Rules Team Rulings: 1/12/96
Thomas R Wylie
GENERAL RULINGS
1) Inner Circle members are not able to play V:TES cards that require a
Justicar and/or Prince to play. Expansion cards playable by Inner Circle
members will say specifically that IC members can play them.
2) Cards that require you to choose a "set" of Methuselahs, such as Rumors of
Gehenna, require that you choose at least one player.
3) Though this is not clear in the rulebook, only one Blood Hunt vote can be
called each time a vampire successfully commits diablerie.
REVERSALS
None detected.
ERRATA TO CARDS AND RULES
1) The V:TES version of Hector Sosa has inferior Potence. This should be
superior Potence.
2) When Shackles of Enkidu is used, control of it stays with the player who
controlled the minion using it. (Think of the Shackles as a master card played
by a minion rather than by the Methuselah, at least with respect to control.)
3) The action to burn Triole's Revenge should be a directed action, and the
player who played the Revenge is always its controller.
4) Rotschreck should be read as follows: "Play on a vampire that attempts to
inflict aggravated damage. Combat ends, and that vampire goes into torpor.
During the vampire's controller's next untap phase, burn this card instead of
untapping the vampire."
5) The equipment locations from Dark Sovereigns, such as Palatial Estate, do
not count as equipment while they are in play.
6) Javier Montoya should say "blood", not "pool".
7) Thoughts Betrayed just prevents the opposing vampire from playing cards, not
from using cards already in play.
8) The following actions should be directed: Sensory Deprivation, basic
Shepherd's Innocence, and Trick of Danya.
CARD RULINGS
1) If a vampire is sent to the uncontrolled region by an effect like
Banishment, any minion cards on the vampire become uncontrolled, just like the
vampire itself. This means that they do not count for contention, and cannot be
affected by cards such as Arson or Cryptic Mission. If the vampire comes back
into play, these minion cards come back into play as well.
Master cards played on a vampire sent to the uncontrolled region are still
controlled by the Methuselah who presently control them, so they could become
contested.
2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the Choose
Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For example, playing
them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes already played.
3) Stefano Giovanni can only burn 1 blood for one vote once during each
political action.
4) The Jyhad versions of Laptop Computer, Tasha Morgan, and so on optionally
apply at all times, so they could count for cards like Justicar Retribution.
The new versions only count during a bleed action.
5) When the Rack falls out of contention, you do not get to point it at a
new/different vampire.
6) Horrid Reality only pulls weapons out of the library.
7) Vampires sent to the uncontrolled region by Banishment only remember two
things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them. Any other
effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title), are removed.
Additionally, the passive effects of a Banished vampire's cards are still in
effect while the vampire is uncontrolled, but active effects may not be used.
So a Discipline card on such a vampire would still be in effect, but a Blood
Doll could not be used.
8) If you get control of an equipment location (such as Palatial Estate), you
choose which minion gets it when you get control of the location. For example,
if the Estate was selected for Disputed Territory, you would not choose who
would get it unless/until the vote actually passed. If you have no minions when
you get control of the equipment location, the location is burned.
9) Black Cat will not reduce the cost of playing an equipment location, as the
cost is in blood rather than pool. Ravnos Cache can pay for an equipment
location, since it doesn't care about the nature of the cost it's paying for.
10) Tereza Rostas must pay 2 blood when attempting to steal the Edge regardless
of whether the attempt is successful. Note that this breaks the usual rule
about paying the costs of an action.
11) Spiritual Protector does not prohibit retainers from using weapons against
its employer.
12) Legacy of Power may end a combat where the opposing minion is an ally. In
this case, your vampire goes into torpor, and the ally is unaffected.
13) Non-Camarilla vampires still suffer the effects of blocking a vampire who
is an Archon or Camarilla Exemplary, even though they may become neither.
14) Using Vial of Garou Blood counts as your one source of additional strikes
for each round, so it may not be used if you've already acquired additional
strikes this round and prohibits you from playing any further additional strike
cards for the rest of the combat.
15) The strike provided by superior Veiled Sight may only be played once during
the combat.
16) Disguised Weapon may be played even if you have no weapons in your hand,
but in this case, it would have no effect (even if you draw a weapon to
replace DW).
17) The action to burn The Treatment is not directed, as the card says.
18) Yes, Regina Giovanni really can reduce the pool cost of employing a
retainer (such as the cost of Ghoul Retainer).
