Rules Team Rulings - 23 June 1998

145 views
Skip to first unread message

LSJ

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

(Man I hate Netscape - sorry if you receive this message twice -
the first one was badly munged with many sections duplicated
excessively - I cancelled the newsgroup post, but cannot do the
same for the list server. My apologies).

===================================
Rules Team Rulings for 23 June 1998
===================================

Comments to rulings and errata (for further clarification ot to explain
the reasoning behind a rule) are identified by hash marks. Archivists
may safely delete the lines begining with hash marks to save room, as
necessary.

ERRATA TO THE RULES (OR CHANGES TO ERRATA TO THE RULES):
--------------------------------------------------------

Actions. An action is successful if it is unblocked and uncancelled, even
if it has no other effect. An unblocked bleed of zero or less is an
unsuccessful bleed, but is a successful action. An unblocked political
action is successful even if the referendum fails. The cost, if any,
of an action is paid if the action is successful, regardless of these
other factors.
#
# That is, you still pay for a Govern the Unaligned even if the bleed is
# reduced to zero or less (so long as it isn't blocked).

Blocking. The last step of a successful block vs. a Ready acting minion
is combat. Combat is not delayed until after the block. Thus, Cat's
Guidance would be played after the combat, not before.
#
# This helps straighten out a minor convolution caused by Form of Mist.

Locations: Changing the controller of a location has no other effect,
unless specified by card text. Exception: A location "on" another
controlled card is moved onto an appropriate card controlled by the
new controller of the location.

Contesting Titles: A vampire who cannot pay a blood to contest his title
must yield - he does not have the option of going to torpor (and then
yielding).

Damage Prevention cards: are not restricted to strike resolution.
#
# Combat cards can be played whenever appropriate during combat - and
# any time preventable damage is inflicted is an appropriate time for
# damage prevention.

Diablerie: can only be committed by Ready vampires. Vampires in Torpor
cannot commit Diablerie.
#
# To fix corner-cases presented by Kiss of Ra, Blood Brothers, etc.

GENERAL RULINGS:
----------------

Bleed: A minion's "current bleed" is the amount the minion would be
bleeding for when he announces a bleed action against his Prey.
#
# This affects only Justicar Retribution, but is a general ruling.

Combat cards:
By default, only apply to the round in which they are played. Explicit
card text is needed to overcome this default.
#
# See Blood of Acid, and note the errata returning Immortal Grapple to
# its Jyhad wording.

Weapon Damage: a weapon's "current damage" is the amount of damage that
the weapon would inflict if used as a strike by bearer against a
generic opponent.
#
# This affects Concealed Weapon, Illegal Search and Seizure, and Machine
# Blitz.

Moving cards: The rule against moving a card onto something it cannot
normally be played on is no longer in effect.
#
# It really only served to fix Beast, Leatherface of Detroit. See
# Beast's new card-specific errata. This ruling was reversed because
# it caused problems for other cards (and headaches for rulemongers).

Contesting: All card text on a contested card is ignored - including any
title. Contested vampires do not contest titles.
#
# The vampire will begin contesting his title when he returns to the
# controlled region, if the title is still held by another vampire
# at that time.

Titles can only be held by vampires of the appropriate clan or sect. A
clan Justicar title can only be held by a member of that clan,
Camarilla vampires cannot hold Sabbat titles and vice-versa, etc. If
a titled vampire changes clan or sect inappropriate to his title, he
loses the benefit of the title unless and until he changes his clan or
sect appropriately. If his title is contested while he is a member of
an inappropriate sect, he immediately yields the title.
(Losing capacity is not sufficient to lose the benefit of a title.)

ERRATA TO CARDS:

Antediluvian Awaking:
A player can burn a vampire (to burn the Antediluvian Awaking) only
during her untap phase.

Beast, Leatherface of Detroit:
New card text:
"Beast cannot perform action-card actions or recruit allies. He cannot
have or use equipment or retainers. As a (D) action, Beast can enter
combat with any Ready minion controlled by another Methuselah. +1 hand
damage."

Closed Session:
New card text:
"Only usable during a political action, before any votes are cast.
Non-Camarilla vampires cannot vote during the current political action."
#
# Does not have anything to do with blocking, since it isn't played until
# the referendum.

Deflection:
New card text:
"Only usable when a you are the target of a bleed. Choose another Methuselah.
You cannot choose the acting minion's controller. The acting minion is now
attempting to bleed the chosen Methuselah. The chosen Methuselah may attempt
to block. Tap this reacting vampire.
Superior: As above, but do not tap this vampire."
#
# That is, you cannot deflect to yourself.

Form of Mist:
New card text:
"Superior: Strike: Combat Ends. If this vampire is the acting vampire, this
vampire gets +1 stealth (and this card counts as an action modifier) and the
action continues as if unblocked."

Golconda:
Removes the selected vampire from the game instead of burning him.
#
# A vampire finding Golconda isn't destroyed - he simply has chosen
# not to participate in the Jyhad any further.

Immortal Grapple:
New card text:
"Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,) neither
minion can strike except with hand strikes.
Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the
range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the
Establish Range step for that round."
#
# The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
# duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis.

Kalinda:
New card text:
"As a (D) action, Kalinda may bleed with +1 bleed and +1 stealth. This action
costs 2 blood."
#
# Obvious intent.

Living Manse:
New card text:
"The vampire with this location gets +1 bleed. When the vampire with this
location is in combat, he or she can burn this card before range is
determined to end combat. A vampire may have only one Living Manse."
#
# Ending combat at any arbitrary time during the combat sequence is not
# a good thing.

March Halcyon:
New card text:
"If March is diablerized, no one can call a Blood Hunt against the
diablerizing vampire."
#
# Obvious intent.

Redirection:
New card text:
"Only usable when a you are the target of a bleed by a younger vampire.
Choose another Methuselah. You cannot choose the acting vampire's controller.
The acting vampire is now attempting to bleed the chosen Methuselah. The
chosen Methuselah may attempt to block. Tap this reacting vampire."
Superior: As above, but the acting vampire can be the same age or older."
#
# That is, you cannot redirect to yourself.

Reform Body:
New card text:
"This card can be played as a combat card or a reaction card. Only usable by
a vampire being burned. Not usable by an acting vampire. This vampire goes
to torpor instead of being burned.
Superior: As above, and this vampire gains 2 blood from the blood bank."

Return to Innocence:
Removes the acting vampire from the game instead of burning him.
#
# See explanation for Golconda

Ritual of the Bitter Rose:
New card text:
"This card can be played as a combat card or an action modifier. Each of
your ready vampires gains an amount of blood from the blood bank equal to
the amount of blood on a vampire being burned either by diablerie or while
in combat with this vampire."
#
# The VTES text munged the action-modifier aspect of this card when attempting
# to clarify the Jyhad text. Hopefully the above text is clear and correct.

Rutor's Hand:
A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.

New card text:
"Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the
damage."
#
# Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would have
# cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need for
# a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the
# damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
# prevent non-combat damage" errata.

Second Tradition: Domain, The:
New card text:
"Requires ready Prince or Justicar. +2 intercept. Also usable by a tapped
Prince or Justicar, even if intercept is not yet needed, to untap and attempt
to block with +2 intercept."
#
# Usable by an untapped P/J if he needs intercept, and usable by a
# tapped P/J even if he doesn't (yet) need intercept.
#
# Idea: being untapped and adding intercept are both "stuff for blocking",
# while stealth is "stuff for avoiding a block". The rule against unneeded
# stealth/intercept has been applied here as if it were "cannot do stuff
# for blocking unless you need stuff for blocking." Use that idea if it
# helps you understand this errata, ignore it if not.
#
# This idea doesn't extend to superior Bonding, since +bleed is not
# "stuff for avoiding a block", nor to plus-intercept-with-a-combat-bonus
# cards (like Spirit's Touch) since the combat bonus is not "stuff
# for blocking". Those cards can still be played only if the stealth/
# intercept is needed.
#
# (The idea for use by an untapped P/J comes from the original card text)

Taste of Vitae:
Is not cumulative. A Taste of Vitae will not count any blood loss counted
by a previous Taste of Vitae.

Tereza Rotas:
"If another Methuselah controls the Edge, Tereza may take the Edge as an
action directed at that Methuselah. This action costs 2 blood."
#
# Obvious intent. Also, the action cannot be thwarted by burning the Edge
# after the action is announced.

Telepathic Misdirection:
New card text:
"Superior: Only usable when a you are the target of a bleed. Choose another
Methuselah. You cannot choose the acting minion's controller. The acting
minion is now attempting to bleed the chosen Methuselah. The chosen
Methuselah may attempt to block. Tap this reacting vampire."
#
# That is, you cannot misdirect to yourself.

CARD RULINGS:

Anathema:
Burns the target vampire when the target is reduced to zero blood in combat,
regardless of the source of the loss of blood (card text). Still won't
burn a vampire just for entering a combat with zero blood, however - there
must be an actual "reduction" in blood.

Blood Brother Ambush:
Is only an action modifier when it is not in play, and is only an Ally
when it is in play.

Blood of Acid:
Only lasts for the current round.

Brujah Frenzy:
Can only be played if the acting Brujah is Ready (not in Torpor).

Burning Wrath:
All of the damage from the strike is aggravated (card text).

Charming Lobby:
The vote to be called is played/named when the action is declared, and is
called (by the acting minion) by the resolution of this action. This action
is a political action.

Code of Milan Suspended:
The "Methuselah with the Edge" is identified at the start of the referendum.
Burning the Edge during the referendum will not change the effects of the
vote, if successful.

Justicar Retribution:
Counts the bleed each minion would have when bleeding his prey.

Mask of a Thousand Faces:
Cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of
taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this
action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the
acting minion.
#
# Removes a lot of strangeness from the rulings.

