad.
>

>I agree; it's not a task to be taken lightly.
>

So why do it? Please explain to me how the old version was so terribly
terribly broken even though it was never "fixed" in VTES. I read the item on
DejaNews that you referred me to earlier and I am still completely
mystified.

If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a
cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret the
card more strictly rather than change the wording?

For example,

"Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction

* Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed
or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at.
* The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction
card."

How difficult is that?

Eric Topp

unread,
Apr 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/17/99
to
>While we all appreciate your concern, it seems to me that you haven't had a
>chance to play errataed WWEF in a tournament environment yet (unless you
>held one since your original post on 4/15...). You'll be happy to know
that
>it still does just fine.
>


I have been playing in tournaments for several years and I have *never*
heard anyone complain that Wake is broken. If anything, I thought that Wake
was usually inferior to Forced Awakening. Why be hamstrung by a reduced hand
size when you can use Forced Awakening and (possibly) burn 1 blood instead?

I hate card text changes especially where there is no need to change the
card.

With this change to the card text, Wake becomes wallpaper. Anybody who
includes Wake in a tournament deck (in preference to Forced Awakening, Rat's
Warning, etc.) is just not serious about winning.


PDB6

unread,
Apr 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/17/99
to
Eric Topp wrote:
>>I have been playing in tournaments for several years and I have *never* heard
anyone complain that Wake is broken. If anything, I thought that Wake was
usually inferior to Forced Awakening. Why be hamstrung by a reduced hand size
when you can use Forced Awakening and (possibly) burn 1 blood instead?>>

Beacause you don't want to burn the one blood. If you are using weenie vampires
who want to have the capability to react and not lose too much blood. If you
want to manage your defense in such a way that you only are going to be wanting
to use one or two Wakes a turn.

Not every deck has Wakes in it. Not every deck wants to untap to try and block
or react. If you do want to have this capability, you have multiple choices, of
which Wake is one of them. Wake has a cost now, which it did not have before.

>>I hate card text changes especially where there is no need to change the
card.>>

Ok.

>>With this change to the card text, Wake becomes wallpaper. Anybody who
includes Wake in a tournament deck (in preference to Forced Awakening, Rat's
Warning, etc.) is just not serious about winning.>>

People still use Wake all the time. They just don't use 30 of them and toss
them out left and right, because they can.

>>Don't be facetious - Aggressive Tactics costs 2 pool and can be burnt by a
directed action. The cost of the card gives an indication of how the people who
designed and playtested the Sabbat expansion viewed a reduction in hand size.>>

But not until you get a turn. If your prey plays AT on you, by your logic, you
should be ousted before you get to destroy it. Yes, AT is expensive--that is
because you are doing it to someone else. Wake is a choice *you* make before
the game even starts. If you are entierly concerened about the effect of the
hand size reduction, play with cards that increase your hand size (Elder
Library, Dreams) or allow you to cycle (Barrens, Fragment), or don't use Wake.
There is always Rat's, Forced, Cat's, Homonculous, Metro Underground, and 2nd
Tradition.

>>No - you are dead meat when you play a Wake to try to block the first action
of your predator (or even the last action of your prey).>>

If this is a concern, don't use the Wake. Find a better way to do what you are
trying to do. Or accept the loss of a card from your hand.

>>So why do it? Please explain to me how the old version was so terribly
terribly broken even though it was never "fixed" in VTES. I read the item on
DejaNews that you referred me to earlier and I am still completely mystified.>>

There has been debate over Wake for years and years and years. It was pretty
much the only card in the game that does not have a cost of any sort--you could
cycle them freely, put as many as you wanted in a deck with little or no
thought about hand jamming on them, as you could play as many as you wanted on
someone elses turn. Now it makes you weigh its strengths against its cost. And
people still use it.

>>If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a
cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret the
card more strictly rather than change the wording?

For example,

"Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction

* Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed or
by the Methuselah that the action is directed at.
* The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction card."

How difficult is that?>>

That is just as much (if not actually much, much more) wording change than the
current errata. That, and it changes the card in such a way that someone will
doubtlessly decry it is wallpaper. It is, with the above wording, unuseable to
stop actions across the table with Eagle's Sight (or those of your prey at your
grand prey). That, and it doesn't prevent someone from playing them out of
their hand at an unprecidented rate ("oh, you hunt? I Wake and attempt to block
with 0 intercept...").

James Coupe

unread,
Apr 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/17/99
to
In article <7f9bga$s9d$1...@black.interact.net.au>, Eric Topp
<eric...@interact.net.au> writes

>
>>So Aggressive Tactics is a game breaker, in your estimation, eh?
>>
>
>Don't be facetious - Aggressive Tactics costs 2 pool and can be burnt by a
>directed action. The cost of the card gives an indication of how the people
>who designed and playtested the Sabbat expansion viewed a reduction in hand
>size.

Aggressive Tactics could be permanent.

You have no (little, SR) control over Aggressive Tactics being played.

Wake with Evening's Freshness is very temporary, especially since you
are most likely to play it on your predator's turn.

Wake with Evening's Freshness is entirely voluntary.

James Coupe

unread,
Apr 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/17/99
to
In article <19990417105706...@ng-fd1.aol.com>, PDB6
<pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes

>"Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction
>
>* Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed or
>by the Methuselah that the action is directed at.
>* The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction card."
>
>How difficult is that?>>
>
>That is just as much (if not actually much, much more) wording change than the
>current errata. That, and it changes the card in such a way that someone will
>doubtlessly decry it is wallpaper.

Not wallpaper, perhaps, but it stops you doing some things that you
could do before.

For example, I can no longer wake and play Treachery during a vote. I
can no longer wake and play Surprise influence during a vote. I can no
longer wake and play Ignis Fatuus. Malkavian Rider Clause and Wake is
dead if it's a crosstable voter. Foul Blood and Immaculate Vitae cross
table would be stopped. Cross table EKN conspiring can't be done.

Sorrow

unread,
Apr 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/17/99
to
> which Wake is one of them. Wake has a cost now, which it did not have
before.

I find this and the argument below completely ludicrous. It did have a
cost.
It cost a slot in your deck. Why put something you aren't even going to
use or something you are going to waste in this manner in the deck when
you could have put something much more useful in. Sure, it can be cycled
at any time, but doing so costs - it cost the card slot that was just
*wasted*
and it cost you a resource that you could have used effectively in the
future.
All of this is part of the cost. Now, with the new errata, the cost
increase
effectively makes it wallpaper. You, LSJ, James Coupe, et al claim that
it is not and is in fact still useful. But I have to ask you, how much do
you
use it now? How much before the errata? If the former is more than the
latter, why?

> People still use Wake all the time. They just don't use 30 of them and
toss
> them out left and right, because they can.

Again, why even put it in your deck if you are going to do this. That is
a card slot completely wasted. And when you are working with limited
resources (namely the total number of cards allowed in your deck),
you can't afford to be throwing in cards "just so you can cycle them".
If that is your mentality, then you are far better of putting something
in it's place.

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Raille

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to

Sorrow wrote in message <7fbc9p$8h4$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...


I have to agree with Sorrows arguments. If a person were to play 30 wakes
just because they can, they have just made a deck thats 30 cards LESS
effective. Assuming that your in a tournament setting this could mean that
you've a 30 card deck for all practical purposes., and I have yet to see ANY
deck thats so effective with 30 cards that it will win more than 1 VP a
game, and never a tourney. Even a deck thats reduced to 60 cards this way
would be extremely unlikely to do any better.

perhaps a study of decks at a tournament would be a good manner to determine
the actual effect, hell a study in ANY game setting would do this. Changing
a card just because of perceived imbalance is just plain wrong.

Personally I doubt that I will ever have a change to even utilize the Wake
according to the new errata. Parts of that Michigan crowd, you know.

Raille.

PDB6

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
Sorrow wrote:
>>I find this and the argument below completely ludicrous. It did have a cost.
It cost a slot in your deck.>>

As every card in the game has this exact same cost, this is not a specific
balancing factor to Wake. Every card in the game has a cost of some sort, other
than "it costs a slot in your deck". Master cards take up your master phase and
often cost pool. Discipline cards require your vampire to have the appropriate
discipline to use it, as well as often costing blood. Actions require actions.
Equipment has to be equipped and paid for. Even the non discipline cards have a
cost--Dodge, Lucky Blow, and Bum's Rush all say "do not replace until after
combat", just like Wake did. Sadly, however, this cost on Wake was simply
insufficient for the power and effect of the card. Wake became a card that
tended to end up in every deck, simply because it could be freely cycled.