L. Scott Johnson
>Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>: CARD RULINGS
>: 2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the Choose
>: Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For example, playing
>: them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes already played.
>Must one now declare at the time of strike declaration, or is it still
>legal to wait until the other vampire has decided not to dodge (if you
>are the acting vampire) and _then_ declare Claws?
Still Legal - the question that produced this ruling was: can I prevent
damage (w/ Skin of Rock, e.g.), and thne - having drawn a Claws to replace
the played Skin card - could I play Claws? The answer is 'no' to avoid
some possible timing issues.
>: 4) The Jyhad versions of Laptop Computer, Tasha Morgan, and so on optionally
>: apply at all times, so they could count for cards like Justicar Retribution.
>: The new versions only count during a bleed action.
>'optionally apply at all times'? What the heck does that mean?
>IIRC, there was a ruling that _all_ equipment was optional, _all the
>time_ for Jyhad. Has this ruling been rescinded in favour of
>incorporating it into VTES, or is this ruling still supposed to apply?
Optionally applied at all times is the same as always optional.
>: 7) Vampires sent to the uncontrolled region by Banishment only remember two
>: things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them. Any other
>: effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title), are removed.
>Is the gaining of a title remembered?
No. No card is in play granting the title.
>What about permanent effects which _point_ at the vampire, but which are
>never actually played on the vampire, such as Gangrel De-evolution,
>The Rack and Blood Bond?
Gangrel De-Evolution is not a card in play, so its effect would cease.
I think Blood Bond is the same way.
The Rack is a card in play, so its effect would continue once the vampire
re-entered the active region.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
Shane Travis
: GENERAL RULINGS
: 2) Cards that require you to choose a "set" of Methuselahs, such as Rumors of
: Gehenna, require that you choose at least one player.
Then it ain't a _set_, is it?
Not surprising that they would rule this way, however; there is
_supposed_ to be a general paradigm in this game that one cannot play a
card for no effect. (See the Disguised Weapon ruling below, however...)
: ERRATA TO CARDS AND RULES
: 5) The equipment locations from Dark Sovereigns, such as Palatial Estate, do
: not count as equipment while they are in play.
...and a cheer went up from the crowd...
Just to clarify this, however; (correct me if I'm wrong)
They _can_ be fished out by Vast Wealth or Magic of the Smith.
They can no longer be the target of any 'steal/destroy equipment' cards.
They cannot be transferred to another vampire by that vampire taking an
action, since it is no longer considered equipment.
A vampire performing Diablerie on a vampire equipped with an Estate will
no longer get the Estate, as they only get blood and equipment.
It can no longer be transferred using Heidleburg Castle.
: CARD RULINGS
: 2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the Choose
: Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For example, playing
: them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes already played.
Must one now declare at the time of strike declaration, or is it still
legal to wait until the other vampire has decided not to dodge (if you
are the acting vampire) and _then_ declare Claws?
: 4) The Jyhad versions of Laptop Computer, Tasha Morgan, and so on optionally
: apply at all times, so they could count for cards like Justicar Retribution.
: The new versions only count during a bleed action.
'optionally apply at all times'? What the heck does that mean?
IIRC, there was a ruling that _all_ equipment was optional, _all the
time_ for Jyhad. Has this ruling been rescinded in favour of
incorporating it into VTES, or is this ruling still supposed to apply?
: 7) Vampires sent to the uncontrolled region by Banishment only remember two
: things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them. Any other
: effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title), are removed.
Is the gaining of a title remembered?
What about permanent effects which _point_ at the vampire, but which are
never actually played on the vampire, such as Gangrel De-evolution,
The Rack and Blood Bond?
: 10) Tereza Rostas must pay 2 blood when attempting to steal the Edge regardless
: of whether the attempt is successful. Note that this breaks the usual rule
: about paying the costs of an action.
Wow. Does that ever make her _pathetic_ then...
: 14) Using Vial of Garou Blood counts as your one source of additional strikes
: for each round, so it may not be used if you've already acquired additional
: strikes this round and prohibits you from playing any further additional strike
: cards for the rest of the combat.
Glad to see this one.
: 16) Disguised Weapon may be played even if you have no weapons in your hand,
: but in this case, it would have no effect (even if you draw a weapon to
: replace DW).
