Rules Team Rulings 07-JUL-07
LSJ
tournaments for 30 days. (So these become active on August 06, 2007.)
ERRATA
Putrefaction: replace "He or she may burn this card instead of untapping" with
"He or she does not untap as normal. Burn this card during untap phase."
RULINGS
Cards allies play as vampires treat them as vampires for duration effects (but
not effects from the card-in-play).
All cost-affecting cards operate no matter how the card is played ("as normal"
or otherwise). All multiplication and division is handled first, followed by
addition and subtraction.
Note that pay nothing still means pay nothing, even if something else would add
to the cost. So costs for cards canceled by Sudden Reversal or Direct
Intervention are still not paid, for example. And Bauble and Horrid Reality
still gets weapons for free. And similar for Helena and Dragos.
Similarly, cards that can be used to pay some of the cost of other cards can be
used whenever such a cost is being paid (regardless of whether the card is
played "as normal" or not).
The card on Echo of Harmonies is not in play, even though it is face up. (This
would be interesting only if the card was unique (none so far) or if it is a
Boon and Blood Trade is in play).
Rötschreck can be played on a vampire who is immune to Frenzy cards (uselessly,
since the target is immune to it).
The Lasombra
>As always, changes contained herein do not go into effect for santioned
Sanctioned is spelled wrong.
>RULINGS
>The card on Echo of Harmonies is not in play, even though it is face up. (This
>would be interesting only if the card was unique (none so far) or if it is a
>Boon and Blood Trade is in play).
There is no card "on" Echo of Harmonies. Echo of Harmonies is always
played to the ash heap.
'After the referendum, move the political action card used to call the
referendum from your ash heap to this vampire, face down. '
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=cardlist
Echo of Harmonies [BL:R2, LoB:R]
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Melpominee/Presence
Only usable during a referendum.
[pre] If you burn the Edge for a vote, this vampire gains 2 votes.
[mel] Usable by a ready vampire other than the acting minion. This
vampire gains 2 votes.
[MEL] Usable by a ready vampire other than the acting minion. After
the referendum, move the political action card used to call the
referendum from your ash heap to this vampire, face down. This vampire
may play the political action card as if from your hand (requirements
and cost apply as normal).
Artist: Brian LeBlanc
librarian
> As always, changes contained herein do not go into effect for santioned
> tournaments for 30 days. (So these become active on August 06, 2007.)
>
>
> The card on Echo of Harmonies is not in play, even though it is face up. (This
> would be interesting only if the card was unique (none so far) or if it is a
> Boon and Blood Trade is in play).
>
Persistent Echo?
best -
chris
LSJ
>> The card on Echo of Harmonies is not in play, even though it is face up. (This
>> would be interesting only if the card was unique (none so far) or if it is a
>> Boon and Blood Trade is in play).
>
> There is no card "on" Echo of Harmonies. Echo of Harmonies is always
> played to the ash heap.
The card on Echo = The card retrieved by Echo placed on the vampire.
> 'After the referendum, move the political action card used to call the
> referendum from your ash heap to this vampire, face down. '
Face down, eh?
I guess we were referring to the BL version. The ruling is rather redundant with
the new wording.
The Lasombra
wrote:
The card on Persistent Echo is also face down.
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=cardlist
Persistent Echo [LoB:R]
Cardtype: Action
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Melpominee/Auspex
+1 stealth action.
[aus] Untap a vampire with Melpominee.
[mel] Put this card in play and put a card <from your hand> that
requires Melpominee on this card, face down. You may look at the card
at any time. Any vampire you control may burn this card to play the
card on it as if from your hand and as if he or she had basic
Melpominee.
[MEL] As [mel] above, and the vampire may play the card as if he or
she had superior Melpominee.
Artist: Abrar Ajmal
Jozxyqk
> All cost-affecting cards operate no matter how the card is played ("as normal"
> or otherwise). All multiplication and division is handled first, followed by
> addition and subtraction.
Happy. Tshwane+Pier 13, Charisma+Summoning, etc, always seemed like they *should*
work...
Does this have any effect on the recent Summoning+Nocturn ruling (PRE/OBT vampire
playing The Summoning to get a superior Nocturn may repeat Summoning with the cost
of Summoning increased, rather than Nocturn action)?
I assume no, because the Nocturn text still says "this action."
Jozxyqk
> As always, changes contained herein do not go into effect for santioned
> tournaments for 30 days. (So these become active on August 06, 2007.)
> ERRATA
> Putrefaction: replace "He or she may burn this card instead of untapping" with
> "He or she does not untap as normal. Burn this card during untap phase."