>>Sure, it can be cycled at any time, but doing so costs - it cost the card
slot that was just *wasted* and it cost you a resource that you could have used
effectively in the future.>>

However, it is likely that the card you just drew to replace it is one that you
do need now. The effect of Wake is almost always useful--it effectively allows
you to get extra actions out of your vampires. By putting them in your deck,
you are given the option of using them, but if you didn't need them at any
particular time, you could just ditch them and draw something new for zero
cost, which no other cards had the ability to do (except, significantly, pre
"no vote push" PA cards used as votes...). By putting Wakes in your deck, you
have extra options, but the only trade off you make is that you have fewer card
slots total to use. Some decks are very tight and can't spare the slots. Others
could, and did.

>>All of this is part of the cost.>>

And it is the exact same cost that every other card has, and as such, is not a
specific cost of Wake.

>>Now, with the new errata, the cost increase effectively makes it wallpaper.
You, LSJ, James Coupe, et al claim that it is not and is in fact still useful.
But I have to ask you, how much do you
use it now? How much before the errata? If the former is more than the
latter, why?>>

I didn't use Wake much before the errata, and I don't use Wake much now. Let me
see...Of the 6 active decks I have lying around, two of them use untaping
cards. One of them uses 8 Wakes. One of them uses 6 2nd Tradition, 5 Rat's and,
5 Forced. The first one is a weenie bleed deck that has light, permanent
intercept and reaction cards--it can't aford to spend the blood it costs to use
Forced and doesn't really suffer from the loss of hand size. The second one is
a huge vampire intercept deck, and will always be using the Forced to
sucessfully block. I suppose if Forced didn't exist, I'd replace them with
Wake, but the loss of hand size would not be significant in this deck either.

Basically, I use Wake about the same amount now as I did before the errata.
Many people tended to put Wake in every deck they built, just 'cause they could
(as it cost nothing, and if they didn't need it at a particular instance, they
could just freely cycle it). I rarely did. I used Wake in decks that needed
Wakes and didn't use Wakes in decks that didn't need Wakes (which is most of my
decks). I still do.

>>Again, why even put it in your deck if you are going to do this. That is a
card slot completely wasted. And when you are working with limited resources
(namely the total number of cards allowed in your deck), you can't afford to be
throwing in cards "just so you can cycle them".>>

Hmm. I guess I'll also avoid sarcasm from now on (oh, wait, that too was
sarcastic :-). The point was not that people would fill their decks with Wakes
just so they could cycle them. The point was that people could put Wakes in
their decks 'cause they might need them but without having to worry about hand
jaming on them.

Compare pre-errata Wake to, say, Surprise Influence: Both are no discipline
reaction cards that provide a significant effect. If you had 3 Wakes in your
hand, and you didn't need use them at that point in the game, you could Wake
your vampires in reaction to someone doing something across the table and draw
three new cards. If some of them were Wakes, you could do it again. If you had
3 SI in your hand, you are stuck with them unless someone calls a vote _and_
you have an untapped vampire to play each one. Thus, given a situation where
you really don't need the particular reaction card right now ('cause, say, you
really need to draw a Conditioning, as it will allow you to oust your prey on
your next turn) and you have a bunch of them in your hand (because they usually
are useful, just not right now), the Wakes you can cycle like water to find the
card you need. The SI clogs up your hand. The end result of this comparsion of
two useful cards? SI rarely sees the light of day, while Wake tends to be put
in every deck in the world. Completely due to the comparative opportunity
costs.

It could be argued that these two cards are very similar in power, yet with
very dissimmilar costs. Or it could be argued that SI completely sucks in
comparison to Wake, yet SI has a much, much more significant cost than
pre-errata Wake. Either case indicates that Wake was undercosted.

>>If that is your mentality, then you are far better of putting something in
it's place.>>

But if you *might* need it, you put it in your deck. Every deck *might* need to
use a Wake at some point. However, where every other card in the game that you
*might* need to use at some point had a far more significant cost to include in
your deck, Wake, apparently, was undercosted. Now it has a significant cost
completely in line with the ability it provides you.

James Coupe

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
In article <7fbc9p$8h4$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Sorrow
<cbo...@apdi.net> writes

>You, LSJ, James Coupe, et al claim that
>it is not and is in fact still useful. But I have to ask you, how much do
>you
>use it now? How much before the errata? If the former is more than the
>latter, why?

My use of Wake has not changed due to the errata.

I find that the errata makes me consider its use carefully, but it does
not stop me playing it.

I value blood on a minion FAR more than once card I toss away
temporarily. As such, for me, I would almost always (I can imagine
decks where this would not always be the case, but in my playing style
it would normally be the case) prefer to use Wake over Forced.

Raille

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to

PDB6 wrote in message <19990418105656...@ng126.aol.com>...

>Hmm. I guess I'll also avoid sarcasm from now on (oh, wait, that too was
>sarcastic :-). The point was not that people would fill their decks with
Wakes
>just so they could cycle them. The point was that people could put Wakes in
>their decks 'cause they might need them but without having to worry about
hand
>jaming on them.


I had a friend who thought that he could cycle wakes like water also. Have
you ever seen a hand get kammed with wakes! He was down to a single minion,
and would wake to attempt to block every action against he whether or not he
wanted to. There were no other cards in his hand at all and ever wake was
replaced with, yup you guessed it, another wake! He lost the game.

>
>But if you *might* need it, you put it in your deck. Every deck *might*
need to
>use a Wake at some point. However, where every other card in the game that
you
>*might* need to use at some point had a far more significant cost to
include in
>your deck, Wake, apparently, was undercosted. Now it has a significant cost
>completely in line with the ability it provides you.


There's always a need for most cards at some point. You could even find the
occasional use for mummify.
No, really.

>Peter D Bakija
>PD...@aol.com


Richard Zopf

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to

Eric Topp wrote in message <7f9ccl$sd9$1...@black.interact.net.au>...

>>While we all appreciate your concern, it seems to me that you haven't had
a
>>chance to play errataed WWEF in a tournament environment yet (unless you
>>held one since your original post on 4/15...). You'll be happy to know
>that
>>it still does just fine.
>>
>
>
>I have been playing in tournaments for several years and I have *never*
>heard anyone complain that Wake is broken. If anything, I thought that Wake
>was usually inferior to Forced Awakening. Why be hamstrung by a reduced
hand
>size when you can use Forced Awakening and (possibly) burn 1 blood instead?
>
Having your hand size reduced by one will "Hamstring" you? I doubt it. You
seem like the sort of person who has a good enough grasp on the game to
realize that that's an erroneous generalization. Reduced hand size is a
trade-off, like any other.

>I hate card text changes especially where there is no need to change the
>card.

I think this is the real resistance you have to hte change, and its
completely valid, but entriely a personal thing.
>

>With this change to the card text, Wake becomes wallpaper.

You hate card text changes. I hate posts to newgroups that speak with the
voice of Ultimate Authority when thay haven't even tried out the card as
errataed. A CCG is typically too complex for anyone to make these broad
generalizations, unless they have empirical, first hand, extensive playtest
experience. Yeah, if the rewrite said that your hand size was permanently
reduced by one, we all could say that it was bad errata. History has shown,
though, that the errata list isn't a fixed thing (cf. Return to Innocence,
Tomb of Ramses III), but No One has gotten errata reversed/changed by
posting stuff like the above, and No One had gotten errata reversed/changed
without speaking from a position of experience, either.

>Anybody who
>includes Wake in a tournament deck (in preference to Forced Awakening,
Rat's
>Warning, etc.) is just not serious about winning.


So speaketh Eric Topp... So Mote It Be.

Regards,
R. David Zopf
Atom Weaver


LSJ

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to
Eric Topp wrote:
> >So Aggressive Tactics is a game breaker, in your estimation, eh?
>
> Don't be facetious - Aggressive Tactics costs 2 pool and can be burnt by a
> directed action. The cost of the card gives an indication of how the people
> who designed and playtested the Sabbat expansion viewed a reduction in hand
> size.

None of these qualifiers were mentioned in your statement to which I was
responding (previously snipped; restored here):

Eric Topp wrote:
> If you play with six (or less) cards in your hand until your next untap
> phase, you are dead meat to any serious tournament deck.