PARDON me? Where is this coming from? The Jyhad version of the card
clearly states:
Disguised Weapon Combat Obfuscate
Normal: Equip this vampire with a weapon card from your hand. Only usable
at the beginning of a round. Pay weapon's cost from blood pool
as normal.
Where is the loophole in this which allows it to be played _without_
equipping the vampire with a weapon? (Unless it is in the VTES wording,
I _cannot_ understand this ruling...)
Shane H.W. Travis | Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the
tra...@duke.usask.ca | choice between changing one's mind and proving
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | that there is no need to do so, almost everybody
| gets busy on the proof.
Biomech8
Wylie) writes:
>1) Inner Circle members are not able to play V:TES cards that require a
Justicar >and/or Prince to play. Expansion cards playable by Inner Circle
members will say >specifically that IC members can play them.
What about cards that do not effect a Prince/Justicar... can you
call a bloodhunt on an IC member???
>2) When Shackles of Enkidu is used, control of it stays with the player
who >controlled the minion using it. (Think of the Shackles as a master
card played by a >minion rather than by the Methuselah, at least with
respect to control.)
Off the topic... but is Enkidu the Enkidu who was the companion of
Gilgamesh???
>2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the
Choose >Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For
example, playing
>them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes already played.
Is this acceptable: Gangrel says "I use hand damage". Victem says "I
use hand damage". Gangrel says "before we take damage I make mine
aggravated" ? If not... Badger has a slight disagreement with the Rules
Team... :-) ~Biomechanoid
James Puzzo
: In article <4d9hmu$p...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
: Wylie) writes:
: >1) Inner Circle members are not able to play V:TES cards that require a
: Justicar >and/or Prince to play. Expansion cards playable by Inner Circle
: members will say >specifically that IC members can play them.
: What about cards that do not effect a Prince/Justicar... can you
: call a bloodhunt on an IC member???
The ruling isn't about targets, it is about those that require a prince or
justicar to play them. Certainly you could call a bloodhunt on an IC member.
Then again, perhaps I just didn't understand your question about the ruling...
-James
Thomas R Wylie
Alan Eisinger <eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu> wrote:
>>6) Horrid Reality only pulls weapons out of the library.
>Which of these is supposed to be news?
Neither is really news; it's correccting the use of "equipment" in the
first sentence.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
L. Scott Johnson
>4) The Jyhad versions of Laptop Computer, Tasha Morgan, and so on optionally
>apply at all times, so they could count for cards like Justicar Retribution.
>The new versions only count during a bleed action.
While equipment is always optional, retainers are never optional (I couldn't
make this stuff up!). Tasha (Jyhad text) would always count for Retribution.
Or are we finally going to retainers are optional as well?
L. Scott Johnson
>choose which minion gets it when you get control of the location. For example,
>if the Estate was selected for Disputed Territory, you would not choose who
>would get it unless/until the vote actually passed. If you have no minions when
>you get control of the equipment location, the location is burned.
Does the new target have to be Ready, or can you choose a vampire in torpor
to whom to give the location?
>17) The action to burn The Treatment is not directed, as the card says.
You can burn a card that another Methuselah controls with an undirected action?
Good thinking.
Thomas R Wylie
Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>: 5) The equipment locations from Dark Sovereigns, such as Palatial Estate, do
>: not count as equipment while they are in play.
>They _can_ be fished out by Vast Wealth or Magic of the Smith.
>They can no longer be the target of any 'steal/destroy equipment' cards.
>They cannot be transferred to another vampire by that vampire taking an
> action, since it is no longer considered equipment.
>A vampire performing Diablerie on a vampire equipped with an Estate will
> no longer get the Estate, as they only get blood and equipment.
>It can no longer be transferred using Heidleburg Castle.
All correct.
>: 2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the
>: Choose Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For
>: example, playing them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes
>: already played.
>Must one now declare at the time of strike declaration, or is it still
>legal to wait until the other vampire has decided not to dodge (if you
>are the acting vampire) and _then_ declare Claws?
You still get to wait to find out whether the blocking minion dodges, since
they decide before the end of the Choose Strikes phase.
>: 4) The Jyhad versions of Laptop Computer, Tasha Morgan, and so on optionally
>: apply at all times, so they could count for cards like Justicar Retribution.
>: The new versions only count during a bleed action.
>'optionally apply at all times'? What the heck does that mean?
