Investing in a Grapple
Churchy La Femme
'Investment'. I hear that a Consanguineous Boon is also a 'Boon', what
sense does this make?
Hardy Range
For questions about the sense of this, I will refer you to LSJ. :-)
But first, to avoid any misunderstandigs:
Because of card text. These special terms have nothing to do with the
_title_ of the card.
But, checking the card texts, I find that Mighty Grapple is not a
Grapple card at all (according to the current online text). LSJ - is
that correct?
Hardy Range
LSJ
No. See Disengage and Immense Size.
I'll update MG's card text as well.
firstco...@aol.com
First, let me say that Consanguineous Boon is not a boon.
Second, how did you mean your question?
If you mean technically, like "Dear Judge: Why is Mighty Grapple
considered a Grapple but Ventrue Investment isn't an investment," then
the answer is "because card names don't count." You wouldn't want
Ventrue Investment to count as a _Ventrue_, would you?
If you mean, "How come Ventrue Investment doesn't have Investment
written on it?", then the answer is probably "because it hasn't been
reprinted yet." I wouldn't be surprised if it gets reprinted later
with "Investment" written on it, but it hasn't really fit into any set
since SW yet.
If you mean storyline-wise, then I can offer this: Consanguineous
Boon, IMO, isn't a "boon" like the others are, because the others are
favors that vampires only do so that you owe them. Consanguineous Boon
doesn't need to be paid back, so it's not that kind of boon.
Ventrue Investment (from the picture on the card) isn't a bunch of
stockbrokers trading monies like the other ones represent, it's only
called "investment" as a euphemism for "way to store people for eating
when times get tough".
And Mighty Grapple, of course, is a Grapple because duh, you grab them.
Does that answer your question, or does it still seem arbitrary?
-- Brian
jnew...@difsol.com
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> Churchy La Femme wrote:
> > Why is a Mighty Grapple a 'Grapple', but a Ventrue Investment is not an
> > 'Investment'. I hear that a Consanguineous Boon is also a 'Boon', what
> > sense does this make?
>
> First, let me say that Consanguineous Boon is not a boon.
Consanguineous Boon [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, Sabbat:C, SW:PL/PV3, FN:PG/PS,
CE:PTo3/PV2, BH:PTo4, LoB:PG2]
Cardtype: Political Action
Political Card -- Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.
{Boon.}
John
antero
Hardy Range
antero wrote:
> So with a certain Gehenna event Con Boons are hosed too?
No.
The card text was specifically worded to avoid exactly that.
Blood Trade, Event, R , [G]
Gehenna. Burn all boons in play. No more boons may be put in play.
During each Methuselah`s untap phase, that Methuselah may move a blood
from a vampire he or she controls to a vampire controlled by another
Methuselah.
Consanguineous Boon is not "put in play", so is not affected.
Hardy Range
Mr_Wyrm (AKA Pentex)
Name: Blood Trade
Cardtype: Event
Gehenna.
Burn all boons in play.
No more boons may be put in play.
During each Methuselah's untap phase, that Methuselah may move a blood
from a vampire he or she controls to a vampire controlled by another
Methuselah.
after read that CB its a boon, i think that the ventrue investment
question its a vtes joke...well, its does not wreck any deck that VI
its not a investment card or yes?
enjoy!!!
Jozxyqk
> So with a certain Gehenna event Con Boons are hosed too?
No, because Con Boon isn't "put into play". It still works just fine.
firstco...@aol.com
>
> Consanguineous Boon [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, Sabbat:C, SW:PL/PV3, FN:PG/PS,
> CE:PTo3/PV2, BH:PTo4, LoB:PG2]
> Cardtype: Political Action
>
> Political Card -- Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.
> {Boon.}
Um...oh.
This doesn't affect the card in any way, does it?
Anyone know where I would find a full list of cards changed in LoB?
Also, is there still a list of "all cards with errata" (which doesn't
list card-text migrations), or would I have to scroll through all 2000
cards on the WW list to find them?
-- Brian
LSJ
> > {Boon.}
>
> Um...oh.
> This doesn't affect the card in any way, does it?
Not currently.
> Anyone know where I would find a full list of cards changed in LoB?
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Checklist_LegaciesOfBlood
Under "Card Changes".
With LoB, some cards are now identified as "title" cards, too.
That list should be pretty obvious.