Also, any particular reason/justification for this errata?
Not like I've EVER seen Putrefaction played, but why would you deny the target
minion the ability to choose to keep the card (for whatever corner-case benefit
they can get from keeping -1 stealth and/or the ability to choose not to strike)?
Was there a specific example of play where this card was broken in its current
state?
LSJ
Also "no" because "this" is a ruling on cost-affecting cards, and merely
increases the scope on which the cost-affecting effect is applied. The
summoning+nocturn ruling isn't about costs, and the summoning+nocturn ruling is
already permissive, so the relaxing of the ruling on costs wouldn't change that.
Jozxyqk
> RULINGS
> Cards allies play as vampires treat them as vampires for duration effects (but
> not effects from the card-in-play).
Is this only true for allies, or is it also true for other "X playing a card as Y"
effects? For example, Mata Hari + Raking Talons.
> Rötschreck can be played on a vampire who is immune to Frenzy cards (uselessly,
> since the target is immune to it).
Why does this only apply to Rotschreck? Can other Frenzy cards be played on a
vampire who is immune to Frenzy cards (for no effect)?
LSJ
> Sorry, just 2 more requests for clarification:
>
>> RULINGS
>
>> Cards allies play as vampires treat them as vampires for duration effects (but
>> not effects from the card-in-play).
>
> Is this only true for allies, or is it also true for other "X playing a card as Y"
> effects? For example, Mata Hari + Raking Talons.
Of course.
>> Rötschreck can be played on a vampire who is immune to Frenzy cards (uselessly,
>> since the target is immune to it).
>
> Why does this only apply to Rotschreck? Can other Frenzy cards be played on a
> vampire who is immune to Frenzy cards (for no effect)?
Of course.
XZealot
> Jozxyqk wrote:
> > Sorry, just 2 more requests for clarification:
>
> >> RULINGS
>
> >> Cards allies play as vampires treat them as vampires for duration effects (but
> >> not effects from the card-in-play).
>
> > Is this only true for allies, or is it also true for other "X playing a card as Y"
> > effects? For example, Mata Hari + Raking Talons.
What about Mata Hari + Clandestine Contract + Provisions of Silsilia?
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
LSJ
> What about Mata Hari + Clandestine Contract + Provisions of Silsilia?
Mata can use CC to enter combat once (the action), but the "this Assamite is
chosen" is a function of the card-in-play, so won't choose the non-Assamite
Mata. And so she can't play Provisions.
Bram Vink
> As always, changes contained herein do not go into effect for santioned
> tournaments for 30 days. (So these become active on August 06, 2007.)
>
> ERRATA
>
> Putrefaction: replace "He or she may burn this card instead of untapping" with
> "He or she does not untap as normal. Burn this card during untap phase."
>
> RULINGS
>
> Cards allies play as vampires treat them as vampires for duration effects (but
> not effects from the card-in-play).
>
> All cost-affecting cards operate no matter how the card is played ("as normal"
> or otherwise). All multiplication and division is handled first, followed by
> addition and subtraction.
> Note that pay nothing still means pay nothing, even if something else would add
> to the cost. So costs for cards canceled by Sudden Reversal or Direct
> Intervention are still not paid, for example. And Bauble and Horrid Reality
> still gets weapons for free. And similar for Helena and Dragos.
> Similarly, cards that can be used to pay some of the cost of other cards can be
> used whenever such a cost is being paid (regardless of whether the card is
> played "as normal" or not).
Hmm. I'm not entirely clear on what this means.
I'm going to assume this doesn't override cardtext?
ie. Antonio d'Erlette using his ability doesnt get cost reduction from
Charisma (cardtext being pretty clear on that).
Or am I mistaken?
cheers,
Bram
<snip>
Klai...@gmail.com
I would imagine it was done more to make Putrefaction BETTER so that
now it makes the minion it is played on to not untap next turn.
Salem
previously it would stop them untapping next turn in return for burning
the card. so that part is the same.
it's just that now if the minion it is on was already untapped, the card
will still burn, unlike before.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Jozxyqk
But I'm sure there was something specific to trigger this errata.
LSJ usually doesn't issue errata just to make a wallpaper card more playable...
I just want to know what the complaint/situation was that got this card on the
RTR Errata Watch List.
LSJ
> On 7 jul, 16:47, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> All cost-affecting cards operate no matter how the card is played ("as normal"
>> or otherwise). All multiplication and division is handled first, followed by
>> addition and subtraction.