>IIRC, there was a ruling that _all_ equipment was optional, _all the
>time_ for Jyhad. Has this ruling been rescinded in favour of
>incorporating it into VTES, or is this ruling still supposed to apply?
The point is that the VTES versions say they only apply (optionally) during
a bleed action. The Jyhad versions don't say this, so if you're playing
them as written, you can count the modifier at any time, if you wish.
>: 7) Vampires sent to the uncontrolled region by Banishment only remember two
>: things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them. Any
>: other effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title), are
>: removed.
>Is the gaining of a title remembered?
Yes.
>What about permanent effects which _point_ at the vampire, but which are
>never actually played on the vampire, such as Gangrel De-evolution,
>The Rack and Blood Bond?
The gangrel hoser is definitely wiped, since it's just a permanent change
to the Gangrel. The Rack is an interesting question, which I don't remember
us discussing. The Blood Bond answer is probably the same as the Rack answer
(which is unknown, at least to me).
>: 16) Disguised Weapon may be played even if you have no weapons in your hand,
>: but in this case, it would have no effect (even if you draw a weapon to
>: replace DW).
>PARDON me? Where is this coming from? The Jyhad version of the card
>clearly states:
>
>Disguised Weapon Combat Obfuscate
> Normal: Equip this vampire with a weapon card from your hand. Only usable
> at the beginning of a round. Pay weapon's cost from blood pool
> as normal.
>
>Where is the loophole in this which allows it to be played _without_
>equipping the vampire with a weapon? (Unless it is in the VTES wording,
>I _cannot_ understand this ruling...)
It's the general rule about being able to play cards and effects uselessly.
L. Scott Johnson
>>: 7) Vampires sent to the uncontrolled region by Banishment only remember two
>>: things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them. Any
>>: other effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title), are
>>: removed.
>Yes.
Why? This is not one of the two things you say they remember - titles
gained are gained in the same manner that titles are lost - by a vote.
The vote card is no longer in play (tho most groups leave it on the
table as a reminder)
Why is gaining a title an exception to your rule, but losing one is not?
>The gangrel hoser is definitely wiped, since it's just a permanent change
>to the Gangrel. The Rack is an interesting question, which I don't remember
>us discussing. The Blood Bond answer is probably the same as the Rack answer
>(which is unknown, at least to me).
You have already stated that the Blood Bond effect will cease when the
targetted vampire leaves play. Since Blood Bond is not one of the two
things remembered (it is not a card in play) - its effect should cease
in this case as well.
<You can play Disguised Weapon with no weapon>
>It's the general rule about being able to play cards and effects uselessly.
Like untapping with +2 intercept when you're already untapped?
Thomas R Wylie
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>>4) The Jyhad versions of Laptop Computer, Tasha Morgan, and so on optionally
>>apply at all times, so they could count for cards like Justicar Retribution.
>>The new versions only count during a bleed action.
>make this stuff up!). Tasha (Jyhad text) would always count for Retribution.
>Or are we finally going to retainers are optional as well?
No; Tasha should not have been used as an example in the ruling. I just
threw in the first couple of +bleed permanents I thought of.
Thomas R Wylie
>>...If you have no minions when
>>you get control of the equipment location, the location is burned.
>to whom to give the location?
You can choose a vampire in torpor.
>>17) The action to burn The Treatment is not directed, as the card says.
>You can burn a card that another Methuselah controls with an undirected action?
In certain cases, yes.
Biomech8
Wylie) writes:
>>: 7) Vampires sent to the uncontrolled region by Banishment only
remember
>two
>>: things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them.
Any
>>: other effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title),
are
>>: removed.
>>Is the gaining of a title remembered?
>
>Yes.
Doesn't that constitute a permanent effect? What about patagia and other
cards?
Thomas R Wylie
>>>: things: how much blood they have and which cards are played on them. Any
>>>: other effects, including permanent ones (such as the loss of a title), are
>>>: removed.
>>Yes.
>gained are gained in the same manner that titles are lost - by a vote.
>The vote card is no longer in play (tho most groups leave it on the
>table as a reminder)
Whurps. I was thinking the card really was put into play, and (stupidly)
only checked Of Noble Blood to "verify" that. A title will only be retained
if it is provided by a card that is (actually) left on the vampire.