Propaganda:
The Methuselah being bleed with superior Propaganda must choose an untapped
ready minion to tap if she has any.
#
# Obvious intent.

Rotschreck:
Play as written.
#
# That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
# his opponent in combat.

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

Eric Pettersen

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

All I can say is: FINALLY! Thank you LSJ!
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

James Hamblin

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

LSJ wrote:
>
> ===================================
> Rules Team Rulings for 23 June 1998
> ===================================

[snip]

> Combat cards:
> By default, only apply to the round in which they are played. Explicit
> card text is needed to overcome this default.
> #
> # See Blood of Acid, and note the errata returning Immortal Grapple to
> # its Jyhad wording.

Argh!

I guess I'm just wondering why you made this decision. Since the Sabbat
text of IG does explicit say that the effect lasts for the entire
combat, why return it to the Jyhad wording?

By the way, I guess this answers my previous question to you in the
affirmative... :(

James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu

Eric Pettersen

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

One minor question...the rulings/errata on Kalinda and Tereza Rotas mean
that (like all other actions) the cost is paid only if the action is
successful. It also prevents the action from being undertaken if the
minion has less than 2 blood. Is that the correct interpretation?

(and thanks again!!!!)

Mike Bohlmann

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

LSJ wrote:

> Immortal Grapple:
> New card text:
> "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,)
> neither minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues,
> the range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip
> the Establish Range step for that round."
>
> # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the

> # default duration of combat cards, but is included here for
> # emphasis.

Can we possibly get some reasoning behind this ruling? It has several
effects that I want to make sure were considered.

First, when newer versions of cards came out, it was ruled that the
official reading of the card should be what is stated on the newest
one. The new ruling on IG goes against that. Is it really a good
idea (for simplicity's sake) to make exceptions to general rulings?
Why was IG singled out to go against that general ruling on card text?

Second, by making this ruling, a non-Celerity Potence deck must
effectively nearly double the IG's it needs. What I mean is that
a Nosferatu deck relied on the IG to last the whole combat because
Nosferatu don't generally have multiple strikes. The Nosferatu need
to get to the second round of combat to finish off the opposing
minion. However, a deck that uses Celerity with Potence, doesn't have
to worry about doing as much in a second round because of the
addtional
strikes. Sure, the Nos still have Hidden Lurker, but that requires
two
vampires to successfully do.

I can just see the number of decks using Presence and Fortitude
growing. With the pre-ruling IG, the S:CE had to still worry about
damage prevention or other means to end/survive combat. Against,
Cel/Pot they still have to worry about it, but against pure Pot, a
Pre/For deck now has a much higher chance of survival.

Just some thoughts.

Mike

--

Mike Bohlmann, MAIP mboh...@pdnt.com
Internet Strategy and Development Consultant

cbo...@apdi.net

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

> Damage Prevention cards: are not restricted to strike resolution.

So you can no longer play Damage Prevention (like Skin of Rock)
outside of combat?

> Golconda:
> Removes the selected vampire from the game instead of burning him.
> # A vampire finding Golconda isn't destroyed - he simply has chosen
> # not to participate in the Jyhad any further.

So you can no longer use Possession to bring this vampire back into play?

> Immortal Grapple:
> New card text:
> "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,) neither
> minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the
> range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the
> Establish Range step for that round."
> # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
> # duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis.

So on the second round of combat, the opposing minion is free to use any
kind of strike and is no longer restricted to hand strikes?

> Rutor's Hand:
> A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.
> New card text:
> "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the
> damage."
> # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would have
> # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need for
> # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the
> # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
> # prevent non-combat damage" errata.

Except that this is taking away the ability of the other Meths chances
of blocking the rescue from Torpor.
That doesn't seem very fair.
How about making it so that if you take Aggro damage in combat, if the
vamp has the blood, it can pay 2 to stay out of torpor? That's
effectively doing the same thing...

> Second Tradition: Domain, The:
> New card text:
> "Requires ready Prince or Justicar. +2 intercept. Also usable by a tapped
> Prince or Justicar, even if intercept is not yet needed, to untap and
> attempt to block with +2 intercept."
> # Usable by an untapped P/J if he needs intercept, and usable by a
> # tapped P/J even if he doesn't (yet) need intercept.

Looks like James (et. al) don't have anything more to argue about. :p

Sorrow

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Joshua Duffin

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:

:Form of Mist:


: New card text:
: "Superior: Strike: Combat Ends. If this vampire is the acting vampire, this
: vampire gets +1 stealth (and this card counts as an action modifier) and the
: action continues as if unblocked."

I guess I don't see what this (and the new rule on combat being part of
the block) changes; could you give an example?

: Reform Body:


: New card text:
: "This card can be played as a combat card or a reaction card. Only usable by
: a vampire being burned. Not usable by an acting vampire. This vampire goes
: to torpor instead of being burned.
: Superior: As above, and this vampire gains 2 blood from the blood bank."

This still can't be played from torpor, correct? (But thanks for the
playable-by-tapped-vamps change!)

: Mask of a Thousand Faces:


: Cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of
: taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this
: action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the
: acting minion.
: #
: # Removes a lot of strangeness from the rulings.

I'm sure it will, but first I have to ask: What exactly do you mean by
'not capable' of taking the action? Does that include actions that vamp
couldn't take due to lack of a particular skill, etc; ie any action that
the vamp wishing to Mask couldn't personally initiate? Or is it just
specifically-prohibited actions (as in Beast wanting to Mask an
equip action)? (Same with the action mods.)

Thanks. ;-)

(I also would prefer to see Immortal Grapple left under the Sabbat wording,
and am dubious about the reworking of Rutor's Hand to make it better, but
others have brought those up already.)

Josh

jt...@cornell.edu


PDB6

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

LSJ wrote:
"Immortal Grapple:
New card text:
"Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,) neither
minion can strike except with hand strikes.
Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the range
of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the Establish Range
step for that round."
#
# The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
# duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis."

Umm...What? The VTES and Sabbat text of this card clearly says that IG lasts
the entire combat. Tha Jyhad version is somewhat more ambiguous, but still
supports the "Entire combat" end. The above errata makes the card _far_ less
useful than it needs to be. The VTES/Sabbat version of this card gave a clear
exception to the default "only lasts this round of combat" rule that governs
combat cards. I fail to see why it was needed to remove this specific
exception. Why is this necessary?

Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com

"I am the world's forgotten boy
the one who searches and destroys."
-Iggy Pop

jones

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

So it's "Blood Tears of Kephran" can't prevent the damage anymore?

Chris Berger

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

Thank you. Even without the 2nd Tradition ruling, this reaffirmed my
belief in Jyhad. So many of those rulings needed to be done.

One of them however, strikes me as harmful...

> Rotschreck:
> Play as written.
> #
> # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
> # his opponent in combat.
>

Why do this? Rotschreck was the only hoser against agg damage, and agg
damage is pretty damned powerful. People have gotten so used to
Rotschreck being played in that sensible way, why return it to the
strange wording and uselessness of this version?

-Chris

Chris Berger

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to
The card is not at all "far less useful than it needs to be." It's
still an amazingly useful card. The Jyhad version makes more sense,
IMO, anyway. When VTES "cleaned stuff up" it made a huge number of
mistakes. I think that it is LSJ's assertion that one of the mistakes
it made was in making IG last an entire combat. If that's his
assertion, I agree with him. In any case, I think that the "most recent
card wins" rule is not really a good one, and there are already plenty
of other exceptions where the VTES card was in error.

-Chris

MikeM...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

In article <358FED...@wizards.com>,

LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
>
> Titles can only be held by vampires of the appropriate clan or sect. A
> clan Justicar title can only be held by a member of that clan,
> Camarilla vampires cannot hold Sabbat titles and vice-versa, etc. If
> a titled vampire changes clan or sect inappropriate to his title, he
> loses the benefit of the title unless and until he changes his clan or
> sect appropriately. If his title is contested while he is a member of
> an inappropriate sect, he immediately yields the title.
> (Losing capacity is not sufficient to lose the benefit of a title.)
>

Some months ago it was possible to give a non-Camarilla vamp a Writ of
Acceptance, let him seize Princedom, pass on the Paper and let the now
Non-Camarilla Prince keep his title and votes. Why now the change? It makes
sense in the logic of the roleplaying game, but this is a card game.


> ERRATA TO CARDS:


>
> Beast, Leatherface of Detroit:
> New card text:
> "Beast cannot perform action-card actions or recruit allies. He cannot
> have or use equipment or retainers. As a (D) action, Beast can enter
> combat with any Ready minion controlled by another Methuselah. +1 hand
> damage."
>

Beast used to be able to get a Zip Gun. With this new errata he is no longer
allowed to have it. Why? And what shall we do?

> Form of Mist:
> New card text:
> "Superior: Strike: Combat Ends. If this vampire is the acting vampire, this
> vampire gets +1 stealth (and this card counts as an action modifier) and the
> action continues as if unblocked."
>

Formerly FoM didn't count as an Action Mod, because it was a combat card...
Strange, this ruling excess. Why do the rules team (or YOU, LSJ) change all
that was once true?

> Golconda:
> Removes the selected vampire from the game instead of burning him.
> #
> # A vampire finding Golconda isn't destroyed - he simply has chosen
> # not to participate in the Jyhad any further.
>

Again logical in the sense of the game universe, but effectively you steal a
good pool gaining possibility from an already weak clan: the Giovanni.

> Immortal Grapple:
> New card text:
> "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,) neither
> minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the
> range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the
> Establish Range step for that round."
> #
> # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
> # duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis.
>

So does IG last for the entire combat or not? If it does, PLEASE INCLUDE IT IN
THE CARD TEXT INSTEAD OF "THIS ROUND".