> Also, is there still a list of "all cards with errata" (which doesn't
> list card-text migrations), or would I have to scroll through all 2000
> cards on the WW list to find them?
Use the .csv (or plain text file, if you like) and filter for three
curly braces: "{{{"
bernard....@gmail.com
Gehenna came out and got exactly the same answer.
We don't have to like it but unfortunately we do have to live with it.
I still maintain, however, that given that the card list CSV has {Boon}
written on it that CB is a boon. I do not prevent it from being played
after Blood Trade
Omael
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> > > First, let me say that Consanguineous Boon is not a boon.
> >
> > Consanguineous Boon [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, Sabbat:C, SW:PL/PV3, FN:PG/PS,
> > CE:PTo3/PV2, BH:PTo4, LoB:PG2]
> > Cardtype: Political Action
> >
> > Political Card -- Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth.
> > {Boon.}
>
> Um...oh.
>
> This doesn't affect the card in any way, does it?
>
a little, an alan sovereign/!ventrues deck would be nice to play.
Churchy La Femme
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> Churchy La Femme wrote:
> > Why is a Mighty Grapple a 'Grapple', but a Ventrue Investment is not an
> > 'Investment'. I hear that a Consanguineous Boon is also a 'Boon', what
> > sense does this make?
>
> First, let me say that Consanguineous Boon is not a boon.
Apparently it is
> Second, how did you mean your question?
>
> If you mean technically, like "Dear Judge: Why is Mighty Grapple
> considered a Grapple but Ventrue Investment isn't an investment," then
> the answer is "because card names don't count." You wouldn't want
> Ventrue Investment to count as a _Ventrue_, would you?
I mean it in the obvious way, kind of like your example of why a Mighty
Grapple is a grapple: "And Mighty Grapple, of course, is a Grapple
because duh, you grab them." You want to be cute but that's just
ridiculous.
> If you mean, "How come Ventrue Investment doesn't have Investment
> written on it?", then the answer is probably "because it hasn't been
> reprinted yet." I wouldn't be surprised if it gets reprinted later
> with "Investment" written on it, but it hasn't really fit into any set
> since SW yet.
Mighty Grapple doesn't have grapple written in the text either so I
suppose it is just ruled to be one. So what's up with VI? Do we have
to wait for a reprint or can it just be stated whether it is or isn't
going to be.
> Ventrue Investment (from the picture on the card) isn't a bunch of
> stockbrokers trading monies like the other ones represent, it's only
> called "investment" as a euphemism for "way to store people for eating
> when times get tough".
Secret Horde's art isn't anything like your stockbrocker analogy
either, what is this nonsense. It isn't even spelled correctly after a
reprint.
> Does that answer your question, or does it still seem arbitrary?
Sounds like arbitrary to me
LSJ
> Mighty Grapple doesn't have grapple written in the text either so I
> suppose it is just ruled to be one.
Card text on Disengage and on Immense Size says it is one.
--
That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet.
Keep a little and let a little come back to me.
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Churchy La Femme
LSJ wrote:
> Churchy La Femme wrote:
> > Mighty Grapple doesn't have grapple written in the text either so I
> > suppose it is just ruled to be one.
>
> Card text on Disengage and on Immense Size says it is one.
Oh, good golly sweet Jesus, now I can just look around at all my other
cards and hope I can find one that defines the card I am questioning.
firstco...@aol.com
>
> Apparently it is
My mistake. Oh well, I guess nothing affects it anyway.
> Mighty Grapple doesn't have grapple written in the text either so I
> suppose it is just ruled to be one. So what's up with VI? Do we have
> to wait for a reprint or can it just be stated whether it is or isn't
> going to be.
I have 3 copies of Mighty Grapple from the KMW set, and they all say
"Grapple" on them first thing. Older copies don't have it, but nothing
affected grapples back then so they didn't need it.
VI will be reprinted someday I imagine. I don't see why LSJ would
issue errata when he could just print it right next time--lots of
people don't like errata.
> > Ventrue Investment (from the picture on the card) isn't a bunch of
> > stockbrokers trading monies like the other ones represent, it's only
> > called "investment" as a euphemism for "way to store people for eating
> > when times get tough".
>
> Secret Horde's art isn't anything like your stockbrocker analogy
> either, what is this nonsense. It isn't even spelled correctly after a
> reprint.