>>The gangrel hoser is definitely wiped, since it's just a permanent change
>>to the Gangrel. The Rack is an interesting question, which I don't remember
>>us discussing. The Blood Bond answer is probably the same as the Rack answer
>>(which is unknown, at least to me).
>You have already stated that the Blood Bond effect will cease when the
>targetted vampire leaves play. Since Blood Bond is not one of the two
>things remembered (it is not a card in play) - its effect should cease
>in this case as well.
Well, I said that back when the only way for a vampire to leave play was
to burn it. What's actually true in that case is that the effect doesn't
end... it's just totally irrelevant. It's not clear whether it should remain
in effect for a Banished vampire, which is often going to come back without
requiring a special card.
><You can play Disguised Weapon with no weapon>
>>It's the general rule about being able to play cards and effects uselessly.
>Like untapping with +2 intercept when you're already untapped?
Whether you think Domain should be written this way or not, the VTES version
says it can only be used by a tapped Prince or Justicar, and the Jyhad
version should be read this way as well. There's a difference between
doing something uselessly, and being flatly prohibited from doing something.
Thomas R Wylie
Biomech8 <biom...@aol.com> wrote:
>>1) Inner Circle members are not able to play V:TES cards that require a
>Justicar >and/or Prince to play. Expansion cards playable by Inner Circle
>members will say >specifically that IC members can play them.
>call a bloodhunt on an IC member???
Those probably should get errata to not affect IC members, but I'll have to
verify that with the rules team.
>>2) When Shackles of Enkidu is used, control of it stays with the player
>who >controlled the minion using it. (Think of the Shackles as a master
>card played by a >minion rather than by the Methuselah, at least with
>respect to control.)
> Off the topic... but is Enkidu the Enkidu who was the companion of
>Gilgamesh???
According to Paul Peterson, the WoD material doesn't say anything about
this in the material on Enkidu, but it would be a logical conclusion.
>>2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the
>Choose >Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For
>example, playing
>>them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes already played.
> Is this acceptable: Gangrel says "I use hand damage". Victem says "I
>use hand damage". Gangrel says "before we take damage I make mine
>aggravated" ?...
Yes, precisely. And the victim could then make her damage aggravated :)
James R. McClure Jr.
Peace Thomas,
I'll say it for Scott, incase he wouldn't. So, you just changed the card
text to agree with your broken ruling, so what. Jyhad has a "you can't
play a card uselessly" paradigm, why are you ruling that more and more
cards now break that paradigm? Hand jams are a good thing. Avoiding
them requires long thought during deck construction. Allowing more and
more cards to become "free discards" dumbs down the game.
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
refp...@best.com
In Article<4dlpr0$6...@hermes.louisville.edu>, <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> write:
> Path: shellx.best.com!news1.best.com!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!hermes.louisville.edu!news
> From: "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
> Subject: Re: Rules Team Rulings: 1/12/96
> Date: 18 Jan 1996 15:43:28 GMT
> Organization: University of Louisville
> Lines: 28
> Message-ID: <4dlpr0$6...@hermes.louisville.edu>
> References: <4d9hmu$p...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <4da0p8$a...@tribune.usask.ca> <4dd6pf$j...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <4ddibh$1...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> <4dgqqa$c...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: jmcclure.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit)
Wakes and Rats warning can be played uselessly.
REF
L. Scott Johnson
>Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>: Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>: >: 2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the
>: >: Choose Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For
>: >: example, playing them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes
>: >: already played.
>: >Must one now declare at the time of strike declaration, or is it still
>: >legal to wait until the other vampire has decided not to dodge (if you
>: >are the acting vampire) and _then_ declare Claws?
>: You still get to wait to find out whether the blocking minion dodges, since
>: they decide before the end of the Choose Strikes phase.
>Does this mean there is no way I can use dodge to get away from
>Wolf Claws? If so, that's depressing.
Of course you can use Dodge, you simply have to choose 'Dodge' as your strike
when the time comes to choose a strike. If you don't dodge a vampire
with protean making a hand strike against you, you can expect to get clawed.
Jesse Chounard
: Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
: >: 2) Wolf Claws, and related cards, must be played before the end of the
: >: Choose Strike phase if they are to count for the current strike. For
: >: example, playing them during the Check Damage phase won't affect strikes
: >: already played.
: >Must one now declare at the time of strike declaration, or is it still
: >legal to wait until the other vampire has decided not to dodge (if you
: >are the acting vampire) and _then_ declare Claws?