> I'm going to assume this doesn't override cardtext?
> ie. Antonio d'Erlette using his ability doesnt get cost reduction from
> Charisma (cardtext being pretty clear on that).
It doesn't turn non-actions into actions, if that's what you mean, right.
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> As always, changes contained herein do not go into effect for santioned
>> tournaments for 30 days. (So these become active on August 06, 2007.)
>
>> ERRATA
>
>> Putrefaction: replace "He or she may burn this card instead of untapping" with
>> "He or she does not untap as normal. Burn this card during untap phase."
>
> Also, any particular reason/justification for this errata?
> Not like I've EVER seen Putrefaction played, but why would you deny the target
> minion the ability to choose to keep the card (for whatever corner-case benefit
> they can get from keeping -1 stealth and/or the ability to choose not to strike)?
Sorry. I was a little overzealous when writing that up. The intended change is
only from "instead of untapping" to "not untap and burn", not a change in the
"may" part.
It should be "He or she may choose not to untap as normal and burn this card
during his or her untap phase."
> Was there a specific example of play where this card was broken in its current
> state?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f50b1814afef61e3
Rehlow
>
> All cost-affecting cards operate no matter how the card is played ("as normal"
> or otherwise). All multiplication and division is handled first, followed by
> addition and subtraction.
So if I have a Lasombra with Ankara Citadel, Charisma, Drink the Blood
of Ahriman and Path of Night is in play when he plays his seventh
Nocturn this turn it would cost ...
7 (7th Nocturn) divided by 2 (Ankara) = 3 - 1 (Charisma) - 1 (Drink
the Blood of Ahriman) - 1 (Path of Night) = 0
Correct?
Nice.
Later,
~Rehlow
CthuluKitty
> >> Putrefaction: replace "He or she may burn this card instead of untapping" with
> >> "He or she does not untap as normal. Burn this card during untap phase."
>
> > Not like I've EVER seen Putrefaction played, but why would you deny the target
> > minion the ability to choose to keep the card (for whatever corner-case benefit
> > they can get from keeping -1 stealth and/or the ability to choose not to strike)?
LSJ:
> Sorry. I was a little overzealous when writing that up. The intended change is
> only from "instead of untapping" to "not untap and burn", not a change in the
> "may" part.
>
> It should be "He or she may choose not to untap as normal and burn this card
> during his or her untap phase."
Interesting. When Kevin Mergan was calling you from Origins, I was
bugging him to ask you why the burning effect became optional, but he
did not. The current text would have allowed minions to burn
Putrefaction after effects such as Freak Drive or Rutor's Hand. I can
see how that was outside designer intent, but the "may" clause still
seems to be a part of it. Does "should be" in this context mean the
same thing as "is"?
It is totally unclear to me what "of course" means in either of these
cases, since Josh presents you with two possible scenarios in both of
them.
Jesse
LSJ
Yes.
LSJ
> Joz:
>>>> Putrefaction: replace "He or she may burn this card instead of untapping" with
>>> Also, any particular reason/justification for this errata?
>>> Not like I've EVER seen Putrefaction played, but why would you deny the target
>>> minion the ability to choose to keep the card (for whatever corner-case benefit
>>> they can get from keeping -1 stealth and/or the ability to choose not to strike)?
>
> LSJ:
>> Sorry. I was a little overzealous when writing that up. The intended change is
>> only from "instead of untapping" to "not untap and burn", not a change in the
>> "may" part.
>>
>> It should be "He or she may choose not to untap as normal and burn this card
>> during his or her untap phase."
>
> Interesting. When Kevin Mergan was calling you from Origins, I was
> bugging him to ask you why the burning effect became optional, but he
It was optional before. It is still optional.
> did not. The current text would have allowed minions to burn
> Putrefaction after effects such as Freak Drive or Rutor's Hand.
No. Freak Drive is not "as normal".
> I can
> see how that was outside designer intent, but the "may" clause still
> seems to be a part of it. Does "should be" in this context mean the
> same thing as "is"?
?
Of course.
>> Jozxyqk wrote:
>>> Sorry, just 2 more requests for clarification:
>>>> RULINGS
>>>> Cards allies play as vampires treat them as vampires for duration effects (but
>>>> not effects from the card-in-play).
>>> Is this only true for allies, or is it also true for other "X playing a card as Y"
>>> effects? For example, Mata Hari + Raking Talons.
>> Of course.
>>
>>>> Rötschreck can be played on a vampire who is immune to Frenzy cards (uselessly,
>>>> since the target is immune to it).