Some people think the pun is funny. Maybe they didn't change the name
because it was intentional and people liked the hoard/horde joke.
> > Does that answer your question, or does it still seem arbitrary?
>
> Sounds like arbitrary to me
Sorry to hear that. I like the traits "grapple" and "investment", and
I understand that WW can't reprint all of them tomorrow or "fix"
existing copies. Meanwhile, I get Alan Sovereign and Disengage to
interact in new ways because of these traits, and if they get more
cards to interact with later, all the better. I expect Ventrue
Investment to be reprinted as an "investment" card whenever the next
Sabbat set comes out.
-- Brian
James Coupe
I'm not entirely certain what your point is.
Back when Final Nights was printed, there was no such thing as an ally
"type" - such as mortal, werewolf and so on. So when Abomination was
printed, it listed what it considered to be Werewolves as examples.
Those cards weren't being reprinted at the time, so this was a useful
shortcut. Any future Werewolves were printed as such, and the existing
ones work just fine with the card that needs to know that. And Renegade
Garou and so on were updated to be Werewolves. And lo, no-one blew a
gasket coping with this.
Same thing here. Immense Size and Disengage needed to list what
Grapples were. So they mentioned Mighty Grapple. LSJ has already
indicated - in this thread - that the card text on the website for
Mighty Grapple is being updated by him to match, and this suggests it
was probably an accidental oversight on his part to not do it earlier.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Churchy La Femme
> In message <1133523311....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Churchy La Femme <lordpor...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >LSJ wrote:
> >> Churchy La Femme wrote:
> >> > Mighty Grapple doesn't have grapple written in the text either so I
> >> > suppose it is just ruled to be one.
> >>
> >> Card text on Disengage and on Immense Size says it is one.
> >
> >Oh, good golly sweet Jesus, now I can just look around at all my other
> >cards and hope I can find one that defines the card I am questioning.
>
> I'm not entirely certain what your point is.
Okay
> Back when Final Nights was printed, there was no such thing as an ally
> "type" - such as mortal, werewolf and so on. So when Abomination was
> printed, it listed what it considered to be Werewolves as examples.
So they were ruled as such, got it.
> Those cards weren't being reprinted at the time, so this was a useful
> shortcut. Any future Werewolves were printed as such, and the existing
> ones work just fine with the card that needs to know that. And Renegade
> Garou and so on were updated to be Werewolves. And lo, no-one blew a
> gasket coping with this.
Okay, your point seems to show that certain cards were considered "as
such" when it was necessary for them to be 'as such'.
> Same thing here. Immense Size and Disengage needed to list what
> Grapples were. So they mentioned Mighty Grapple. LSJ has already
> indicated - in this thread - that the card text on the website for
> Mighty Grapple is being updated by him to match, and this suggests it
> was probably an accidental oversight on his part to not do it earlier.
So his (or whoevers) 'accidental oversight' should be acceptable when
Ventrue Investment can be answered (just as acceptably) at this point
in time.
LSJ
> James Coupe wrote:
>>Back when Final Nights was printed, there was no such thing as an ally
>>"type" - such as mortal, werewolf and so on. So when Abomination was
>>printed, it listed what it considered to be Werewolves as examples.
>
> So they were ruled as such, got it.
Card text stating so is different than "they were ruled as such".
>>Those cards weren't being reprinted at the time, so this was a useful
>>shortcut. Any future Werewolves were printed as such, and the existing
>>ones work just fine with the card that needs to know that. And Renegade
>>Garou and so on were updated to be Werewolves. And lo, no-one blew a
>>gasket coping with this.
>
> Okay, your point seems to show that certain cards were considered "as
> such" when it was necessary for them to be 'as such'.
>
>>Same thing here. Immense Size and Disengage needed to list what
>>Grapples were. So they mentioned Mighty Grapple. LSJ has already
>>indicated - in this thread - that the card text on the website for
>>Mighty Grapple is being updated by him to match, and this suggests it
>>was probably an accidental oversight on his part to not do it earlier.
>
> So his (or whoevers) 'accidental oversight' should be acceptable when
> Ventrue Investment can be answered (just as acceptably) at this point
> in time.
Immense Size and Disengage state that Mighty Grapple is of type "grapple".
Which card's text states that Ventrue Investment is of "Investment" type?