: You still get to wait to find out whether the blocking minion dodges, since
: they decide before the end of the Choose Strikes phase.
Does this mean there is no way I can use dodge to get away from
Wolf Claws? If so, that's depressing.
jjc
Petri Wessman
...
Tom> 10) Tereza Rostas must pay 2 blood when attempting to steal the
Tom> Edge regardless of whether the attempt is successful. Note that
Tom> this breaks the usual rule about paying the costs of an action.
Why, oh why, make a special ruling that makes her ability practically
useless?
Tom> 18) Yes, Regina Giovanni really can reduce the pool cost of employing a
Tom> retainer (such as the cost of Ghoul Retainer).
But what about retainers that are paid from the vampire's own blood
(the Zombie, most importantly)? If Regina's ability doesn't lower
their cost then it's also practically useless (wow, I can get a cheap
Ghoul Retainer. Big deal). The Giovanni clan retainers (Zombies) are
the ones that Regina's ability would really be useful on. So what's
the official ruling, dead the reduction also apply to blood paid by
the vampire?
Both of the above vampires are expensive, diluting their intrinsic
abilities just makes them wallpaper IMHO.
//Petri
Wallpaper Paste
>to the Gangrel. The Rack is an interesting question, which I don't remember
>us discussing. The Blood Bond answer is probably the same as the Rack answer
>(which is unknown, at least to me).
Just a bit of input on the question of the rack. My
interpretation of the wording on the card (Name a vampire),
which is shared by the group I play with, is that, since the
rack is a location controlled by the methuselah, it will stay
in play, affecting the same vampire until stolen or burned, no
matter what happens to the vampire. Thus, if the vampire it
benefits is burned (by diablerie, or whatever) and then brought
out again from the crypt, then the rack would continue to
benefit that vampire. I would think that this concept would
apply to the banishment issue, as well.
-Wallpaper Paste
for all those useless cards
refp...@best.com
> refp...@best.com writes:
> [47-line re-quoted text deleted]
>
> >Wakes and Rats warning can be played uselessly.
>
> vampire, and only tapped vampires may play it. It is a measurable effect.>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
But you don't have to block with the now untapped vampire.
Seems like a very similar effect to me.
And that still leaves wakes.
REF
L. Scott Johnson
[47-line re-quoted text deleted]
>Wakes and Rats warning can be played uselessly.
Rat's warning may not be played uselessly. You must untap the playing
vampire, and only tapped vampires may play it. It is a measurable effect.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
DOUGDWISE
of making cards exempt from the "no useless play discards" (which is a
great rule) in order to avoid fixing broken card text is hurting the game.
If we wanted to play M:the$ we could. If I can simply clear my hand jams
as soon as they occur without any preparation or forethought I need never
use a Fragment of the Book of Nod. Jyhad is the best card
game ever and V:TES is still awexome but please, Tom: Stop making
exceptions for bad card text.
Thomas R Wylie
Wallpaper Paste <dc...@darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>Just a bit of input on the question of the rack. My
>interpretation of the wording on the card (Name a vampire),
>which is shared by the group I play with, is that, since the
>rack is a location controlled by the methuselah, it will stay
>in play, affecting the same vampire until stolen or burned, no
>matter what happens to the vampire. Thus, if the vampire it
>benefits is burned (by diablerie, or whatever) and then brought
>out again from the crypt, then the rack would continue to
>benefit that vampire. I would think that this concept would
>apply to the banishment issue, as well.
Burning the vampire will definitely snap the benefits of the Rack, even
if another vampire of the same name comes into play. If the chosen vampire
becomes contested, and the new copy wins out, the Rack's effect will also end.
The Rack effectively chooses a card, not a meta-name.
Thomas R Wylie
James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:
>...Jyhad has a "you can't
>play a card uselessly" paradigm, why are you ruling that more and more
>cards now break that paradigm? Hand jams are a good thing. Avoiding
>them requires long thought during deck construction. Allowing more and
>more cards to become "free discards" dumbs down the game.
You have that paradigm backwards: you can play a card useleslly, unless
the rules or the card stop you from doing so. It so happens that many
of the standard mechanicsms, such as stealth and maneuvers, only allow
you to use those mechanisms usefully. But random abilities, such as
Anarch Troublemaker or Disguised Weapon, don't care whether you can use
their ability successfully; you can still use them.