You make a blanket statement. I counter it with an example that is covered
by the blanket statement. That is not "being facetious". That is pointing
out your error.

> >And, are you "dead meat" if you use a Wakey on the last action of your
> >Predator's minion phase (say, to Deflect that mega-bleed he finishes up
> >with after all your untapped vampires have blocked the previous actions)?
> >
>

> No - you are dead meat when you play a Wake to try to block the first action
> of your predator (or even the last action of your prey).

Ah. More qualifications. Compare that idea of "dead meat" to your original
blanket assertion. While I don't agree that you'd be dead meat if you Wake
to block the first action of your predator (unless you were dead meat to
begin with), let's assume that you would be.

You're also "dead meat" if you try to get a bleed through with Form of Mist
when the opposing vampire has Immortal Grappled you. So? You'd be better off
with a card (more) appropriate to the situation, sure. In your case: Forced
Awakening.

But saying that Forced Awakening is better in this one case (or even in several
or even many cases) is not the same as saying that Wakey is wallpaper because
you're "dead meat" if you play it when faced with a "serious tournament deck".

> >> I hate the idea of changing the card text of a common card that has been
> >> around since Jyhad.
> >
> >I agree; it's not a task to be taken lightly.
> >
>

> So why do it? Please explain to me how the old version was so terribly
> terribly broken even though it was never "fixed" in VTES. I read the item on
> DejaNews that you referred me to earlier and I am still completely
> mystified.

Well, given the lucidity of that post, I'm afraid my attempt at clarification
will also fail, but here it goes:

* Wake's effect is very useful (basically an "extra" vampire with which to block
or react), for no cost other than a temporary reduction in hand size (a cost
still not approaching the usefulness of the card).
* When not useful at the moment (for whatever reason), the Wake-as-printed could
be freely cycled out of your hand (unlike every other card in the game), whenever
anyone else takes an action. Such free cycling eliminated even the small cost
that the card would have in it's usual use - the hand size reduction was
meaningless.

> If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a
> cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret the
> card more strictly rather than change the wording?
>
> For example,
>

> "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction
>
> * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed
> or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at.
> * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction
> card."
>
> How difficult is that?

More difficult than replacing "after combat" with "your next untap".
Your proposal is not an "interpretation" - it is changing the wording.
And the change is more severe than the current errata.

--

Robert Goudie

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to
Eric Topp wrote:
>
> >It is hardly useless. Sometimes blood on your vampire is more important
> >than a card in your hand. When this is true, WwEF is better than
> >Forced Awakening.
> >
>
> If you play with six (or less) cards in your hand until your next untap
> phase, you are dead meat to any serious tournament deck.

Should we then assume that any serious tournament deck that uses Elder
Library, granting the controller 1 additional hand size will
automatically win? 'Course not. One hand size loss does not make
anyone 'dead meat'.

--
Robert Goudie
rrgo...@earthlink.net
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net


Derek S. Ray

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999 16:58:32 +1000, "Eric Topp"
<eric...@interact.net.au> wrote:

>>So Aggressive Tactics is a game breaker, in your estimation, eh?
>
>Don't be facetious - Aggressive Tactics costs 2 pool and can be burnt by a
>directed action. The cost of the card gives an indication of how the people
>who designed and playtested the Sabbat expansion viewed a reduction in hand
>size.

How they viewed an INVOLUNTARY reduction in hand size, that is. Wake
is a voluntary reduction in hand size.

>>And, are you "dead meat" if you use a Wakey on the last action of your
>>Predator's minion phase (say, to Deflect that mega-bleed he finishes up
>>with after all your untapped vampires have blocked the previous actions)?
>
>No - you are dead meat when you play a Wake to try to block the first action
>of your predator (or even the last action of your prey).

Unless, of course, you happen to have another Wake (or derivant form
thereof, such as 2nd tradition) handy, a S:CE untap card for after
your block, a Cat's Guidance untap card for after your block, or you
cycle through a bunch of cards DURING the block allowing you to draw
another one... OR you just happen to have enough pool to survive not
blocking anything, which is a perfectly valid tournament-quality deck
design. Weenie decks don't block anything and don't even have the
benefit of Deflection, usually - are they dead meat just because
Antoinette DuChamp throws herself in front of an oncoming train with a
Wake? Where are you getting this idea from? =)

>>> I hate the idea of changing the card text of a common card that has been
>>> around since Jyhad.
>>
>>I agree; it's not a task to be taken lightly.
>
>So why do it? Please explain to me how the old version was so terribly
>terribly broken even though it was never "fixed" in VTES. I read the item on
>DejaNews that you referred me to earlier and I am still completely
>mystified.

Read my post, also?

>If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a
>cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret the

Not necessarily cross-table - sometimes as a response to their
predator's first action because they have no useful cards in hand to
match the 4 Wakes they have. So they Wake 3 vampires in hopes of
drawing a Deflection.

>card more strictly rather than change the wording?
>
>For example,
>
>"Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction
>
>* Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed
>or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at.

But what if you Wake and play Eagle's Sight? You can't play Eagle's
Sight without being untapped, but you have to Wake in order to play
Eagle's Sight, but you can't DO that now if you add that errata... and
intercept decks need some sort of Wake or they'll fall over like
ninepins to a well-timed Misdirection.

>* The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction
>card."

But that's not what the card text says, by strict interpretation --

Card text: "Usable only by a tapped vampire. This vampire can play
reaction cards and attempt to block as though untapped until the
current action is concluded."

It says this vampire "CAN" play, not "MUST", and doesn't solve the
problem of people deliberately attempting to block +1 stealth actions
and deliberately generating no intercept just to cycle the card.

>How difficult is that?

It requires a card text change... which is exactly what has already
happened.

Derek S. Ray

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999 17:11:57 +1000, "Eric Topp"
<eric...@interact.net.au> wrote:

>I have been playing in tournaments for several years and I have *never*
>heard anyone complain that Wake is broken. If anything, I thought that Wake
>was usually inferior to Forced Awakening. Why be hamstrung by a reduced hand
>size when you can use Forced Awakening and (possibly) burn 1 blood instead?

Why use Forced Awakening and Deflection, bouncing a bleed for a cost
of 2 blood instead of only one? If you build your deck right, six
cards is not "hamstrung". Unless you think Rush decks are hamstrung
by Bum's Rush making you not replace until after combat.

>I hate card text changes especially where there is no need to change the
>card.

I agree completely. There was a need to change Wake.

>With this change to the card text, Wake becomes wallpaper. Anybody who


>includes Wake in a tournament deck (in preference to Forced Awakening, Rat's
>Warning, etc.) is just not serious about winning.

Really? In a recent tournament I played in, the Wake/Deflect combo
got me two separate VP's in two separate games, because I tapped out
to almost kill my prey, my predator came at me with a big bleed, and I
bounced it (for only one blood, unlike Forced Awakening which I could
not have played because my vampire only HAD one blood.) It was a
perfectly safe thing to do, since my predator could have either bled
me for very little (which would not have ousted me), or bled me for
lots (which ousted my prey, gained me 6 pool, and ensured that I would
survive until my next untap.)

Unlike Rat's Warning, I can Wake and play Delaying Tactics to kill
nasty, pesky votes - and I pulled THAT off to survive a couple times,
as well. I submit that Rat's Warning is no MORE useful than Wake,
since while it does actually *untap* the vampire, it provides no
defense whatsoever against vote decks. Forced Awakening is only good
when you know you -will- be able to block, always a risky proposition
since stealth/bleed is at every tournament. Forced
Awakening/Deflection is just dumb. (Forced Awakening/Redirection is
better, but to be effective you need superior DOM - Wake/Deflect costs
the same amount of blood and only requires inferior DOM.) Forced
Awakening/Delaying Tactics, or Dread Gaze, etc. costs you a blood you
might need later.

I don't recommend making blanket statements.

carl.pi...@at.ccmail.philips.com

unread,
Apr 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/20/99
to

> > "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction
> >
> > * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed
> > or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at.
> > * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction
> > card."
> >
> > How difficult is that?
>
> More difficult than replacing "after combat" with "your next untap".
> Your proposal is not an "interpretation" - it is changing the wording.
> And the change is more severe than the current errata.

Hm, I don't want to heat up the discussion (you know, dead horses and the
like), but what about replacing "after the current players turn"? I know,
it's still abusable, you could cycle 4 wakes in a 5 player game, but IMO,
it's rather drastic "during your next untap".