> Return to Innocence:
> Removes the acting vampire from the game instead of burning him.
> #
> # See explanation for Golconda
>

See for Golconda for the same rant.

> Ritual of the Bitter Rose:
> New card text:
> "This card can be played as a combat card or an action modifier. Each of
> your ready vampires gains an amount of blood from the blood bank equal to
> the amount of blood on a vampire being burned either by diablerie or while
> in combat with this vampire."
> #
> # The VTES text munged the action-modifier aspect of this card when
attempting
> # to clarify the Jyhad text. Hopefully the above text is clear and correct.
>

So now it is possible to use RotBR on a vamp destroyed by Decapitate?
(another new one)

> Rutor's Hand:
> A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.
>

!!! I mean, this is a good restriction, but why so late?


> New card text:
> "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the
> damage."
> #
> # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would have
> # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need for
> # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the
> # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
> # prevent non-combat damage" errata.
>

Grrr. Please not so many good new ideas. Hint: Normally NO vamp using superior
Ruthor's Hand actually went to torpor when I played it. They always had some
Flack Jacket or else to prevent the damage.

This errata makes the game a little bit more unplayable correctly by players
without internet access.

It is a nice ruling, but think a little bit of new players which stick to the
card text!

> Second Tradition: Domain, The:
> New card text:
> "Requires ready Prince or Justicar. +2 intercept. Also usable by a tapped
> Prince or Justicar, even if intercept is not yet needed, to untap and
attempt
> to block with +2 intercept."
> #
> # Usable by an untapped P/J if he needs intercept, and usable by a
> # tapped P/J even if he doesn't (yet) need intercept.
> #
> # Idea: being untapped and adding intercept are both "stuff for blocking",
> # while stealth is "stuff for avoiding a block". The rule against unneeded
> # stealth/intercept has been applied here as if it were "cannot do stuff
> # for blocking unless you need stuff for blocking." Use that idea if it
> # helps you understand this errata, ignore it if not.
> #
> # This idea doesn't extend to superior Bonding, since +bleed is not
> # "stuff for avoiding a block", nor to plus-intercept-with-a-combat-bonus
> # cards (like Spirit's Touch) since the combat bonus is not "stuff
> # for blocking". Those cards can still be played only if the stealth/
> # intercept is needed.
> #
> # (The idea for use by an untapped P/J comes from the original card text)
>

And now it seems possible to use this card whether or not needing the
intercept, effectively braking the rule that you can only add intercept when
needed (overridden by new card text)

> Tereza Rotas:
> "If another Methuselah controls the Edge, Tereza may take the Edge as an
> action directed at that Methuselah. This action costs 2 blood."
> #
> # Obvious intent. Also, the action cannot be thwarted by burning the Edge
> # after the action is announced.
>

Aha. This makes sense, but is also new.

> CARD RULINGS:
>
> Anathema:
> Burns the target vampire when the target is reduced to zero blood in combat,
> regardless of the source of the loss of blood (card text). Still won't
> burn a vampire just for entering a combat with zero blood, however - there
> must be an actual "reduction" in blood.
>

Aha. Now Anathema triggers even for BURNING blood, which effectively causes
blood loss too?

> Blood of Acid:
> Only lasts for the current round.
>

and new.

> Burning Wrath:
> All of the damage from the strike is aggravated (card text).
>

and new (formerly only the additional damage was aggro)

> Charming Lobby:
> The vote to be called is played/named when the action is declared, and is
> called (by the acting minion) by the resolution of this action. This action
> is a political action.
>

So you need only 2 minions to use CL? This would be new and would remove CL
from the complete nuts list. I like this one.

> Code of Milan Suspended:
> The "Methuselah with the Edge" is identified at the start of the referendum.
> Burning the Edge during the referendum will not change the effects of the
> vote, if successful.
>

So even when the edge is spend during the vote, the acting Meth will get the
edge if the vote passes?

> Mask of a Thousand Faces:
> Cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of
> taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this
> action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the
> acting minion.
> #
> # Removes a lot of strangeness from the rulings.
>

Aha. It is now impossible to Mask actions with disciplines, the Masquerader
does not have? For example it is now illegal to give Wynn Ruthor's Hand
masking some Tremere?

> Propaganda:
> The Methuselah being bleed with superior Propaganda must choose an untapped
> ready minion to tap if she has any.
> #
> # Obvious intent.
>

New, but YES! This is the spirit of the original card text. Hossa!

> Rotschreck:
> Play as written.
> #
> # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
> # his opponent in combat.
>

Aha. Oppositely to the former ruling. Now it is to rescue a vamp, not to
intimidate the attacker.

All in all: Why this ruling frenzy? My play group will kill me when I present
all these changes to them ("Wizard's rulings last only from week to week! ..."

Please explain yourself, LSJ.

Michael Beer
V:EKN Prince of Dortmund

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

(Eric Pettersen) wrote:
> One minor question...the rulings/errata on Kalinda and Tereza Rotas mean
> that (like all other actions) the cost is paid only if the action is
> successful. It also prevents the action from being undertaken if the
> minion has less than 2 blood. Is that the correct interpretation?

Correct.

> (and thanks again!!!!)

The pleasure is all mine :-)

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to vte...@oracle.wizards.com

jones <jo...@acronet.net> wrote:
>
> So it's "Blood Tears of Kephran" can't prevent the damage anymore?

Correct. The damage is unpreventable (card text, inferior).

Plus, the notion of preventing the damage ad-hoc isn't sensible from
the WoD POV - you are deliberating attempting to do damage to yourself
(to gain the extra untap). If you prevent that damage, well...

>
> LSJ wrote:
> Rutor's Hand:
> A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.
>
> New card text:
> "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the
> damage."
> #
> # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would
> have
> # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the
> need for
> # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for
> the
> # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
> # prevent non-combat damage" errata.
>

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote:

>
> LSJ wrote:
> "Immortal Grapple:
> New card text:
> "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,) neither
> minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the range
> of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the Establish Range
> step for that round."
> #
> # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
> # duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis."
>
> Umm...What? The VTES and Sabbat text of this card clearly says that IG lasts
> the entire combat.

Which is why this is errata, and not just a ruling.

> Tha Jyhad version is somewhat more ambiguous, but still
> supports the "Entire combat" end.

And supports the "this round" end just as much (more, if you consider
the implication of absence of the "do not determine range on the second
round" instruction for the inferior).

> The above errata makes the card _far_ less
> useful than it needs to be.

That's one opinion.

> The VTES/Sabbat version of this card gave a clear
> exception to the default "only lasts this round of combat" rule that governs
> combat cards.

They were re-written to cover the previous ruling from the rules team
that combat cards effects last the whole combat - the rewrite put onto
the card rather than into the rulebook for simplicity's sake.

> I fail to see why it was needed to remove this specific
> exception. Why is this necessary?

To make the card function as it originally should have (IMHO), and
to make it make sense (how can I continue to grapple you if you move
to long range?)

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> > Damage Prevention cards: are not restricted to strike resolution.
>
> So you can no longer play Damage Prevention (like Skin of Rock)
> outside of combat?

You cannot play combat cards outside of combat. Never could.

The old (overturned) errata on Rutor's Hand created a short
piece of combat (the strike resolution phase) from nowhere so
that combat cards and effects could be played. That oddity has
been removed.

> > Golconda:
> > Removes the selected vampire from the game instead of burning him.
> > # A vampire finding Golconda isn't destroyed - he simply has chosen
> > # not to participate in the Jyhad any further.
>

> So you can no longer use Possession to bring this vampire back into play?

? Right.

> > Immortal Grapple:
> > New card text:
> > "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,)
neither
> > minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> > Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the
> > range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the
> > Establish Range step for that round."
> > # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
> > # duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis.
>

> So on the second round of combat, the opposing minion is free to use any
> kind of strike and is no longer restricted to hand strikes?

? Right. (unless you play another IG in the second round).

> > Rutor's Hand:
> > A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.
> > New card text:
> > "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the
> > damage."
> > # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would have
> > # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need
for
> > # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the
> > # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
> > # prevent non-combat damage" errata.
>

> Except that this is taking away the ability of the other Meths chances
> of blocking the rescue from Torpor.
> That doesn't seem very fair.

? The previous version took away the same ability.

> How about making it so that if you take Aggro damage in combat, if the
> vamp has the blood, it can pay 2 to stay out of torpor? That's
> effectively doing the same thing...

If there was some underlying reason that the vamp should be given a boost
in preventing/circumventing the normal routine, sure.

The superior RHand was *supposed* to give you a way to prevent the damage.
(card text).

The original version of RHand failed at that because you cannot
prevent damage outside of combat except with Blood Tears. The (old) RT
errata was non-intuitive and caused a long stream of questions.

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

Mike Bohlmann <mboh...@pdnt.com> wrote:

> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Immortal Grapple:
> > New card text:
> > "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,)
> > neither minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> > Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues,
> > the range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip
> > the Establish Range step for that round."
> >
> > # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the
> > # default duration of combat cards, but is included here for

> > # emphasis.
>
> Can we possibly get some reasoning behind this ruling? It has several
> effects that I want to make sure were considered.

Original intent, and common sense (can't hold a grapple at long range,
you know).

> First, when newer versions of cards came out, it was ruled that the
> official reading of the card should be what is stated on the newest
> one. The new ruling on IG goes against that. Is it really a good
> idea (for simplicity's sake) to make exceptions to general rulings?
> Why was IG singled out to go against that general ruling on card text?

Card text was rewritten to quell the questions about the card. It went
with the ruling of the time (that combat cards' effects last the whole
combat by default). That is now no longer the ruling, so the "reminder"
text on IG has been errata'ed out.