The standard use of "dumbing down" a game means to *reduce* the options
available, so I don't think your comment on that applies here.
L. Scott Johnson
>>You can burn a card that another Methuselah controls with an undirected
>>action?
>
>In certain cases, yes.
Sorry, but the rulebook disagrees with that:
6.3.1. Directed and Nondirected Actions
Directed Actions: These are actions that directly affect another
Methuselah, one of her minions, or a card a Methuselah controls.
This is a part of game terminology, not a rule (card text does not
alter game terminology - except in the 'Oh, yeah' ruling on Legendary
Vampire, which should have been fixed with errata rather than
terminology re-definition). Since The Treatment is controlled by
another Methuselah, burning it is a directed action.
<6.3.1 continues>
Cards that involve directed actions have a "D" in the card text.
This you have taken to be a rule, which it isn't. But since it is, you
should use errata to place the (D) symbol on The Treatment's burn action,
since that action is, by definition, directed.
L. Scott Johnson
>>Allowing more and more cards to become "free discards" dumbs down the game.
>
>available, so I don't think your comment on that applies here.
The standard use of dumbing down has little to do with the number of options.
It has to do with reducing the skill/strategy required to do well.
By allowing cards to be played uselessly - even when card text is against
such use (Disguised Weapon) is a bad thing. ("Hah! my cane is actually...
thin air!")
In an unrelated note, preventing a card from being used for a real, useful
effect even when card text allows such use (original Domain) is also a
bad thing.
I can disguise thin air, but I can't police my domain as effectively if
I remain on guard (not running around the city spreading rumors) with
a raven spy than if I have no raven spy and spend my time less vigilantly.
Not only do you break the paradigm (by printing new text to support the
bad ruling, or by simply making a new bad ruling), but you do so in the
face of game-world logic.
--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text
Eric Pettersen
-->...Jyhad has a "you can't play a card uselessly" paradigm, why are you
-->ruling that more and more cards now break that paradigm? Hand jams
-->are a good thing. Avoiding them requires long thought during deck
-->construction. Allowing more and more cards to become "free discards"
-->dumbs down the game.
->
-> You have that paradigm backwards: you can play a card useleslly, unless
-> the rules or the card stop you from doing so. It so happens that many
-> of the standard mechanicsms, such as stealth and maneuvers, only allow
-> you to use those mechanisms usefully. But random abilities, such as
-> Anarch Troublemaker or Disguised Weapon, don't care whether you can use
-> their ability successfully; you can still use them.
->
-> The standard use of "dumbing down" a game means to *reduce* the options
-> available, so I don't think your comment on that applies here.
Aside from the fact that using a card to zero effect also usually makes
zero sense from a backstory point of view, it *does* dumb down the game
as well. Allowing "free discards" like this during play adds little to
the decision making process since it is typically obvious when a card is
clogging your hand, given what your prey and predator decks are like.
Allowing these free discards takes away _a lot_ of the decision making
process during _deck construction_. One of the primary considerations
during deck construction is potential hand jam, and making a card freely
discardable (i.e. usable to no effect) considerably reduces the thought
necessary to including it in your deck. It also reduces the necessary
consideration of the tradeoffs of including cards such as The Barrens and
Fragment of the Book of Nod. It dumbs down the game and adds nothing
worthwhile.
---
Eric Pettersen
pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)
Gary Schwartz
writes:
>Aside from the fact that using a card to zero effect also usually makes
>zero sense from a backstory point of view, it *does* dumb down the game
>as well. Allowing "free discards" like this during play adds little to
>the decision making process since it is typically obvious when a card is
>clogging your hand, given what your prey and predator decks are like.
>Allowing these free discards takes away _a lot_ of the decision making
>process during _deck construction_. One of the primary considerations
>during deck construction is potential hand jam, and making a card freely
>discardable (i.e. usable to no effect) considerably reduces the thought
>necessary to including it in your deck. It also reduces the necessary
>consideration of the tradeoffs of including cards such as The Barrens and
>Fragment of the Book of Nod. It dumbs down the game and adds nothing
>worthwhile.
>---
> Eric Pettersen
> pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)
What about playing tons of unnecessary votes on a political action
which you know will pass? Is that considered playing useless cards.
As far as I'm concerned, if the rules or card text tell you that
you can play a card, then you can play it, whether or not it will
have any effect.
Gary S.