What happened to Wake?
Eric Topp
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
>
> "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
<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
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
>>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
> >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.
>
> 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
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.
>
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
<hairy...@yahooyahoo.com> writes
>Why not "don't replace if block is unsuccessful"? No need to make the card
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
>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
>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
>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
>>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
<eric...@interact.net.au> writes
>
>>So Aggressive Tactics is a game breaker, in your estimation, eh?
>>
>
>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
<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
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
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
>>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
<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
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
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.
>>
>
>
>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?
>
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
> >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
>
> >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.
> >
>
> 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
<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
<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
> > "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.
> > card."
> >
>
> 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
> 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
Really? You sure fooled me.
Noal
--
"The time for action is past! Now is the time for senseless bickering!"
-Ashleigh Brilliant
Sorrow
> 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
> 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
>> 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
> >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
>
> 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
>
> For example,
>
>
> * 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
While I agree in general with you, I don't know if that's a good change, and
if it suffices.
Carl