> Second, by making this ruling, a non-Celerity Potence deck must
> effectively nearly double the IG's it needs. What I mean is that
> a Nosferatu deck relied on the IG to last the whole combat because
> Nosferatu don't generally have multiple strikes. The Nosferatu need
> to get to the second round of combat to finish off the opposing
> minion. However, a deck that uses Celerity with Potence, doesn't have
> to worry about doing as much in a second round because of the
> addtional
> strikes. Sure, the Nos still have Hidden Lurker, but that requires
> two
> vampires to successfully do.

OK.

> I can just see the number of decks using Presence and Fortitude
> growing. With the pre-ruling IG, the S:CE had to still worry about
> damage prevention or other means to end/survive combat. Against,
> Cel/Pot they still have to worry about it, but against pure Pot, a
> Pre/For deck now has a much higher chance of survival.

OK.

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:

> LSJ wrote:
> > Combat cards:
> > By default, only apply to the round in which they are played. Explicit
> > card text is needed to overcome this default.
> > #
> > # See Blood of Acid, and note the errata returning Immortal Grapple to
> > # its Jyhad wording.
>
> Argh!
>
> I guess I'm just wondering why you made this decision. Since the Sabbat
> text of IG does explicit say that the effect lasts for the entire
> combat, why return it to the Jyhad wording?

To correct the wording, returning it to the original, sensical, meaning.
(Can't hold a grapple at long range).

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

MikeM...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> >
> > Titles can only be held by vampires of the appropriate clan or sect. A
> > clan Justicar title can only be held by a member of that clan,
> > Camarilla vampires cannot hold Sabbat titles and vice-versa, etc. If
> > a titled vampire changes clan or sect inappropriate to his title, he
> > loses the benefit of the title unless and until he changes his clan or
> > sect appropriately. If his title is contested while he is a member of
> > an inappropriate sect, he immediately yields the title.
> > (Losing capacity is not sufficient to lose the benefit of a title.)
>
> Some months ago it was possible to give a non-Camarilla vamp a Writ of
> Acceptance, let him seize Princedom, pass on the Paper and let the now
> Non-Camarilla Prince keep his title and votes. Why now the change? It makes
> sense in the logic of the roleplaying game, but this is a card game.

Because the old way introduced it's own set of problems, which eventually
would begin to create contradictory or at least ad-hoc "rulings".
It's usually better to go with the stuff that makes sense.

> > ERRATA TO CARDS:
> >
> > Beast, Leatherface of Detroit:
> > New card text:
> > "Beast cannot perform action-card actions or recruit allies. He cannot
> > have or use equipment or retainers. As a (D) action, Beast can enter
> > combat with any Ready minion controlled by another Methuselah. +1 hand
> > damage."
> >
>
> Beast used to be able to get a Zip Gun. With this new errata he is no longer
> allowed to have it. Why? And what shall we do?

To clear up the questions that the old wording presented.
Do?

> > Form of Mist:
> > New card text:
> > "Superior: Strike: Combat Ends. If this vampire is the acting vampire,
this
> > vampire gets +1 stealth (and this card counts as an action modifier) and
the
> > action continues as if unblocked."
> >
>
> Formerly FoM didn't count as an Action Mod, because it was a combat card...
> Strange, this ruling excess. Why do the rules team (or YOU, LSJ) change all
> that was once true?

To make the game work properly, hopefully ensuring it's continued existence.

> > Golconda:
> > Removes the selected vampire from the game instead of burning him.
> > #
> > # A vampire finding Golconda isn't destroyed - he simply has chosen
> > # not to participate in the Jyhad any further.
>
> Again logical in the sense of the game universe, but effectively you steal a
> good pool gaining possibility from an already weak clan: the Giovanni.

OK.

> > Immortal Grapple:
> > New card text:
> > "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,)
neither
> > minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> > Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues, the
> > range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip the
> > Establish Range step for that round."
> > #
> > # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the default
> > # duration of combat cards, but is included here for emphasis.
>
> So does IG last for the entire combat or not? If it does, PLEASE INCLUDE IT IN
> THE CARD TEXT INSTEAD OF "THIS ROUND".

Not.

> > Return to Innocence:
> > Removes the acting vampire from the game instead of burning him.
> > #
> > # See explanation for Golconda
>
> See for Golconda for the same rant.

OK.

> > Ritual of the Bitter Rose:
> > New card text:
> > "This card can be played as a combat card or an action modifier. Each of
> > your ready vampires gains an amount of blood from the blood bank equal to
> > the amount of blood on a vampire being burned either by diablerie or while
> > in combat with this vampire."
>

> So now it is possible to use RotBR on a vamp destroyed by Decapitate?
> (another new one)

Clearly: yes.

> > Rutor's Hand:
> > A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand.
>
> !!! I mean, this is a good restriction, but why so late?

I do what I can when I can.

> > New card text:
> > "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the
> > damage."
>

> Grrr. Please not so many good new ideas. Hint: Normally NO vamp using superior

It's been a few days shy of a year since the last RTR. Ideas have come up
since then, and this is the result. I wish I could have done this on
a case-by-case basis as they came up, but that was not possible. My apologies.

> Ruthor's Hand actually went to torpor when I played it. They always had some
> Flack Jacket or else to prevent the damage.
>
> This errata makes the game a little bit more unplayable correctly by players
> without internet access.

Without internet access, you couldn't play it "correctly" before - because of
that somewhat-unintuitive errata about spawning a piece of combat in which
to prevent the damage.

> It is a nice ruling, but think a little bit of new players which stick to the
> card text!

OK, then the superior would not be preventable at all (except with Blood
Tears). If you don't use Blood Tears, you'll be playing the official way
after all.

> > Second Tradition: Domain, The:
> > New card text:
> > "Requires ready Prince or Justicar. +2 intercept. Also usable by a tapped
> > Prince or Justicar, even if intercept is not yet needed, to untap and
> attempt
> > to block with +2 intercept."
>

> And now it seems possible to use this card whether or not needing the
> intercept, effectively braking the rule that you can only add intercept when
> needed (overridden by new card text)

Correct.

> > Tereza Rotas:
> > "If another Methuselah controls the Edge, Tereza may take the Edge as an
> > action directed at that Methuselah. This action costs 2 blood."
> > #
> > # Obvious intent. Also, the action cannot be thwarted by burning the Edge
> > # after the action is announced.
> >
>
> Aha. This makes sense, but is also new.

OK.

> > CARD RULINGS:
> >
> > Anathema:
> > Burns the target vampire when the target is reduced to zero blood in
combat,
> > regardless of the source of the loss of blood (card text). Still won't
> > burn a vampire just for entering a combat with zero blood, however - there
> > must be an actual "reduction" in blood.
>
> Aha. Now Anathema triggers even for BURNING blood, which effectively causes
> blood loss too?

Correct.

> > Blood of Acid:
> > Only lasts for the current round.
>
> and new.

New ruling, same card text.

> > Burning Wrath:
> > All of the damage from the strike is aggravated (card text).
>
> and new (formerly only the additional damage was aggro)

Same card text - and this ruling actually matches the punctuation used
on the card.

> > Charming Lobby:
> > The vote to be called is played/named when the action is declared, and is
> > called (by the acting minion) by the resolution of this action. This
action
> > is a political action.
>
> So you need only 2 minions to use CL? This would be new and would remove CL
> from the complete nuts list. I like this one.

Even better.

> > Code of Milan Suspended:
> > The "Methuselah with the Edge" is identified at the start of the
referendum.
> > Burning the Edge during the referendum will not change the effects of the
> > vote, if successful.
>
> So even when the edge is spend during the vote, the acting Meth will get the
> edge if the vote passes?

? No. I'm not following you at all here, sorry.

> > Mask of a Thousand Faces:
> > Cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of
> > taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this
> > action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the
> > acting minion.
> > #
> > # Removes a lot of strangeness from the rulings.
> >
>
> Aha. It is now impossible to Mask actions with disciplines, the Masquerader
> does not have? For example it is now illegal to give Wynn Ruthor's Hand
> masking some Tremere?

Unless he has been given thaumaturgy, right.

> > Propaganda
> > The Methuselah being bleed with superior Propaganda must choose an
untapped
> > ready minion to tap if she has any.
> > #
> > # Obvious intent.
>
> New, but YES! This is the spirit of the original card text. Hossa!

I do what I can.

> > Rotschreck:
> > Play as written.
> > #
> > # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
> > # his opponent in combat.
>
> Aha. Oppositely to the former ruling. Now it is to rescue a vamp, not to
> intimidate the attacker.
>
> All in all: Why this ruling frenzy? My play group will kill me when I present
> all these changes to them ("Wizard's rulings last only from week to week! ..."

The last set of new errata/changes came on 30 June 1997.
I don't understand the "week to week" statement.

In the intervening year, new questions came up.
Also, some questions had not (IMHO) been answered adequately/properly up
to that point, so here's the result.

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> Thank you. Even without the 2nd Tradition ruling, this reaffirmed my
> belief in Jyhad. So many of those rulings needed to be done.

Thank *you*.

> One of them however, strikes me as harmful...
>

> > Rotschreck:
> > Play as written.
> > #
> > # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
> > # his opponent in combat.
> >

> Why do this? Rotschreck was the only hoser against agg damage, and agg
> damage is pretty damned powerful. People have gotten so used to
> Rotschreck being played in that sensible way, why return it to the
> strange wording and uselessness of this version?

Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
Agg damage has another (common) answer: damage prevention, which is now
even usable against Pulled Fangs and other non-strike-resolution effects.

The "strange" wording is card text. The errata was the "strange wording"
in my view.