Just a thought,
Carl

LSJ

unread,
Apr 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/20/99
to
Derek S. Ray wrote:
> the Wake/Deflect combo
> got me two separate VP's in two separate games, because I tapped out
> to almost kill my prey, my predator came at me with a big bleed, and I
> bounced it (for only one blood, unlike Forced Awakening which I could
> not have played because my vampire only HAD one blood.)

Actually, you could have done the same thing in this case with FA/Deflect:
You play Forced Awakening, then play Deflection (costing you one blood,
which leaves you empty), then (since you failed to block) you burn one
blood. Since you have no blood, you simply fail to burn any.

--
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

dhar...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/20/99
to
lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote:
> Forced Awakening/Deflection is just dumb.
>
> I don't recommend making blanket statements.

Really? You sure fooled me.

Noal
--
"The time for action is past! Now is the time for senseless bickering!"
-Ashleigh Brilliant

Sorrow

unread,
Apr 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/20/99
to
> cards is not "hamstrung". Unless you think Rush decks are hamstrung
> by Bum's Rush making you not replace until after combat.

But there is much more cycling available to rush decks making that reduction
negligable <sp>.

> Really? In a recent tournament I played in, the Wake/Deflect combo


> got me two separate VP's in two separate games, because I tapped out
> to almost kill my prey, my predator came at me with a big bleed, and I
> bounced it (for only one blood, unlike Forced Awakening which I could
> not have played because my vampire only HAD one blood.)

Actually, you could have. Use Forced Awakening to allow the vamp to
play reaction cards, play Deflection paying the only blood the vamp has
for it, fail to block and since the vamp has no blood to burn, ignores that
effect. In the end, you will have a deflected bleed and a vamp with 0
blood.

Derek S. Ray

unread,
Apr 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/21/99
to
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:46:49 GMT, dhar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote:
>> Forced Awakening/Deflection is just dumb.
>>
>> I don't recommend making blanket statements.
>
>Really? You sure fooled me.

Pbltttthfhfftt.

I certainly hope nobody would deliberately design a deck that would
use Forced Awake/Deflection, considering the number of more useful
possibilities out there. ;) Unless it was some twisted variant on
Trap/Undead Persistence, where the guys are TRYING to spend blood so
they get sent to torpor so they come out of torpor so... you get the
idea. =)

Derek S. Ray

unread,
Apr 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/21/99
to
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:52:00 -0500, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:

>> cards is not "hamstrung". Unless you think Rush decks are hamstrung
>> by Bum's Rush making you not replace until after combat.
>
>But there is much more cycling available to rush decks making that reduction
>negligable <sp>.

If you're Waking a vampire in the first place, you had better have
some cards ready to chunk out there. If you're PLAYING with Wakes in
your deck, you probably -do- have those cards ready, so who's to say
that hand cycling (I Wake. I play Eagle's Sight, Spirit's Touch,
Enhanced Senses to block your +3 stealth bleed that would oust my
grandprey and give you six pool. I now play Earth Meld, untapping my
blocker, and play Fast Reaction with a weenie who uses Claws of the
Dead to bung your bleeder into torpor. I've effectively emptied my
hand, and if you notice, I have an untapped vampire ready to go again,
and may even have drawn another Wake.) isn't just as possible with a
non-Rush deck?

(... Yeah, I actually do have a PRO/AUS deck. works reasonably well.)

>> Really? In a recent tournament I played in, the Wake/Deflect combo
>> got me two separate VP's in two separate games, because I tapped out
>> to almost kill my prey, my predator came at me with a big bleed, and I
>> bounced it (for only one blood, unlike Forced Awakening which I could
>> not have played because my vampire only HAD one blood.)
>
>Actually, you could have. Use Forced Awakening to allow the vamp to
>play reaction cards, play Deflection paying the only blood the vamp has
>for it, fail to block and since the vamp has no blood to burn, ignores that
>effect. In the end, you will have a deflected bleed and a vamp with 0
>blood.

Hrm. this disturbs me in its possibility. Raises a question: if I
say "I don't block", encouraging him to bump the bleed, and THEN
FA/Deflect, since I've already failed to block by saying "I don't
block", shouldn't I have to burn the blood for FA first, before I can
even PLAY the second card? I know that there's only one attempt to
block, and so I can't make a SECOND attempt - meaning that any block
attempts automatically fail. Hrm.

LSJ

unread,
Apr 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/21/99
to
lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote:
> "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
> >Actually, you could have. Use Forced Awakening to allow the vamp to
> >play reaction cards, play Deflection paying the only blood the vamp has
> >for it, fail to block and since the vamp has no blood to burn, ignores that
> >effect. In the end, you will have a deflected bleed and a vamp with 0
> >blood.
>
> Hrm. this disturbs me in its possibility. Raises a question: if I
> say "I don't block", encouraging him to bump the bleed, and THEN
> FA/Deflect, since I've already failed to block by saying "I don't
> block", shouldn't I have to burn the blood for FA first, before I can
> even PLAY the second card?

Good question.
After declaring "no block", you still could end up blocking the action
in theory - you deflect to your prey who, in turn, deflects back to you.
So, to keep things clean, I'd say you only burn the blood when the action
begins to resolve (successfully or not). So you could still play the
Deflection in your example.

--
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Eric Pettersen

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
"Eric Topp" <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote:
>
> If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a
> cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret
> the card more strictly rather than change the wording?
>
> For example,
>
> "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction
>
> * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed
> or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at.
> * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction
> card."

I think a more precise change would be:

* A Waking vampire must immediately either attempt to block at the current
stealth or play a non-Wake reaction card.

I think the problem with the current errata is that it penalizes not only
decks that abused Wake, but _every_ deck that uses Wake -- when Wake wasn't
considered a problem except in abusive decks. A change similar to the
above might have been better received, since it is effectively no change
for non-abusive decks, but it seems a little late now to adopt it.
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

carl_pi...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
In article <7folog$h5v$1...@cgl.ucsf.edu>,

While I agree in general with you, I don't know if that's a good change, and
if it suffices.

Carl

Robert Goudie

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
Eric Pettersen wrote:
>
> "Eric Topp" <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a
> > cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret
> > the card more strictly rather than change the wording?
> >
> > For example,
> >
> > "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction
> >
> > * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed
> > or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at.
> > * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction
> > card."
>
> I think a more precise change would be:
>
> * A Waking vampire must immediately either attempt to block at the current
> stealth or play a non-Wake reaction card.

This doesn't fix the problem. The Wake cyclers could easily play a wake
during a stealthy action and attempt to block (and satisfy your
requirement) but then fail to block.

Eric Topp

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to
>> If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a
>> cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret
the
>> card more strictly rather than change the wording?
>>
>> For example,
>>
>> "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction
>>
>> * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is
non-directed
>> or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at.
>> * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction
>> card."
>>
>> How difficult is that?
>
>More difficult than replacing "after combat" with "your next untap".
>Your proposal is not an "interpretation" - it is changing the wording.
>And the change is more severe than the current errata.
>


My proposal does *not* change the wording. It is a clarification like the
following:

Acquired Ventrue Assets [DS] - Master (Gio) (2)
* Can be used during any master phase, not just its controller's.

Barrens, The - Master: Unique Location
* If the Barrens is tapped during a Referendum, you
still do not replace the discarded card until
after the Referendum.

I have never encountered in any game of Jyhad/V:TES a situation in which a
player would play Wake when they were not attempting to block or play a
reaction card. It was an unspoken assumption by all players that a Wake
could not (or should not) be played unless the minion was going to block or
react.

Eric Topp

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to
>No One had gotten errata reversed/changed
>without speaking from a position of experience, either.
>


OK - I may be over-reacting about the change to Wake but this is not just my
opinion. I have been beaten by a lot of different types of decks over the
years but never by a deck containing lots of Wakes.

I judged a tournament last weekend and heard complaints about several
over-powered cards (Form of Mist, Hostile Takeover, 2nd Tradition). I cannot
remember seeing anybody play a Wake in the entire tournament. People I spoke
to were surprised about the change to Wake and couldn't really see how it
could be abused.