Churchy La Femme
LSJ wrote:
> Immense Size and Disengage state that Mighty Grapple is of type "grapple".
>
> Which card's text states that Ventrue Investment is of "Investment" type?
None. So is there any reason for it not to be ruled now, instead of
waiting for a reprint? Yay or nay, what about it.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>
>
>>Immense Size and Disengage state that Mighty Grapple is of type "grapple".
>>
>>Which card's text states that Ventrue Investment is of "Investment" type?
>
>
> None. So is there any reason for it not to be ruled now, instead of
> waiting for a reprint? Yay or nay, what about it.
That is a reason.
--
pd...@lightlink.com
> None. So is there any reason for it not to be ruled now, instead of
> waiting for a reprint? Yay or nay, what about it.
There is a standing objective to limit errata specifically to upgrade
weak cards (as weak cards don't hurt the game--they just get ignored).
So while it might make sense to make Ventrue Investment into an
"investment", until the card gets an actual reprint, there is no real
reason to errata it to be an "investment".
Sure, it would make sense that Ventrue Investment become an
"investment", but untill it actually gets reprinted, it is unlikely to
become one.
-Peter
Churchy La Femme
> > None. So is there any reason for it not to be ruled now, instead of
> > waiting for a reprint? Yay or nay, what about it.
>
> That is a reason.
So wait for the reprint. Whatever, it's your show.
James Coupe
Erm, I believe that's what people have been saying all along.
No card text has been printed that facilitated calling Ventrue
Investement an Investment card. If it gets reprinted, it might well get
it.
Churchy La Femme
> >So wait for the reprint. Whatever, it's your show.
>
> Erm, I believe that's what people have been saying all along.
So I should just conform to what everybody is "saying all along".
Excuse me but it's not like I am asking for some crazy ruling in an
unprecedented situation. Consanguineous Boon was errata'd as a 'boon'
before it was reprinted, there was a whole list of cards put out with
erratta that made them extremely better, or at least more playable,
before any were reprinted. Don't pretend that if Disengage and Immense
Size did not include Mighty Grapple in their text that nobody would
wonder why Mighty Grapple wasn't considered a 'grapple'. Con Boon,
Mighty Grapple and Ventrue Investment have one thing in common: The
nouns of their card titles are now a 'card type'. Why not rule on VI
now instead of waiting for a 'possible' reprint.
pd...@lightlink.com
Churchy La Femme wrote:
> Why not rule on VI
> now instead of waiting for a 'possible' reprint.
'Cause while it certainly might make sense, it isn't really necessary.
And doing so before reprinting the card would add unecessary errata.
I'm pretty certain that the current primary plan for changing cards is
to leave them alone till there is an opportunity to reprint them.
For instance, it would have been nice for Anarch Revolt to have gotten
eratta *long* before it was reprinted.But it didn't. But it did get
changed when it was reprinted. Which is reasonable enough.
Ventrue Investment might very well be best as an "investment", true.
But it isn't an immediate problem for the game that it isn't an
"investment", so there is no pressing need for, like, mergency errata
or something. So it'll likely stay as it is till there is an
opportunity to reprint it.
-Peter
Churchy La Femme
> Churchy La Femme wrote:
> > Why not rule on VI
> > now instead of waiting for a 'possible' reprint.
>
> 'Cause while it certainly might make sense, it isn't really necessary.
> And doing so before reprinting the card would add unecessary errata.
Con Boon wasn't really necessary, as a matter of fact the card that
brought up the question of whether it was a 'boon' or not didn't even
affect it
> I'm pretty certain that the current primary plan for changing cards is
> to leave them alone till there is an opportunity to reprint them.
Con Boon was errata'd when Gehenna came out and wasn't reprinted until
LoB.
> Ventrue Investment might very well be best as an "investment", true.
> But it isn't an immediate problem for the game that it isn't an
> "investment", so there is no pressing need for, like, mergency errata
> or something. So it'll likely stay as it is till there is an
> opportunity to reprint it.
All this also applied to Con Boon only VI has 2 cards that would affect
it if it were an 'investment', whereas CB had zero.
pd...@lightlink.com
> Con Boon was errata'd when Gehenna came out and wasn't reprinted until
> LoB.
Huh. That certainly is mysterious.
-Peter
Robert Scythe
And if it's true than this thread has a more valid point than I thought.