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
>
> :Form of Mist:

> : New card text:
> : "Superior: Strike: Combat Ends. If this vampire is the acting vampire, this
> : vampire gets +1 stealth (and this card counts as an action modifier) and the
> : action continues as if unblocked."
>
> I guess I don't see what this (and the new rule on combat being part of
> the block) changes; could you give an example?

As an action modifier, you cannot play more than one per action.

Example:
vampire A bleeds his prey.
vampire B blocks.
vampire A plays sup. FoM to continue the action at +1 stealth
vampire C blocks.

During the combat between vampire A and C, vampire A cannot use
superior FoM, since he has already used that action modifier once
this combat.

> : Reform Body:


> : New card text:
> : "This card can be played as a combat card or a reaction card. Only usable by
> : a vampire being burned. Not usable by an acting vampire. This vampire goes
> : to torpor instead of being burned.
> : Superior: As above, and this vampire gains 2 blood from the blood bank."
>

> This still can't be played from torpor, correct? (But thanks for the
> playable-by-tapped-vamps change!)

Correct.

> : Mask of a Thousand Faces:


> : Cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of
> : taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this
> : action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the
> : acting minion.
> : #
> : # Removes a lot of strangeness from the rulings.
>

> I'm sure it will, but first I have to ask: What exactly do you mean by
> 'not capable' of taking the action? Does that include actions that vamp
> couldn't take due to lack of a particular skill, etc; ie any action that
> the vamp wishing to Mask couldn't personally initiate? Or is it just
> specifically-prohibited actions (as in Beast wanting to Mask an
> equip action)? (Same with the action mods.)

If the would-be Masker could not have personally initiated the action,
then he cannot mask it.

> (I also would prefer to see Immortal Grapple left under the Sabbat wording,
> and am dubious about the reworking of Rutor's Hand to make it better, but
> others have brought those up already.)

? What about the Sabbat wording appeals to you?

cbo...@apdi.net

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

>>> Immortal Grapple:


>> So on the second round of combat, the opposing minion is free to use any
>> kind of strike and is no longer restricted to hand strikes?
> ? Right. (unless you play another IG in the second round).

This is so messed up.
You asked in a previous mention what the person you were responding to
liked about the Sabbat Text of IG.
Umm, I might be going out on a limb here, but the fact that it says that
it lasts the entire combat?
I've it said it once, I'll say it again: pure Potence Decks have now
become so much weaker against S:CE. So much for playing Nos, Lasombra,
Giovanni (w/o TB)....

>>> Rutor's Hand:


>>> # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would have
>>> # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need

>>> # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the
>>> # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
>>> # prevent non-combat damage" errata.

>> Except that this is taking away the ability of the other Meths chances
>> of blocking the rescue from Torpor.
>> That doesn't seem very fair.
> ? The previous version took away the same ability.

Almost true. You had to have certain cards in your deck to take care of
this contingency. This ruling circumvents that. Instead of having at least
2 cards (including the Rutor's Hand) to keep yourself out of Torpor, you
don't need any.

> > How about making it so that if you take Aggro damage in combat, if the
> > vamp has the blood, it can pay 2 to stay out of torpor? That's
> > effectively doing the same thing...
> If there was some underlying reason that the vamp should be given a boost
> in preventing/circumventing the normal routine, sure.

If you think about it, most combat strike cards *imply* that that strike
can be prevented, else you couldn't prevent it during Strike Resolution.
The only exception being cards that specifically say 'not preventable by
<whatever>'. So why not take this one step further and say you can 'prevent'
the aggro damage (and as such, remain out of torpor) by paying an extra 2
blood?
I'm being overly facecious/sarcastic, but it just seems to me the ruling
for Rutor's Hand is saying just that...

> The superior RHand was *supposed* to give you a way to prevent the damage.
> (card text).

Yes, but that prevention needed to come from some external source (such as
another card that prevented damage).
Not that they didn't need it, but this gives an incredible boost to the
Tremere.

Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans

kub...@imsa.edu

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

In article <6mqq1j$4j1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:

>
> James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
> > Argh!
> >
> > I guess I'm just wondering why you made this decision. Since the Sabbat
> > text of IG does explicit say that the effect lasts for the entire
> > combat, why return it to the Jyhad wording?
>
> To correct the wording, returning it to the original, sensical, meaning.
> (Can't hold a grapple at long range).

Perhaps at superior level the hand strike limit could last into the
second round, as it will be automatically at close range.

>
> --
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the > Coast.

I understand the need to tone down IG. My playgroup recently
switched from 4CL to NL. I played the Nosferatu POT/ANI/for
deck that was posted here recently. One of the observations
made was that barring Thoughts Betrayed or Fortitude prevention,
there is no effective way to deal with this style of combat.
Safe Haven protects one vampire, and Elysium was easily
torchable by the Justicar/Princes of the Nosferatu.

I've read comments in this newsgroup before that things that
force other decks into particular playing styles out of necessity
are BAD THINGS. (RtI necessitating Archon Investigation or
bounce comes to mind)

All of this IMHO, of course.

Scott Harris
kub...@imsa.edu

Sorrow

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

>> I guess I'm just wondering why you made this decision. Since the
>>Sabbat text of IG does explicit say that the effect lasts for the entire
>> combat, why return it to the Jyhad wording?
>To correct the wording, returning it to the original, sensical, meaning.
>(Can't hold a grapple at long range).

Except that there is no "Long Range" when used at superior.
I know, I know - "Then just use another IG in the second round".
This effectivley means that you have to pack twice the number of
IG in your deck.
Man, Potence decks have just went down the crapper. I know
I'll never play one again because Presence decks have just
become exponentially stronger against them.

Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans
---

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


cbo...@apdi.net

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

> > > Rotschreck:
> > > Play as written.


> > Why do this? Rotschreck was the only hoser against agg damage, and agg
> > damage is pretty damned powerful.

> Now it's a hoser against S:CE.

Perhaps I'm not drawing the coorelation.
How is this a hoser against S:CE? S:CE doesn't do agg damage.
The way I read the original ruling

> Agg damage has another (common) answer: damage prevention, which is now
> even usable against Pulled Fangs and other non-strike-resolution effects.

So you can now use SoS, SoR, etc to prevent damage from Pulled Fangs,
Weather Control, etc?

Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> >>> Immortal Grapple:
> >> So on the second round of combat, the opposing minion is free to use any
> >> kind of strike and is no longer restricted to hand strikes?
> > ? Right. (unless you play another IG in the second round).
>
> This is so messed up.
> You asked in a previous mention what the person you were responding to
> liked about the Sabbat Text of IG.
> Umm, I might be going out on a limb here, but the fact that it says that
> it lasts the entire combat?

The current errata fixes that (back to the original card text).

> I've it said it once, I'll say it again: pure Potence Decks have now
> become so much weaker against S:CE. So much for playing Nos, Lasombra,
> Giovanni (w/o TB)....

If you say so. Fortunately, there are other clans for you to play, and
others can continue to play those clans (or not) as they see fit.

> >>> Rutor's Hand:


> >>> # Idea: The vampire gets to take agg damage and pre-pay what it would
have
> >>> # cost him to get out of torpor all in a single step - without the need

> >>> # a second action and without actually going to torpor - 1 blood for the
> >>> # damage, two to leave torpor - getting rid of that cumbersome "how to
> >>> # prevent non-combat damage" errata.

> >> Except that this is taking away the ability of the other Meths chances
> >> of blocking the rescue from Torpor.
> >> That doesn't seem very fair.
> > ? The previous version took away the same ability.
>
> Almost true. You had to have certain cards in your deck to take care of
> this contingency. This ruling circumvents that. Instead of having at least
> 2 cards (including the Rutor's Hand) to keep yourself out of Torpor, you
> don't need any.

No, you just need 4 blood. What a deal! (sarcasm alert)

> > > How about making it so that if you take Aggro damage in combat, if the
> > > vamp has the blood, it can pay 2 to stay out of torpor? That's
> > > effectively doing the same thing...
> > If there was some underlying reason that the vamp should be given a boost
> > in preventing/circumventing the normal routine, sure.
>
> If you think about it, most combat strike cards *imply* that that strike
> can be prevented, else you couldn't prevent it during Strike Resolution.

Uh, OK. (?)

> The only exception being cards that specifically say 'not preventable by
> <whatever>'. So why not take this one step further and say you can 'prevent'
> the aggro damage (and as such, remain out of torpor) by paying an extra 2
> blood?

Because most strikes *imply* that you cannot. The only exception to this
being strike cards that specifically say 'pay an extra two blood to prevent'
(which don't exist).

> I'm being overly facecious/sarcastic, but it just seems to me the ruling
> for Rutor's Hand is saying just that...

OK, hope you don't mind that I've responded in kind.

> > The superior RHand was *supposed* to give you a way to prevent the damage.
> > (card text).
>
> Yes, but that prevention needed to come from some external source (such as
> another card that prevented damage).
> Not that they didn't need it, but this gives an incredible boost to the
> Tremere.

The only external source available before errata was Blood Tears.
The new errata simply replaces the old errata - now you need three extra
blood instead of an extra card.

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to vte...@oracle.wizards.com

cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> > > > Rotschreck:
> > > > Play as written.
> > > Why do this? Rotschreck was the only hoser against agg damage, and agg
> > > damage is pretty damned powerful.
> > Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
>
> Perhaps I'm not drawing the coorelation.
> How is this a hoser against S:CE? S:CE doesn't do agg damage.

Example:
My Gangrel blocks the acting vampire.
Acting vampire plays S:CE.
I strike: hands with Claws.
I play Rotschreck - acting vampire goes to torpor.

> > Agg damage has another (common) answer: damage prevention, which is now
> > even usable against Pulled Fangs and other non-strike-resolution effects.
>
> So you can now use SoS, SoR, etc to prevent damage from Pulled Fangs,
> Weather Control, etc?