LSJ

unread,
Apr 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/25/99
to
In article <7frkij$neo$1...@black.interact.net.au>,

"Eric Topp" <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote:
> >> If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a
> >> cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret
> the
> >> card more strictly rather than change the wording?
> >>
> >> For example,
> >>
> >> "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction
> >>
> >> * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is
> non-directed
> >> or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at.
> >> * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction
> >> card."
> >>
> >> How difficult is that?
> >
> >More difficult than replacing "after combat" with "your next untap".
> >Your proposal is not an "interpretation" - it is changing the wording.
> >And the change is more severe than the current errata.
> >
>
> My proposal does *not* change the wording. It is a clarification like the
> following:
>
> Acquired Ventrue Assets [DS] - Master (Gio) (2)
> * Can be used during any master phase, not just its controller's.
>
> Barrens, The - Master: Unique Location
> * If the Barrens is tapped during a Referendum, you
> still do not replace the discarded card until
> after the Referendum.

No, it is not. The clarifications you cite (and indeed, all clarifications)
follow directly from an inspection of actual card text or rulebook text
(or previously issued errata to same). That's what "clarification" means
in this context.

Q: How do the two errata you propose follow from the actual card text?
A: they do not. They are additional restrictions beyond what can be
"interpretted" from card text. These errata are called addenda -
modifications to card text by addition.

> I have never encountered in any game of Jyhad/V:TES a situation in which a
> player would play Wake when they were not attempting to block or play a
> reaction card. It was an unspoken assumption by all players that a Wake
> could not (or should not) be played unless the minion was going to block or
> react.

Unspoken assumption of errata, while fine for an individual play group,
is not the best way to handle things on the official level.

--
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

James Coupe

unread,
Apr 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/25/99
to
In article <7frkij$neo$1...@black.interact.net.au>, Eric Topp
<eric...@interact.net.au> writes

>I have never encountered in any game of Jyhad/V:TES a situation in which a
>player would play Wake when they were not attempting to block or play a
>reaction card.

It happens quite a lot. Well, happened.

James Coupe

unread,
Apr 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/25/99
to
In article <7fsbk8$p8p$1...@black.interact.net.au>, Eric Topp
<eric...@interact.net.au> writes

>People I spoke
>to were surprised about the change to Wake and couldn't really see how it
>could be abused.

Just because players in the groups you play with don't know how to
"abuse" the card, it doesn't mean that there are other people who don't.

When Tomb etc. were changed, there were many players who were quite
vociferously stating "But *my* group doesn't abuse it, it's not abusive
in *my* group." Errata does not exist to cater to groups who don't
abuse it, but to try and stop them from ever reaching that situation
when someone works out that they can, IMHO.

Raille

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to

James Coupe wrote in message ...

>In article <7fsbk8$p8p$1...@black.interact.net.au>, Eric Topp
><eric...@interact.net.au> writes
>>People I spoke
>>to were surprised about the change to Wake and couldn't really see how it
>>could be abused.
>
>Just because players in the groups you play with don't know how to
>"abuse" the card, it doesn't mean that there are other people who don't.

I've played with people who have abused every abusable card printed and put
together combos that abused even rather tame cards. I have never had a
problem with Wakes being abusable.

Try using wakes Vs a Bleed combat deck. Wake. block, go to torpor/get
burned, get stuck with a hand full of wakes.

Or wake don't block dump a hand full of wakes to clear hand jam. Piss off
the rest of the players. Get bum rushed. See above.

Since several people use F. Villon, event he rather tame, wake deflection
only works a couple times, before you annoy someone and get all the blood
stole off your vampire.

Cryptic mission also works well in this method.

The basic problem with errata for wake, is that we're making ruling to help
the novice player. By eliminating the potential of some of these cards
these limited experiance played are dog meat in a tournament with the more
experianced players.

>James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)


Raille.
Can't see it, can't play it, wouldn't be proper.


Derek S. Ray

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 07:48:22 -0400, "Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote:

>I've played with people who have abused every abusable card printed and put
>together combos that abused even rather tame cards. I have never had a
>problem with Wakes being abusable.

Not "every" abusable card, or they'd have been abusing Wake.

>Try using wakes Vs a Bleed combat deck. Wake. block, go to torpor/get
>burned, get stuck with a hand full of wakes.

Wake and Block is not the abusability issue here. The abusability
follows in the example below...

>Or wake don't block dump a hand full of wakes to clear hand jam. Piss off
>the rest of the players. Get bum rushed. See above.

But see, this just doesn't happen in a tournament. The rest of the
players look at you and say "Oh, he had a handful of Wakes. Lovely",
and go about the business of ousting their prey. The only person who
will take any significant action against you is your predator, and he
was going to rush you ANYWAY! Nobody else is going to waste time on
you. Your prey is going to be VERY concerned, since you just picked
up a handful of useful cards for free, but he can't do anything before
you act again.

>Since several people use F. Villon, event he rather tame, wake deflection
>only works a couple times, before you annoy someone and get all the blood
>stole off your vampire.

Tremere decks are so extremely, extremely rare in a tournament that
this line of reasoning is silly - i'm just not going to worry about
them. Francois Villon is ALSO extremely rare to see in tournaments,
frankly. And guess what - nobody except your prey (target #1) and
your predator (ticked because his bleeds are not getting through) are
going to care about your wakey/deflecties, and without a Rush deck,
they won't be able to do anything about it. The usual method I've
seen to deal with W/D is just to take more bleed actions, but make
them collectively smaller (two bleeds for 3 instead of one for 6)
hoping to use up all his Deflections.

>Cryptic mission also works well in this method.

See "Tremere Decks".

>The basic problem with errata for wake, is that we're making ruling to help
>the novice player. By eliminating the potential of some of these cards
>these limited experiance played are dog meat in a tournament with the more
>experianced players.

No, the ruling is made to help ALL players. And you know what? It's
good, right, and proper that superior experience is a major factor in
deciding who wins games. If you'd like to argue that, may I suggest
we just roll dice for the winner, since experience and skill are not
fit to decide who wins?

Richard Zopf

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to

Eric Topp wrote in message <7fsbk8$p8p$1...@black.interact.net.au>...

>>No One had gotten errata reversed/changed
>>without speaking from a position of experience, either.
>>
>
>OK - I may be over-reacting about the change to Wake but this is not just
my
>opinion. I have been beaten by a lot of different types of decks over the
>years but never by a deck containing lots of Wakes.
>
>I judged a tournament last weekend and heard complaints about several
>over-powered cards (Form of Mist, Hostile Takeover, 2nd Tradition). I
cannot
>remember seeing anybody play a Wake in the entire tournament. People I

spoke
>to were surprised about the change to Wake and couldn't really see how it
>could be abused.
>
In truth, I have yet to see it be thoroughly abused first hand, either. But
you also have to understand that the source for errata ranges across the
experience of many play groups around the world. There was a _lot_ of
debate, particularly before any of the expansions came out, regarding WWEF.
The current errata was a reponse to experiences from multiple play groups,
along with a comparison to similar cards in the game, and what their
opportunity costs were (meaning the combined cost of blood/pool, space in
the deck, frequency of usability, etc. everything). There have been a lot
of players with on-line access, and the imagination they've had to abuse
cards is huge. But that's a good thing, as it results in errata based on
lots of playtesting and debate. People like those in your tournament,
however, who haven't been a part of that process just see the end result and
can only wonder why. I don't blame them, and the only thing I could say is
that they're being spared the experience of having someone abuse the card in
one of their tournaments.
One last thing. This is important, because several people have decided
to drop the game or start their own independent leagues because they missed
this point. Errata can be changed. I'll say it again. Errata can be
changed. No one will try to stop you from discussing/wanting the current
errata to be changed because experiences you've had demonstrate that the
current errata is either unneccesary or insufficient. You do need to
understand the background and reasons for the current errata, and that might
involve quite a bit research (yay, Dejanews...), but if the argument for
repealing/adding errata is sound, then there's no reason to expect that the
errata is going to remain.

Raille

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to

Derek S. Ray wrote in message
<1834AC9A53ABEB1C.AE5BFF3B...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...

>On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 07:48:22 -0400, "Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote:

>>The basic problem with errata for wake, is that we're making ruling to
help
>>the novice player. By eliminating the potential of some of these cards

>>these limited experience played are dog meat in a tournament with the more


>>experianced players.
>
>No, the ruling is made to help ALL players. And you know what? It's
>good, right, and proper that superior experience is a major factor in
>deciding who wins games. If you'd like to argue that, may I suggest
>we just roll dice for the winner, since experience and skill are not
>fit to decide who wins?
>
>-- Derek

Perhaps you have seen these things. I get to a tournament about once every
4 months and have yet to have ever seen the card become a problem.
Occasionally I have found it annoying, but that about it. Maximum effects
with wake deflect in a tournament is 45 wake deflects in a perfect world.