>>> Why does this only apply to Rotschreck? Can other Frenzy cards be played on a
>>> vampire who is immune to Frenzy cards (for no effect)?
>> Of course.
>
> It is totally unclear to me what "of course" means in either of these
> cases, since Josh presents you with two possible scenarios in both of
> them.
It applies to the question the immediately precedes it.
Note that "Of course" cannot be an answer to "Why does this only apply to
Rotschreck?", of course.
CthuluKitty
> >> during his or her untap phase."
>
> > Interesting. When Kevin Mergan was calling you from Origins, I was
> > bugging him to ask you why the burning effect became optional, but he
>
> It was optional before. It is still optional.
Sorry. I reversed that. The original text and the text you're giving
us now is optional. The errata that was originally released made the
burn effect mandatory. So the only change is that an already untapped
minion may still burn Putrefaction in the untap phase?
> > did not. The current text would have allowed minions to burn
> > Putrefaction after effects such as Freak Drive or Rutor's Hand.
>
> No. Freak Drive is not "as normal".
"As normal" was cut from the portion of the text cited in the initial
errata. This omission made it much harder to figure out what you were
trying to change.
> >>> Sorry, just 2 more requests for clarification:
> >>>> RULINGS
> >>>> Cards allies play as vampires treat them as vampires for duration effects (but
> >>>> not effects from the card-in-play).
> >>> Is this only true for allies, or is it also true for other "X playing a card as Y"
> >>> effects? For example, Mata Hari + Raking Talons.
> >>>> Rötschreck can be played on a vampire who is immune to Frenzy cards (uselessly,
> >>>> since the target is immune to it).
While these rulings make sense now, wouldn't it have been easier to
have written them as the general statements they're intended as,
rather than specific ones that the players are expected to generalize?
For all I know as a player, you could have intended to make Torn
Signpost work for Rock Cat, but did not want Raking Talons to work for
Mata Hari. I'm not sure why the reverse of that was "of course" true.
The same holds for the Rotschreck example as well.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:_tJki.38253$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
Just for the sake of anyone who was thinking about having a Lasombra
with lots of junk on him get 7 Nocturns in one turn, you would have to
have played about 5 Freak Drives to do that. Because only the first
Nocturn untaps you. :-)
Josh
für rehlise
LSJ
>>>> It should be "He or she may choose not to untap as normal and burn this card
>>>> during his or her untap phase."
>>> Interesting. When Kevin Mergan was calling you from Origins, I was
>>> bugging him to ask you why the burning effect became optional, but he
>> It was optional before. It is still optional.
>
> Sorry. I reversed that. The original text and the text you're giving
> us now is optional. The errata that was originally released made the
> burn effect mandatory. So the only change is that an already untapped
> minion may still burn Putrefaction in the untap phase?
The change is that you don't burn it "instead" of untapping, as if the untap was
a cost to be paid (and therefore unpayable if you are already not untapping as
normal).
Instead, you burn it by taking a (possibly redundant) "do not untap as normal"
penalty.
LSJ
Fortunately, the Freaks are free, thanks to the Citadel. :-)
Rehlow
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You betcha. Its nice that there are several Lasombra with fortitude to
choose from.
Later,
~Rehlow
Kevin M.
>
> RULINGS
>
> All cost-affecting cards operate no matter how the card is played
> ("as normal" or otherwise). All multiplication and division is
> handled first, followed by addition and subtraction.
>
> would add to the cost. So costs for cards canceled by Sudden Reversal
> or Direct Intervention are still not paid, for example. And Bauble
> and Horrid Reality still gets weapons for free. And similar for
> Helena and Dragos.
Does this mean that a Charisma'd Zhenga now gets the Charisma benefit for
each of the allies that she recruits via her special? It would seem so,
since your previous ruling
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7c84d3990fa2dc94 doesn't take into account this RTR.
--kevin
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> RULINGS
>>
>> All cost-affecting cards operate no matter how the card is played
>> ("as normal" or otherwise). All multiplication and division is
>> handled first, followed by addition and subtraction.
>>
>> Note that pay nothing still means pay nothing, even if something else
>> would add to the cost. So costs for cards canceled by Sudden Reversal
>> or Direct Intervention are still not paid, for example. And Bauble
>> and Horrid Reality still gets weapons for free. And similar for
>> Helena and Dragos.
>
> Does this mean that a Charisma'd Zhenga now gets the Charisma benefit for
> each of the allies that she recruits via her special?
No. Charisma only reduces the cost of recruit ally actions, by card text.