No (card text), yes, etc. ... yes, no (card text).

You can prevent preventable damage with appropriate damage prevention
cards. You obviously cannot prevent non-strike damage with
prevent-damage-from-strike cards, and you obviously cannot prevent
unpreventable damage.

--

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
>
> >> I guess I'm just wondering why you made this decision. Since the
> >>Sabbat text of IG does explicit say that the effect lasts for the entire
> >> combat, why return it to the Jyhad wording?
> >To correct the wording, returning it to the original, sensical, meaning.
> >(Can't hold a grapple at long range).
>
> Except that there is no "Long Range" when used at superior.

There is in the third round.
Besides, the superior can't justify silliness in the inferior.

> I know, I know - "Then just use another IG in the second round".

If you like.

> This effectivley means that you have to pack twice the number of
> IG in your deck.

If you don't plan on doing sufficient damage in the first round, sure.

> Man, Potence decks have just went down the crapper. I know

Hardly.

> I'll never play one again because Presence decks have just
> become exponentially stronger against them.

Possibly your play group will need some time to adjust.
I've tested this new ruling for quite some time now, and
my potence decks do just fine.

How many games did you play before observing this exponential
growth in strength of Presence decks vs. Potence decks?

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

Steven Bucy

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

Michael,

The rules team (LSJ) obviously made these rulings to fixed preceived
problems with the game. Certain rulings (RTI and Golconda for example)
appear to have been made specifically to stop abusive strategies that have
hurt the game. I'm surprised you would even ask why they where made.

Steve Bucy

MikeM...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6mq4iv$aa6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

cbo...@apdi.net

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

>> You asked in a previous mention what the person you were responding to
>> liked about the Sabbat Text of IG.
>> Umm, I might be going out on a limb here, but the fact that it says that
>> it lasts the entire combat?
> The current errata fixes that (back to the original card text).

I'm kinda curious why it was felt this card needed changing.

>> I've it said it once, I'll say it again: pure Potence Decks have now
>> become so much weaker against S:CE. So much for playing Nos, Lasombra,
>> Giovanni (w/o TB)....
> If you say so. Fortunately, there are other clans for you to play, and
> others can continue to play those clans (or not) as they see fit.

This is indeed true. However, this ruling on IG greatly weakens a very
popular (and before now) viable deck style.

>> Almost true. You had to have certain cards in your deck to take care of
>> this contingency. This ruling circumvents that. Instead of having at least
>> 2 cards (including the Rutor's Hand) to keep yourself out of Torpor, you
>> don't need any.
> No, you just need 4 blood. What a deal! (sarcasm alert)

All I am saying is that if a player using Rutor's Hand and did not have the
necessary damage prevention (either in the deck or in hand), then they would
have to weigh the benifit of RH against the possiblity that the recue attempt
would get blocked. This ruling completely alleviates those worries and as
such, takes the advantage (of possibly keeping the vamp in torpor or
diablerizing) away from the players opponents. Yet another benefit to the
vamp who just received the benifit of untaping every turn.

>> If you think about it, most combat strike cards *imply* that that strike
>> can be prevented, else you couldn't prevent it during Strike Resolution.
> Uh, OK. (?)

What didn't make sense?

> Because most strikes *imply* that you cannot. The only exception to this
> being strike cards that specifically say 'pay an extra two blood to prevent'
> (which don't exist).

Well, you said that the ruling for RH was made because the superior said that
the damage was preventable. I do not see where the phrase "damage is
preventable" *implies* that you can pay x extra blood to remain out of
torpor. Again, using my previous analogy, damage in combat is preventable
(except in those occasions where the card specifically says it is not). We
know that combat damage is preventable because in the rules (and card text),
it says you can use damage prevention cards (to prevent x damage, damage from
a strike, etc). So, by taking your interpretation of the phrase on RH
"damage is preventable" and turning that into a ruling that says you can pay
X blood to stay out of torpor, couldn't you apply that to (aggro) damage a
vamp receives in combat?

> > I'm being overly facecious/sarcastic, but it just seems to me the ruling
> > for Rutor's Hand is saying just that...
> OK, hope you don't mind that I've responded in kind.

Not at all.

>>> The superior RHand was *supposed* to give you a way to prevent the damage.
>>> (card text).
>> Yes, but that prevention needed to come from some external source (such as
>> another card that prevented damage).

> The only external source available before errata was Blood Tears.
> The new errata simply replaces the old errata - now you need three extra
> blood instead of an extra card.

It still doesn't make any sense.
It seems to me that this ruling is introducing something completely brand
new into the game. What precedents are there to this ruling?

Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

cbo...@apdi.net

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

>>>To correct the wording, returning it to the original, sensical, meaning.
>> >(Can't hold a grapple at long range).
>> Except that there is no "Long Range" when used at superior.
> There is in the third round.

Not if they S:CE.

> Besides, the superior can't justify silliness in the inferior.

How is the inferior silly?

>> I know, I know - "Then just use another IG in the second round".
> If you like.

It seems like your responses have been really glib to anything anyone
has said about how this ruling greatly weakens IG.

>> This effectivley means that you have to pack twice the number of
>> IG in your deck.
> If you don't plan on doing sufficient damage in the first round, sure.

There is only so much damage a pure Potence (not Cel/Pot) deck can dish
w/o getting into a 5+ card combo.

>> Man, Potence decks have just went down the crapper. I know
> Hardly.

See above. Without being able to rely on IG, you must rely on large
number card combos. And this is either inconsistant or will water
your deck down alot.

>> I'll never play one again because Presence decks have just
>> become exponentially stronger against them.
> Possibly your play group will need some time to adjust.
> I've tested this new ruling for quite some time now, and
> my potence decks do just fine.

Plain, straight potence?
I'd love to see one of these decks.

> How many games did you play before observing this exponential
> growth in strength of Presence decks vs. Potence decks?

I will grant you that I haven't played in any with this new ruling.
However, in a pure Presence S:CE vs. a pure Potence big strike deck,
the S:CE will win out. Now, the Potence deck has to rely on too
many cards to make dish out enough damage to put the opposing vamp
into Torpor. Such combos are not consistant enough to be effective
over the course of the game. If you don't have an IG in your hand
the second round and you didn't have enough cards in your hand to
put the other vamp into torpor, you just lost the chance. Before,
you could at least use Torn Signpost, IG and press a few rounds.

Sorrow

cbo...@apdi.net

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

>>> Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
>> Perhaps I'm not drawing the coorelation.
>> How is this a hoser against S:CE? S:CE doesn't do agg damage.
> Example:
> My Gangrel blocks the acting vampire.
> Acting vampire plays S:CE.
> I strike: hands with Claws.
> I play Rotschreck - acting vampire goes to torpor.

Maybe I read it wrong, but the card text, but I seem to remember
it saying to me the Gangrel would go to torpor.

> You can prevent preventable damage with appropriate damage prevention
> cards. You obviously cannot prevent non-strike damage with
> prevent-damage-from-strike cards, and you obviously cannot prevent
> unpreventable damage.

So can you now prevent damage from Catatonic Fear (I think that's the
right one) with Skin of Rock? It's damage from a Strike. And now you
can use damage prevention cards at any time...?

Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> >>> Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
> >> Perhaps I'm not drawing the coorelation.
> >> How is this a hoser against S:CE? S:CE doesn't do agg damage.
> > Example:
> > My Gangrel blocks the acting vampire.
> > Acting vampire plays S:CE.
> > I strike: hands with Claws.
> > I play Rotschreck - acting vampire goes to torpor.
>
> Maybe I read it wrong, but the card text, but I seem to remember
> it saying to me the Gangrel would go to torpor.

You read it wrong. What you propose is the old (overturned) errata
to the card.

Try reading the post again:
-----


Rotschreck:
Play as written.
#
# That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
# his opponent in combat.

-----

> > You can prevent preventable damage with appropriate damage prevention
> > cards. You obviously cannot prevent non-strike damage with
> > prevent-damage-from-strike cards, and you obviously cannot prevent
> > unpreventable damage.
>
> So can you now prevent damage from Catatonic Fear (I think that's the
> right one) with Skin of Rock? It's damage from a Strike. And now you
> can use damage prevention cards at any time...?

Sigh. Where'd you get "any time"?

No, since the damage is done outside of combat, and Skin of Rock
is a combat card.

Try reading the post again:

-----


Damage Prevention cards: are not restricted to strike resolution.

#
# Combat cards can be played whenever appropriate during combat - and
# any time preventable damage is inflicted is an appropriate time for
# damage prevention.
-----

--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> I'm kinda curious why it was felt this card needed changing.

Then see the original post, or any of several of my follow-ups
since then.

> a strike, etc). So, by taking your interpretation of the phrase on RH
> "damage is preventable" and turning that into a ruling that says you can pay
> X blood to stay out of torpor, couldn't you apply that to (aggro) damage a
> vamp receives in combat?

It's not a ruling, it's "errata" to the card. See the difference?

> It seems to me that this ruling is introducing something completely brand
> new into the game. What precedents are there to this ruling?

None, and none are needed: it's errata.

ber...@cco.caltech.edu

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

In article <6mrb0u$o88$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:

>
> > I know, I know - "Then just use another IG in the second round".
>
> If you like.
>

No kidding. For the longest time, I assumed that you needed another IG. And
I usually had one if I needed it. IG was still an amazingly strong card.

> > This effectivley means that you have to pack twice the number of
> > IG in your deck.
>
> If you don't plan on doing sufficient damage in the first round, sure.
>

Because Potence decks have so much trouble doing damage. I can't think of any
time when a Potence deck did 8 damage with one strike, can you?