Say I have 4 vampire out, in ten turns the prey is devoid of any defense,
and may be forced to withdraw.

Granted I've left my self open to attack, but bleed bounce of my own helps,
as does atonement. Small vampire seem too common in tournaments,

Most of the players I've encountered look to the end game. They WILL take
cross table actions when and if they think it will ultimately help their
position. The player who simple focuses on his prey has blinders on and
will lose more time than they win.

Like I said before the worst case was a gangrel wake deck that had about 30
wake in it. It failed so bad, so many times the player tore the deck apart
and refused to play it any longer.

Wakes may be annoying but are hardly a game breaker.
Good players will look several turns out and act accordingly. even cross
table.


I have had the fortune to have played against opponents in Indian, Ohio,
Michigan, Netherlands and Germany. I've played against probably 30
different people over the last few years. In all that time against all
those people I have never seen the card abused.

In the Netherlands the player group their is so adamant opposed to the WoTc
rules they do not even use VTES backed cards, and only use the printed Jyhad
rule book! Do they have internet access? Yes. Thats how I contacted them
prior to my trip there. Did I actual go? Ask Michael Beer, a semi regular
here on the NG. Perhaps he has seen the card abused, but I have never seen
or heard anyone complain until the new rules team ruling.


For all the insane chatter stating wake is broken it must be fixed, I say
send me a deck, or post it to the list. I'll play it against all comers and
see if it really makes a difference. If it does, great you've made you
point. If not I'll keep on keeping on.

If you DON'T send a deck, then your argument in moot.

Put up or shut up.

Raille.

Eric Topp

unread,
Apr 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/27/99
to

>> My proposal does *not* change the wording. It is a clarification like the
>> following:
>>
>> Acquired Ventrue Assets [DS] - Master (Gio) (2)
>> * Can be used during any master phase, not just its controller's.
>>
>> Barrens, The - Master: Unique Location
>> * If the Barrens is tapped during a Referendum, you
>> still do not replace the discarded card until
>> after the Referendum.
>
>No, it is not. The clarifications you cite (and indeed, all clarifications)
>follow directly from an inspection of actual card text or rulebook text
>(or previously issued errata to same). That's what "clarification" means
>in this context.
>

The card text of Acquired Ventrue Assets says "During each master phase, you
may move 1 blood from this card to any Giovanni you control." ie. it does
not say in whose master phase. The clarification answers the question "When
can I move blood from this card?"

Similarly, the card text of The Barrens says "Tap to discard a card from
your hand." ie. there is no mention when you replace the card (the rulebook
says to immediately replace a card when you "play" a library card) or that
you cannot replace the card until after the political action is finished.
The clarification answers the question "When do I replace the card that I
discarded?"

My point is that "an inspection of actual card text or rulebook text" cannot
provide definite answers to many rules questions. A complete rulebook that
covered all the possible rules questions would be too big to fit in a
starter box. Similarly, complete text would not fit on many cards. That is
why official clarifications are needed - to answer questions.

>Q: How do the two errata you propose follow from the actual card text?
>A: they do not. They are additional restrictions beyond what can be
> "interpretted" from card text. These errata are called addenda -
> modifications to card text by addition.


As I have pointed out, the official clarifications are *all* addenda; they
exist to supplement the existing rules and card text. My suggested
clarification to Wake does not change the card text; it is *not* an erratum
("a mistake in writing or printing" - Macquarie Dictionary). It answers the
question "When can I play a Wake?" in a simple and elegant manner.

LSJ

unread,
Apr 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/27/99
to
"Eric Topp" <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> My proposal does *not* change the wording. It is a clarification like the
> >> following:
> >>
> >> Acquired Ventrue Assets [DS] - Master (Gio) (2)
> >> * Can be used during any master phase, not just its controller's.
> >>
> >> Barrens, The - Master: Unique Location
> >> * If the Barrens is tapped during a Referendum, you
> >> still do not replace the discarded card until
> >> after the Referendum.
> >
> >No, it is not. The clarifications you cite (and indeed, all clarifications)
> >follow directly from an inspection of actual card text or rulebook text
> >(or previously issued errata to same). That's what "clarification" means
> >in this context.
>
> The card text of Acquired Ventrue Assets says "During each master phase, you
> may move 1 blood from this card to any Giovanni you control." ie. it does
> not say in whose master phase. The clarification answers the question "When
> can I move blood from this card?"

The card is talking to "you" the controller. It says that "you may move
1 blood from the card" and it limits this activity to "during each master
phase". If it had said "during each player's master phase", then it would
be different, but it doesn't. So it is limited to your (the player being
given the ability) master phase. At worst, this is a ruling (instead of
a clarification). It is not errata.

> Similarly, the card text of The Barrens says "Tap to discard a card from
> your hand." ie. there is no mention when you replace the card (the rulebook
> says to immediately replace a card when you "play" a library card) or that
> you cannot replace the card until after the political action is finished.
> The clarification answers the question "When do I replace the card that I
> discarded?"

The rulebook states that no cards are replaced during a referendum.
Since, as you say, there is no mention on the Barrens as to when you
replace the card you discard, you are bound by the standing rule - that
is: not during a political action.

> My point is that "an inspection of actual card text or rulebook text" cannot
> provide definite answers to many rules questions. A complete rulebook that
> covered all the possible rules questions would be too big to fit in a
> starter box. Similarly, complete text would not fit on many cards. That is
> why official clarifications are needed - to answer questions.

The resolution of ambiguities is handled by rulings.
The explanation of unambiguous portions of the rules is handled by
clarification.
The *modification* or rules and/or card text is done by errata.

What you propose for Wake falls under the third category.

> >Q: How do the two errata you propose follow from the actual card text?
> >A: they do not. They are additional restrictions beyond what can be
> > "interpretted" from card text. These errata are called addenda -
> > modifications to card text by addition.
>
> As I have pointed out, the official clarifications are *all* addenda; they
> exist to supplement the existing rules and card text. My suggested

They explain the rules and card text - they do not alter them.

> clarification to Wake does not change the card text; it is *not* an erratum
> ("a mistake in writing or printing" - Macquarie Dictionary).

The mistake you are attempting to correct is your perceived omission of
some restrictions to Wake's usage.

> It answers the
> question "When can I play a Wake?" in a simple and elegant manner.

By adding rules and/or card text. Altering card text. Errata.

Derek S. Ray

unread,
Apr 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/27/99
to
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 17:20:08 -0400, "Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote:

>Granted I've left my self open to attack, but bleed bounce of my own helps,
>as does atonement. Small vampire seem too common in tournaments,

Not TOO common, but sufficiently common.

>Most of the players I've encountered look to the end game. They WILL take
>cross table actions when and if they think it will ultimately help their
>position. The player who simple focuses on his prey has blinders on and
>will lose more time than they win.

But players will only go cross-table if they see a threat. A
multiple-Wake deck is not an active cross-table threat in the same
fashion that a weenie stampede deck is.

>Like I said before the worst case was a gangrel wake deck that had about 30
>wake in it. It failed so bad, so many times the player tore the deck apart
>and refused to play it any longer.

...you've got to be taking actions and tapping out vampires for Wake
to be useful, and Gangrel players will surely discover that Rat's
Warning is nifty but can't stop votes.

>Wakes may be annoying but are hardly a game breaker.

If you can't see how having potentially near-unlimited defense will
help ...

>Good players will look several turns out and act accordingly. even cross
>table.

...only when they perceive an immediate or near-future threat AND if
that threat requires previous action.

>I have had the fortune to have played against opponents in Indian, Ohio,
>Michigan, Netherlands and Germany. I've played against probably 30
>different people over the last few years. In all that time against all
>those people I have never seen the card abused.

I've played against 30 different people in the last few MONTHS :P Can
we get off the stupid "I've been playing this game forever" kick,
since both of us (i hope) know how little it REALLY means, and get
back on the "arguments with substance" kick?

>For all the insane chatter stating wake is broken it must be fixed, I say
>send me a deck, or post it to the list. I'll play it against all comers and
>see if it really makes a difference. If it does, great you've made you
>point. If not I'll keep on keeping on.