> > Man, Potence decks have just went down the crapper. I know
>
> Hardly.
>

You are completely correct here. Come on people, stop whining. If you want
multi-round combat, Potence is really not the way to go about it anyway. The
amount by which Potence has been weakened is microscopic. The amount by
which Protean, Thaumaturgy, and Quietus have been strengthened (by
Rotschreck) is much larger. In fact non-Potence combat may start to be
comparable to Potence... Nah, Potence wasn't weakened that much...

>
> How many games did you play before observing this exponential
> growth in strength of Presence decks vs. Potence decks?
>

Ouch... scathing replies here... Even in the middle of those 2nd Tradition
debates I didn't get LSJ to be *that* nasty... 8)

-Chris

Karl and Sam

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to


LSJ wrote:

> Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you. Even without the 2nd Tradition ruling, this reaffirmed my
> > belief in Jyhad. So many of those rulings needed to be done.
>
> Thank *you*.
>
> > One of them however, strikes me as harmful...
> >

> > > Rotschreck:
> > > Play as written.
> > > #
> > > # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
> > > # his opponent in combat.
> > >

> > Why do this? Rotschreck was the only hoser against agg damage, and agg

> > damage is pretty damned powerful. People have gotten so used to
> > Rotschreck being played in that sensible way, why return it to the
> > strange wording and uselessness of this version?
>

> Now it's a hoser against S:CE.

> Agg damage has another (common) answer: damage prevention, which is now
> even usable against Pulled Fangs and other non-strike-resolution effects.
>

> The "strange" wording is card text. The errata was the "strange wording"
> in my view.
>

How can it be an S:CE Hoser?? unless of course you also plan to make a ruling
on MOOT being playable on your own turn.

Karl

James Coupe

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

In article <358FED...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes

>Second Tradition: Domain, The:
> New card text

Spoil-sport.... :(

Oi, mister, can we have our ball back please?

<grin>

--

James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply

Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

James Coupe

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

In article <6mq4iv$aa6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, MikeMirathe@my-
dejanews.com writes

>Grrr. Please not so many good new ideas. Hint: Normally NO vamp using superior
>Ruthor's Hand actually went to torpor when I played it. They always had some
>Flack Jacket or else to prevent the damage.

You mean they hadn't played Fame first? Wow, what some people will
overlook........ (obviously for game balance, of course, and not having
boring decks ;)

ber...@cco.caltech.edu

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

>
> All I am saying is that if a player using Rutor's Hand and did not have the
> necessary damage prevention (either in the deck or in hand), then they would
> have to weigh the benifit of RH against the possiblity that the recue attempt
> would get blocked. This ruling completely alleviates those worries and as
> such, takes the advantage (of possibly keeping the vamp in torpor or
> diablerizing) away from the players opponents. Yet another benefit to the
> vamp who just received the benifit of untaping every turn.
>

Yay! I get the benefit of spending 3 extra blood. Alright!

> Well, you said that the ruling for RH was made because the superior said that
> the damage was preventable. I do not see where the phrase "damage is
> preventable" *implies* that you can pay x extra blood to remain out of
> torpor. Again, using my previous analogy, damage in combat is preventable
> (except in those occasions where the card specifically says it is not). We
> know that combat damage is preventable because in the rules (and card text),
> it says you can use damage prevention cards (to prevent x damage, damage from

> a strike, etc). So, by taking your interpretation of the phrase on RH
> "damage is preventable" and turning that into a ruling that says you can pay
> X blood to stay out of torpor, couldn't you apply that to (aggro) damage a
> vamp receives in combat?
>

Okay, here's the idea: One thing was removed, one thing was added. The
damage is no longer preventable (and let's face it, the damage was almost
always prevented anyway). Instead, you now must either take 1 agg damage or
3 normal damage. Swapping out preventable for burn 3 blood to prevent is an
even switch, as far as I'm concerned. It's true you no longer need to keep
damage prevention handy. But now, you must keep extra blood and then must
work hard to get that blood back. The reason that this is far preferable to
the damage prevention is that the prevention rulings were confusing and hurt
the game. For one thing, they allowed the play of combat cards outside of
combat. That, IMO, is a "Bad Thing." The new effect, while completely new
and mostly unrelated, is amazingly less confusing. Since it is comparable in
power, the change is a Good Thing.

ber...@cco.caltech.edu

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to


>
> >>> Now it's a hoser against S:CE.

> >> Perhaps I'm not drawing the coorelation.
> >> How is this a hoser against S:CE? S:CE doesn't do agg damage.
> > Example:
> > My Gangrel blocks the acting vampire.
> > Acting vampire plays S:CE.
> > I strike: hands with Claws.
> > I play Rotschreck - acting vampire goes to torpor.
>
> Maybe I read it wrong, but the card text, but I seem to remember
> it saying to me the Gangrel would go to torpor.
>

That's the errata. The original says (albeit very unclearly) that the one
about to get hit by the agg damage is sent to torpor.

> > You can prevent preventable damage with appropriate damage prevention
> > cards. You obviously cannot prevent non-strike damage with
> > prevent-damage-from-strike cards, and you obviously cannot prevent
> > unpreventable damage.
>
> So can you now prevent damage from Catatonic Fear (I think that's the

> right one) with Skin of Rock? It's damage from a Strike. And now you
> can use damage prevention cards at any time...?
>

Umm... I think that Catatonic Fear is still considered to be dealt after
combat ends, in which case you could only prevent it with Blood Tears. I
may, however, be wrong.

cbo...@apdi.net

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

> Try reading the post again:
> -----

> Rotschreck:
> Play as written.
> #
> # That is, play on a vampire who is to receive aggravated damage from
> # his opponent in combat.

> -----

It says "Play as written". As written, from what I *remember*, it sends
the aggro inflicting vamp to torpor. Again, I will have to read the
card again to make sure.

>> So can you now prevent damage from Catatonic Fear (I think that's the
>> right one) with Skin of Rock? It's damage from a Strike. And now you
>> can use damage prevention cards at any time...?

> Sigh. Where'd you get "any time"?
> No, since the damage is done outside of combat, and Skin of Rock
> is a combat card.
> Try reading the post again:
> -----
> Damage Prevention cards: are not restricted to strike resolution.
> #
> # Combat cards can be played whenever appropriate during combat - and
> # any time preventable damage is inflicted is an appropriate time for
> # damage prevention.
> -----

This is where I got "any time" -- "and any time preventable damage is
inflicted is an appropriate time for damage prevention". Nowhere does
it say on Catatonic Fear that the damage is not preventable.

Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

JDS

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

So if I understand correctly, if Basilia is reacting and is at long range
all she has to do is attempt to strike with her hands, and regardless of the
opposing vampire's strike her Methuselah can play Rotschreck and the
opposing vampire will go to torpor with the Rotschreck on her?
Thanks

Eric Pettersen

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

Mike Bohlmann <mboh...@pdnt.com> wrote:

> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Immortal Grapple:
> > New card text:
> > "Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. (This round,)
> > neither minion can strike except with hand strikes.
> > Superior: As above, with an optional press, and if combat continues,
> > the range of the next round of combat is set to close range - skip
> > the Establish Range step for that round."
> >
> > # The "This round" is redundant with the new general ruling on the
> > # default duration of combat cards, but is included here for
> > # emphasis.
>
> Can we possibly get some reasoning behind this ruling?

Well, as LSJ has also said, without the errata IG's restriction to hand
strikes applied even at long range -- and that was plain nuts.
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

Eric Pettersen

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> >>> Rutor's Hand:

> >> Except that this is taking away the ability of the other Meths chances
> >> of blocking the rescue from Torpor. That doesn't seem very fair.
> > ? The previous version took away the same ability.
>
> Almost true. You had to have certain cards in your deck to take care
> of this contingency. This ruling circumvents that. Instead of having
> at least 2 cards (including the Rutor's Hand) to keep yourself out of
> Torpor, you don't need any.

Any deck that made real use of Rutor's Hand essentially never went to
torpor when doing so (unless they wanted to, e.g. the cheezy Fame maneuver
is now eliminated here).

> Not that they didn't need it, but this gives an incredible boost to the
> Tremere.

You're ignoring the restriction of one RT/minion. This is a significant
restriction for decks focused on RT.

LSJ

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

Karl and Sam wrote:

> LSJ wrote:
> > > > Rotschreck:
> > > > Play as written.
> > Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
> How can it be an S:CE Hoser?? unless of course you also plan to make a ruling
> on MOOT being playable on your own turn.

Um, play it on someone else's turn? (Say, when your Tremere/Gangrel
blocks and they try to S:CE out of combat.)

Quicksilver

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to LSJ

LSJ wrote:

> ===================================
> Rules Team Rulings for 23 June 1998
> ===================================
>
> Comments to rulings and errata (for further clarification ot to explain
> the reasoning behind a rule) are identified by hash marks. Archivists
> may safely delete the lines begining with hash marks to save room, as
> necessary.... <massive snip>

My GOD!!! I'm practically speechless! I like evey $%& ruling in this post. It's
like a wave of sanity! It's like God himself came down and righted something
wrong! You even fixed Rotz. You made 2nd Tradition work the right way (sorry,
couldn't resist that dig). How the $#&% did you manage this marvel?
What happened? I am stunned and happily bewildered.

I want MORE!!! How about fixing Thoughts Betrayed and Tomb of Ramses III.

MORE, MORE, MORE, MORE!!!!!!!


Quicksilver

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to cbo...@apdi.net

cbo...@apdi.net wrote:

> > > > Rotschreck:
> > > > Play as written.


> > > Why do this? Rotschreck was the only hoser against agg damage, and agg
> > > damage is pretty damned powerful.

> > Now it's a hoser against S:CE.
>

> Perhaps I'm not drawing the coorelation.
> How is this a hoser against S:CE? S:CE doesn't do agg damage.