I think you'll keep on keeping on whether or not I post a deck, but I
think I can squeeze a little time in to throw one together.
(conveniently, it doesn't have to actually be PHYSICALLY put
together.)

>Put up or shut up.

Those are some mighty big words for someone whose only argument so far
has been "IVE NEVER SEEN IT ABUSED!!!!", ya know?

Derek S. Ray

unread,
Apr 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/27/99
to
>>For all the insane chatter stating wake is broken it must be fixed, I say
>>send me a deck, or post it to the list. I'll play it against all comers and
>>see if it really makes a difference. If it does, great you've made you
>>point. If not I'll keep on keeping on.
>
>I think you'll keep on keeping on whether or not I post a deck, but I
>think I can squeeze a little time in to throw one together.
>(conveniently, it doesn't have to actually be PHYSICALLY put
>together.)

And even more conveniently, the Elder Library Deck Builder (insert
shameless plug for David Davila here) lets me churn something out in
about 15-20 minutes that I can wander back and post, without having to
actually have my cards. whee!

Disclaimer: This deck assumes a non-errata'd Wake with Evening's
Freshness that replaces after combat, not after untap.

This is a 15-minute special, so I'm sure the proportions on some cards
are slightly off a bit. The 15 claws may be too many, but you'll
likely be stopping a LOT of your predator's actions (and maybe even
some of your prey's, if you're lucky). The concept is pretty basic -
load up your vampires as the equipment arrives, bleed and if they
block you, poke their eye out. This deck is VERY equipment heavy, but
despite starting out slowly forwards, certainly shouldn't suffer much
on its defense (freely cyclable Wake enables me to include a wopping
20). Pack Tactics is there to help deal some with heavy sneak & bleed
- for voters, of course, you only require the basic +1 intercept, and
there should be lots of that around.

Smiling Jack is a last-minute throwin - you'd have to look at the
table and decide whether incurring everyone's wrath is worth it -
although you -do- have the Wakes to defend him, if everyone gangs up
on you it could be risky. =) And people will be coming after the
steal-me-please Rack anyway.

Crypt: (12 cards)
2 Anastasia Grey (Gangrel, 3, an pt)
1 Caitlin (Gangrel Antitribu, 5, PT AN do au, Bishop)
1 Camille Devereaux (Gangrel, 5, an PT FO)
1 Chandler Hungerford (Gangrel, 3, PT)
1 Daliyah (Nosferatu, 3, PT ob)
1 Mirembe Kabbada (Gangrel, 5, PT SE an)
1 Monique (Gangrel Antitribu, 5, an fo pt au)
1 Ricki Van Demsi (Gangrel, 3, fo pt)
1 Roman Alexander (Gangrel, 4, an fo pt)
1 Sadie (Gangrel Antitribu, 2, pt)
1 Salbatore Bokkengro (Ravnos, 4, CH fo pt)

Avg. Crypt: 3.75 Best: 12 Worst: 20

Library: (89 cards)

Masters:
8 Blood Doll
2 KRCG News Radio
1 Smiling Jack the Anarch
2 Rack, The

Actions:
10 Computer Hacking
3 J. S. Simmons, Esq.
3 Tasha Morgan
5 Laptop Computer
3 Mr. Winthrop
5 Raven Spy
5 Sport Bike

Reactions:
20 Wake with Evening's Freshness
5 Pack Tactics

Combat:
15 Claws of the Dead
5 Form of the Ghost

LSJ

unread,
Apr 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/27/99
to
lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote:
> >>For all the insane chatter stating wake is broken it must be fixed, I say
> >>send me a deck, or post it to the list. I'll play it against all comers and
> >>see if it really makes a difference. If it does, great you've made you
> >>point. If not I'll keep on keeping on.
> >
> >I think you'll keep on keeping on whether or not I post a deck, but I
> >think I can squeeze a little time in to throw one together.
> >(conveniently, it doesn't have to actually be PHYSICALLY put
> >together.)
>
> And even more conveniently, the Elder Library Deck Builder (insert
> shameless plug for David Davila here) lets me churn something out in
> about 15-20 minutes that I can wander back and post, without having to
> actually have my cards. whee!
>
> Disclaimer: This deck assumes a non-errata'd Wake with Evening's
> Freshness that replaces after combat, not after untap.

[Snip deck].

I should point out that Wake was not errata'ed because it produced
broken decks. It was errata'ed because it itself was broken - Players
put 4-8 copies of wake into (nearly) every deck because it was
(almost) always useful and had no drawbacks.

That last point being the problem.

Raille

unread,
Apr 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/28/99
to

LSJ wrote in message <7g50pm$8pv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>I should point out that Wake was not errata'ed because it produced
>broken decks. It was errata'ed because it itself was broken - Players
>put 4-8 copies of wake into (nearly) every deck because it was
>(almost) always useful and had no drawbacks.
>
>That last point being the problem.

So if I understand this correctly the card was changed because
A) people put 4-8 copies into their decks
and
B) it could be discarded freely

I have to say that the 4-8 added cards is a minor point, you can't use than
as cause to alter cards, there are a few thousand other cards that I could
place into a deck in quantities of 4-8 that might annoy the rest of the
table/players.

The ability to discard them freely usually means that the deck is/was poorly
designed. I, don't know about everyone else, try to build decks so that I
don't every need to discard. There are exceptions, but its what I shoot
for. A discarded/dumped card is a wasted card.

Raille

Raille

unread,
Apr 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/28/99
to

Derek S. Ray wrote in message ...

Got the deck. Will start giving it someplaying time.

Comments to be sent later.

Raille

LSJ

unread,
Apr 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/28/99
to
Raille wrote:
>
> LSJ wrote in message <7g50pm$8pv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >I should point out that Wake was not errata'ed because it produced
> >broken decks. It was errata'ed because it itself was broken - Players
> >put 4-8 copies of wake into (nearly) every deck because it was
> >(almost) always useful and had no drawbacks.
> >
> >That last point being the problem.
>
> So if I understand this correctly the card was changed because
> A) people put 4-8 copies into their decks
> and
> B) it could be discarded freely

No: because was unbalanced. The effect was too good for its cost
(which was basically zero). As has been said many times already
in this thread.

PDB6

unread,
Apr 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/28/99
to
Raille wrote:
>>So if I understand this correctly the card was changed because
A) people put 4-8 copies into their decks
and
B) it could be discarded freely>>

The card was changed, simply, because it was too good. Jyhad is a game of
strict cost and effect controls. Cards that do not fit in to this strict cost
and effect structure are either too good or weak. It was decided that there was
no point in fixing cards that were too weak (which is why cards like Chainsaw
and Concealed Weapon were never changed), but cards that were too good were
fixed. As a result, cards like ToR, Zip Gun, and Immortal Grapple were
errataed. Wake With Evenings Freshness was a card that was too good, for
reasons explained at depth by many in this thread (please go back and read my
comparison between WWEF and Surprise Influence up in this thread somewhere). As
a result of being arguably too good (and said arguments were accepted by the
ruling team), WWEF was errataed into a card that had a cost more in line with
its effect.

>>I have to say that the 4-8 added cards is a minor point, you can't use than
as cause to alter cards, there are a few thousand other cards that I could
place into a deck in quantities of 4-8 that might annoy the rest of the
table/players.>>

Again, the card was too good for what it cost. Thus it was changed. Its effect
was not sufficiently balanced by its cost. The card was not changed due to 4-8
cards being in every deck (this was an illustration of the fact that the card
was too good). It was changed as the result of literal *years* of discussion
and playtesting. WWEF was simply too good for what it cost. Thus, its cost was
increased.

>>The ability to discard them freely usually means that the deck is/was poorly
designed.>>

Ahh, yes. Good, old hyperpole. Nothing beats hyperbole.

>>I, don't know about everyone else, try to build decks so that I
don't every need to discard. There are exceptions, but its what I shoot
for. A discarded/dumped card is a wasted card.>>

Anyway, how difficult it is for a given card to be cycled is a built in cost of
cards in Jyhad (remebering that cost to effect ratio is the bread and butter of
this game). For example, one of the sticky points of building the "overpowered"
(a common claim, along with "boring" and "cheesy") Malkavian S+B deck is that
stealth can't be freely cycled. If no one blocks you, your stealth cards do
nothing but clog up your hand, and thus you have to discard them. If stealth
cards could be freely cycled (i.e. played when not needed), they too would be
too good and need a fixing. Again, please compare WWEF to Surprise Influence.
SI has a *much* higher opportunity cost, is far more difficult to cycle, and
has a far greater cost in general (you need to have an untapped vampire for
each SI you play). For two cards that are both non-disciplanary reactions,
their cost to effect ratio is completely out of balance, indicating that one of
them is wrong. Given that no one ever complained about SI, and people spent
years complaining (and disecting and making viable arguments) about WWEF, it
was accepted to be the one that was wrong. As a result, it was errataed to make
its cost more in line with its effect.

Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com

"I dunno, Marge.
Trying is the first step towards failure."
-Homer

Raille

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to

PDB6 wrote in message <19990428093009...@ng126.aol.com>...

>Again, the card was too good for what it cost. Thus it was changed. Its
effect
>was not sufficiently balanced by its cost. The card was not changed due to
4-8
>cards being in every deck (this was an illustration of the fact that the
card
>was too good). It was changed as the result of literal *years* of
discussion
>and playtesting. WWEF was simply too good for what it cost. Thus, its cost
was
>increased.
>snip<


If wake is so powerful that it needs to be errata'd to correct it why not
Forced awakening.
If you have a vampire who is tapped and at zero blood they can use the
forced awakening to attempt to block every action taken by either the prey
or predator. With the ruling on wake, All I really need to do is load up of
forced awakenings, use what I need then DUMP the rest. A 1 or 2 cap vampire
can do this with nearly 100% effectiveness.

There is really little difference between the two cards, and the ability to
replace the FA is vastly superior to the original do not replace till after
combat of the wake.

Please explain to be who the new change to wake compares to the Forced
awakening.
All it seems to have done is take a card marginalized by FA and weaken it,
to the point of exclusion. Face it there are so many decks that use Vampire
filling tactics that even the nominal cost of 1 blood if you fail to block
is moot.

Raille

mboh...@shout.net

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
In article <7g9fb2$gq3$1...@east44.supernews.com>,
"Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote:

> If you have a vampire who is tapped and at zero blood they can use the
> forced awakening to attempt to block every action taken by either the prey
> or predator. With the ruling on wake, All I really need to do is load up of
> forced awakenings, use what I need then DUMP the rest. A 1 or 2 cap vampire
> can do this with nearly 100% effectiveness.

If you're actually blocking actions, what about the combat? Otherwise,
you're basically throwing away a 1 or 2 pool investment along with the
transfer time.

> There is really little difference between the two cards, and the ability to
> replace the FA is vastly superior to the original do not replace till after
> combat of the wake.

In decks where you actually want to and try to block, FA is at least
somewhat better than WwEF. In decks where you are deflecting or playing other
non-blocking oriented reaction cards, WwEF is at least somewhat better than
FA.

> All it seems to have done is take a card marginalized by FA and weaken it,
> to the point of exclusion. Face it there are so many decks that use Vampire
> filling tactics that even the nominal cost of 1 blood if you fail to block
> is moot.

What if you never plan to block? Also, that 1 blood loss could be one less
pool you get from a Minion Tap or a Blood Doll.

Mike

--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/
V:EKN Prince of Urbana-Champaign
Editor of the Fragment of the Book of Nod

PDB6

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
Raille wrote:
>>If wake is so powerful that it needs to be errata'd to correct it why not
Forced awakening.>>

Hmm. You seem to be missing the point. Wake was errataed because is was too
good for what it cost (as has been explained, at length, in this here thread).
Its cost (do not replace until after combat) was deemed not sufficient for the
effect it gave. When compared to similar cards (like Surprise Influence, for
instance), the complete lack of opportunity cost, the complete lack of any
other cost other than the almost completely moot "dnrtac" cost, unprecidented
ability to cycle, and extreme usefulness of the card it was too good. Game
crushingly too good? No, but too good, and consequently needed fixing. Forced
Awakening, on the other hand, does not need errata, as it has been veiwed as
having a sufficient cost for its ability and can't be freely cycled like water.

>>If you have a vampire who is tapped and at zero blood they can use the
forced awakening to attempt to block every action taken by either the prey
or predator.>>

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If you have a vampire with zero blood
who succeeds at blocking, he is probably going to torpor. Is that not cost
enough?

>>With the ruling on wake, All I really need to do is load up of forced
awakenings, use what I need then DUMP the rest. A 1 or 2 cap vampire can do
this with nearly 100% effectiveness.>>

Again, you simply aren't making yourself clear. If you mean "dump" like you
could freely "dump" WWEF before the errata, your vampires will run out of blood
awfully quickly. If you mean "dump" like discard at the end of your turn, then
you are doing the same thing with FA that you could be doing with any other
card, and isn't a particular advantage or disadvantage of FA.

>>There is really little difference between the two cards, and the ability to
replace the FA is vastly superior to the original do not replace till after
combat of the wake.>>

Unless you are using it to Deflect, in which case your vampires lose blood
quickly. Or you are using it to play Delaying Tactics, which now costs a blood.
Or using it to play any reaction card you care to think of--it now costs you a
blood. In decks that can, and will, use FA to reliably block, you use FA
instaed of WWEF. In decks where you want to use the untap ability to react
(deflect, Telepathic Counter, Delaying Tactics, whatever), the WWEF is better,
as it doesn't cost your vampires blood to use.

>>Please explain to be who the new change to wake compares to the Forced

awakening. All it seems to have done is take a card marginalized by FA and


weaken it, to the point of exclusion.>>

I believe this has been done sufficiently. To reiterate--using WWEF in a deck
that wishes to use it for reaction cards is a better idea than using the FA,
due to the blood cost involved. If you can, and will, reliably block with the
FA, use the FA.

>>Face it there are so many decks that use Vampire filling tactics that even
the nominal cost of 1 blood if you fail to block is moot.>>

Yup. And there are just as many decks for which the nominal cost of one blood
for failing to block is just not good. You are playing with small vampires and
want the ability to Delaying Tactics and/or Telepathic Counter. Losing a blood
every time you do this with a FA will severely compromise your offense, as well
as your ability to benefit from Blood Dolls. Or, you are playing a traditional
Ventrue deck with Deflections. If the Deflection costs you 2 everytime you use
it (due to the FA cost), you will run out of blood _very_ quickly.

Patrick Harris

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to
> >>If you have a vampire who is tapped and at zero blood they can use the
> forced awakening to attempt to block every action taken by either the prey
> or predator.>>
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If you have a vampire with zero blood
> who succeeds at blocking, he is probably going to torpor. Is that not cost
> enough?
>
> >>With the ruling on wake, All I really need to do is load up of forced
> awakenings, use what I need then DUMP the rest. A 1 or 2 cap vampire can do
> this with nearly 100% effectiveness.>>
>
> Again, you simply aren't making yourself clear. If you mean "dump" like you
> could freely "dump" WWEF before the errata, your vampires will run out of blood
> awfully quickly. If you mean "dump" like discard at the end of your turn, then
> you are doing the same thing with FA that you could be doing with any other
> card, and isn't a particular advantage or disadvantage of FA.

Isn't there a ruling concerning vamps with 0 blood failing to block with Forced
Awakening: they fail to burn the blood as well and no real harm is done? (I think
I'm getting this right. Someone please correct me if I'm not)I think he's meaning
that, based on that ruling, if he had a vampire with 0 blood, he could cycle a lot
of FA cards without losing the blood.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm on the side that believed WWEF to be in need of
change.

p.


Derek S. Ray

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:47:30 -0600, Patrick Harris
<alp...@alpinetaxi.com> wrote:

>Isn't there a ruling concerning vamps with 0 blood failing to block with Forced
>Awakening: they fail to burn the blood as well and no real harm is done? (I think
>I'm getting this right. Someone please correct me if I'm not)I think he's meaning
>that, based on that ruling, if he had a vampire with 0 blood, he could cycle a lot
>of FA cards without losing the blood.

A vampire may not play multiples of the same Reaction card on the same
action. So if he has one vampire with 0 blood, he can cycle one FA
per action taken by another Methuselah as long as he fails to block -
if he successfully blocks he's probably going to get bunged into
torpor. ;) Much easier (and safer) to cycle cards off of multiple
vampires on your predator's first action - since you probably have 3
or 4 vampires out, you can toss 3 or 4 Wakes per action. If you did
this with FA, EACH vampire would burn a blood or be at zero - not an
acceptable solution, IMO.

Patrick Harris

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99