> The way I read the original ruling
>

> > Agg damage has another (common) answer: damage prevention, which is now
> > even usable against Pulled Fangs and other non-strike-resolution effects.
>

> So you can now use SoS, SoR, etc to prevent damage from Pulled Fangs,
> Weather Control, etc?
>

> Sorrow
> -Prince of New Orleans
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

You play Rotz before strikes are resolved. So a blocking Gangrel can play a
Bone Spur in response to a S:CE and then play a Rotz to send the acting
vampire
to topor before the nasty fellow can escape.

Acting vampire: Strike Majesty
Blocking vampire: Strike hands
Blocking vampire: Play Bone Spur to make damage aggravated
Reacting Methuselah: Play Rotz, acting vampire goes to topor.


JDS

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

Quicksilver wrote in message <35915D8C...@lmco.com>...


YES,YES,YES,YES,!!!!!

Why wasn't anything done for Thought's Betrayed anyways?
What about making it only usable for the first round only?

Any thoughts?


PDB6

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

Now don't get me wrong here, I appreciate the fact that these rulings have been
made, and think pretty much every one is great, but this whole weakening of
Immortal Grapple is sheer madness.

"Possibly your play group will need some time to adjust.
I've tested this new ruling for quite some time now, and
my potence decks do just fine."

The kneecapping of Immortal Grapple has done little more than:

A) Increase the power of Strike:Combat Ends cards, which are already arguably
broken.

B) Make the Nosferatu (and any Pot clan without Cel) far less capable than
before.

C) Make Pressess even more useless than they are.

I fail to see how any of this is a favorable outcome.

Before this erratta, Rush decks were already the most difficult of all deck
designs to suceed with, due to the numerous easy ways to foil them. Immortal
Grapple was the only card that made Potence combat even somewhat viable. Now,
as it only lasts one round, Potence decks have become even _more_ card
dependant, easier to foil, and far less likely to actually work. How is this a
good thing? At this point, you need to either use Celerity (i.e. be the
Brujah) for multiple strikes, have immense first round strikes (i.e. have lots
of Rare Fists of Death), or be playing with 20 Immortal Grapples to have a
slightly viable Potence combat deck. None of these are in anyway an
improvement on the game.

I understand that the way the card worked was kind of wonky at times, but if
you were just going to up and change the wording on the card, why not change it
to something like "Once Immortal Grapple has been played, neither minion may
manuver or use any strikes other than hand strikes for the remainder of
combat"? This would have solved the ambiguity problem, as well as maintaining
the use of the card.

Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com

"I am the world's forgotten boy
the one who searches and destroys."
-Iggy Pop

Joshua Duffin

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
: >
: > :Form of Mist:

[example deleted]

Okay, I guess I get it after all - I was thinking that there was
something more than just the action-modifier addition.

[other clarifications deleted - thanks]

: > (I also would prefer to see Immortal Grapple left under the Sabbat wording,
: > and am dubious about the reworking of Rutor's Hand to make it better, but
: > others have brought those up already.)

: ? What about the Sabbat wording appeals to you?

It says 'for the remainder of combat.' ;-)

As a long-time player of strong and mighty potence-using combat decks,
I liked Immortal Grapple the way it was. However, I can see your point
that staying Grappled at long range isn't very realistic. How about
adding to the superior that, if there is another round of combat, only
hand strikes may be made in that round as well? Since it's guaranteed
(at superior) to be at close range, I think the clear intent is that
the Grapple is keeping your opponent from getting away - so it seems
reasonable to me that they would remain fully Grappled.

Also - since it seems that perhaps everything in the game is now up
for debate ;-) - is there any chance of getting (as someone else also
asked) the often-deemed-abusive cards changed? (That is, the ones you
haven't touched already - Thoughts Betrayed, Tomb of Rameses III, maybe
Dreams of the Sphinx.)

And while I'm at it, what would you think of altering Pulled Fangs to
use the Disarm template? That is, instead of inflicting agg damage (which
is now preventable, and under the VTES changes to agg damage made PF
capable of burning vamps), have it instead just send the vamp getting
the dental work to torpor.

Josh

...actually interacting with the rules team, hard to believe this day
has come...


James Hamblin

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

Josh Duffin begat:

> As a long-time player of strong and mighty potence-using combat decks,
> I liked Immortal Grapple the way it was. However, I can see your point
> that staying Grappled at long range isn't very realistic.

That is, _if_ you view the card as a "two vampires throttling each other
card" as opposed to "a potence card which prevents the other minion from
striking other than with hands". I thought that the Torn Signpost
arguments had clearly shown that real-world arguments don't always apply
to the world of Jyhad, the card game.

Ever since I've been playing this game, Immortal Grapple worked the way
it until-so-recently has done. So, it seems to me LSJ's two arguments
for changing the card:

(1) You can't choke your opponent from long range
and
(2) This is the way it was originally supposed to work

don't hold water for me. Besides which, LSJ has said (2) in another
post:

"To make the card function as it originally should have (IMHO)"

This sort of irks me, since it doesn't seem that your opinion is very
humble when you're applying it to the entire Jyhad community. I know
that you are the ultimate authority now, LSJ, but this seems a little
(and I hesitate to use this word) megalomaniacal to me.

Another little nit; if the "extra" text on the V:tES and Sabbat versions
of this card were just "reminders" (as you have said in yet another
post), why were they not in parentheses like all other reminder text?

James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu

Gomi no Sensei

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

In article <6mrhkt$5kd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:

>How is the inferior silly?

Pre-June 23 IG (inf) allowed a grapple to continue in to the second round
at long range. I believe this is what LSJ (blessings upon him and peace)
referred to as 'silliness.'

>It seems like your responses have been really glib to anything anyone
>has said about how this ruling greatly weakens IG.

mainly because it's hard to see that IG has been 'greatly' weakened.

>>> This effectivley means that you have to pack twice the number of
>>> IG in your deck.
>> If you don't plan on doing sufficient damage in the first round, sure.

>There is only so much damage a pure Potence (not Cel/Pot) deck can dish


>w/o getting into a 5+ card combo.

Oh? Cel/Pot is already combo-intensive; at a bare minimum, you need
a reliable 3-card combo (IG, torn signpost, blur), and at that you need
heavy supporting roles for Flash and Pot strikes, which puts you comfily
in the 5-card combo land. And that's not counting Rushes and Tastes as
part of the combo.

pot can match pot/cel for single-round damage dealt, and POT matches
pot/CEL or POT/cel as well; only when you get into POT/CEL do the combos
start to pack 20 to 33% more damage, and in general, the difference between
6 and 9 damage won't come into play all that often, given the prevalence
of smaller vampires and the lowish blood status of midgame larger ones.

Take the standard pot/cel combo: IG/Torn Signpost/Blur. it generates
4 damage at pot/cel, 6 at POT/cel or pot/CEL, and 9 at POT/CEL.

With potence alone, you'd use IG/TS/Pushing the Limit, or something
similar (of thine own ingenium devise others, as Crowley said). That
combo generates 4 at pot and 6 at POT -- and vampires with POT are cheaper
and easier to come by than POT/cel, pot/CEL, or POT/CEL, as a rule. The
total blood cost of the combo (1) is even equivalent to the pot/cel combo.

>Plain, straight potence?
>I'd love to see one of these decks.

I haven't any put together currently, but I love a challenge. I'm
oustbait in JOL71, and in JOL80 I'll be using something special, but
i'll be happy to design and use a weenie pot/POT rush-o-tastic for a
future JOL.

>I will grant you that I haven't played in any with this new ruling.
>However, in a pure Presence S:CE vs. a pure Potence big strike deck,
>the S:CE will win out.

How you figure? They still can't SCE under IG.

>Now, the Potence deck has to rely on too
>many cards to make dish out enough damage to put the opposing vamp
>into Torpor. Such combos are not consistant enough to be effective
>over the course of the game. If you don't have an IG in your hand
>the second round and you didn't have enough cards in your hand to
>put the other vamp into torpor, you just lost the chance. Before,
>you could at least use Torn Signpost, IG and press a few rounds.

ya, but you're not counting the presses are part of the combo, now
are you? IG, TS and 3 presses are still a '5 card combo' like the ones
you've derided above.

gomi


--
Sure, she may be a nuisance for a while, but then you
kill her and go on with your life. - hamblin at math wisc edu

Jaysen Knight

unread,
Jun 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/24/98
to

Sorry to disagree with you, but the entire "hand strikes only - even
if a mile away at long range" thing sucks. That said, I realize that
the effect of IG only lasting for 1 combat round does have a slight
neutering effect on the card.

I would humbly propose this fix #1: the Grapple (hand strikes only)
lasts for the entire combat, but only while at close range.

or

I would humbly propose this fix #2: the Grapple (hand strikes only)
lasts for the first two rounds of combat, but only while at close range.

Jaysen

Chris Berger

unread,
Jun 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/25/98
to

> >Second Tradition: Domain, The:
> > New card text
>
> Spoil-sport.... :(
>
> Oi, mister, can we have our ball back please?
>
> <grin>
>
8) Funny, you always seem to quote things I know. Me and a friend can
quote that movie back and forth to each other for hours. Other people
throw stuff at us. One scene we changed a little so that we could do it
in infinite loop...

Me: Books are good.
Her: Paradin''s better.
Me: Parading?
Her: You know... (This part we don't know well... Usually we make
something up like the following) Walkin' the streets, seein' the sights,
living!
Me: I *am* living.
Her: You? Living? If yer not beating away at them pagan skins, ye've
got yer hooter scraping away at that book.
Me: Yeah... a bloomin' book!
Her(switching voices): Books are good.
Me: Paradin''s better.
...

And so on, switching accents each time. 8)

-Chris