Ok. How about this Succubus Club compromise?
Peter D Bakija
mind based on recent discussion.
I suspect that most of the really unplesant effects of Succubus Club could be
fixed by errataing it to say that you can't trade away the Succubus Club itself
(as mentioned by Aaron somewhere). This would prevent the super power swing
caused by the "You give me all of your vampires and locatons at the start of my
turn in exchange for my Succubus Club, and on your turn, I'll give you all your
stuff back, plus all of my stuff in exchange for the SC back, and so on..."--if
someone wanted to give away all their stuff at the start of player X's turn,
they couldn't then get it back until the start of player X's next turn, making
such a trade *far* less enticing.
This would leave the SC still available for "bribery" decks ("You give me 2
pool, I won't kill your vampire...") and most other reasonable, non
particularly disruptive uses, but would curtail its ability to be used in vast
cross table exchanges of resources at the start of every player's (who is
involved) turn.
Can anyone see how this errata A) wouldn't fix most of the really icky uses of
the card and B) wouldn't be ok in general?
Granted, I still don't think it would be bad if it were banned, but then I have
no problem with banning cards in general that strike me as problematic. But
that's me. Hows about the errata?
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"The Ramones are more important than the Solar System."
-Sean Finnerty
James Coupe
<pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes
>Can anyone see how this errata A) wouldn't fix most of the really icky uses of
>the card and B) wouldn't be ok in general?
Not undermining this errata, but my post in the "Right then, let's ban
Succubus Club" thread has a number of potential other fixes which might
also be up for some sort of consideration.
Using your errata, the card could still be ripe for a number of "Look,
I'm going to die. I can choose how I die. I give 3 pool, 4 minions, my
Hunting Ground, London Evening Star, Rack, Palatial Estate and Sargon
Fragment to you. Oh, and since he's going to get me with his damn
stealthed Nosferatu Law Firm votes, do you want this Archon
Investigation from my hand?" king-making situations.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F
They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6
I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D
The Nosferatu Stuff
> Not undermining this errata, but my post in the "Right then, let's ban
> Succubus Club" thread has a number of potential other fixes which
might
> also be up for some sort of consideration.
Not to undermine any of those awesome ideas, but didn't you come up with
all the ones in that thread? LOL
Some of them seem really Magic:the Gathering-esk. Did/do you play?
--
Aaron
The Nosferatu Stuff
James Coupe
Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes
>James Coupe wrote:
>> Not undermining this errata, but my post in the "Right then, let's ban
>> Succubus Club" thread has a number of potential other fixes which
>might
>> also be up for some sort of consideration.
>
>Not to undermine any of those awesome ideas, but didn't you come up with
>all the ones in that thread? LOL
No, since some had already been mentioned. HTH
>Some of them seem really Magic:the Gathering-esk. Did/do you play?
Comparatively briefly, and entirely non-competitively. The game still
commands my attention from time to time from other points of view,
however.
Frederick Scott
> I suspect that most of the really unplesant effects of Succubus Club could be
> fixed by errataing it to say that you can't trade away the Succubus Club itself
> (as mentioned by Aaron somewhere). This would prevent the super power swing
> caused by the "You give me all of your vampires and locatons at the start of my
> turn in exchange for my Succubus Club, and on your turn, I'll give you all your
> stuff back, plus all of my stuff in exchange for the SC back, and so on..."--if
> someone wanted to give away all their stuff at the start of player X's turn,
> they couldn't then get it back until the start of player X's next turn, making
> such a trade *far* less enticing.
>
> This would leave the SC still available for "bribery" decks ("You give me 2
> pool, I won't kill your vampire...") and most other reasonable, non
> particularly disruptive uses, but would curtail its ability to be used in vast
> cross table exchanges of resources at the start of every player's (who is
> involved) turn.
>
> Can anyone see how this errata A) wouldn't fix most of the really icky uses of
> the card and B) wouldn't be ok in general?
I suppose it might help eliminate the absolute worst stuff. However, in my two
visits to LA which turned me against the Succubus Club, no one passed the Succubus
Club itself in any of the games I was in. (I did see it in a few other games
from time to time.) So I learned to hate this card without that being an important
point. For me, it still causes huge power swings, game delays, and annoying tricks
without the extra turn of dealing.
Fred
....salem christ....
> I suspect that most of the really unplesant effects of
> Succubus Club could be
> fixed by errataing it to say that you can't
> trade away the Succubus Club itself
> (as mentioned by Aaron somewhere).
[snip]
>
> Can anyone see how this errata A) wouldn't fix most of the really icky uses of
> the card and B) wouldn't be ok in general?
>
> Granted, I still don't think it would be bad if it were banned, but then I have
> no problem with banning cards in general that strike me as problematic. But
i am a big fan of not banning stuff....but that's just me.
one of my reasons i posted in a response to emiliano..
> that's me. Hows about the errata?
it's the house rule we used for our tournaments pre-DCI. it worked ok
back then.
it's probably the easiest and fairest errata, and you could almost
beleive it was true by current card text anyway
(i trade away the succubus club..but as soon as it has left me i don't
have it so i can't trade it, so it doesn't get traded so i do have it, so
i can trade it, but as it gets traded i don't have it so i can't trade it
so...ah fuck it, i'll just not trade it.)
salem.
....salem christ....
> In message <20010910201241...@mb-cl.aol.com>, Peter D Bakija
> <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes
> >Can anyone see how this errata A) wouldn't fix most of the really icky uses of
> >the card and B) wouldn't be ok in general?
>
> Not undermining this errata, but my post in the "Right then, let's ban
> Succubus Club" thread has a number of potential other fixes which might
> also be up for some sort of consideration.
>
> Using your errata, the card could still be ripe for a number of "Look,
> I'm going to die. I can choose how I die. I give 3 pool, 4 minions, my
> Hunting Ground, London Evening Star, Rack, Palatial Estate and Sargon
> Fragment to you. Oh, and since he's going to get me with his damn
> stealthed Nosferatu Law Firm votes, do you want this Archon
> Investigation from my hand?" king-making situations.
well, if the person about to die was the one with SC, they could appeal
to other meths for help to stay alive (no one wants VP going to people
who aren't them..)
if they didn't have the SC, the SC player might want to help stay alive
as a potential VP later, or a "speed bump" against that nasty Nosferatu
Law Firm (!? Selma, Murat, Nicklaus, Calebros and Sheldon, the Repugnant
Clog Lord Martyrs just doesn't quite have that ring to it....) deck.
and if the SC person was the predator of the person about to die, why the
hell would the prey give them all their stuff? where's their sense of
spite?
salem.
evil_p...@moc.oohay.yahoo.com
wrote:
>Using your errata, the card could still be ripe for a number of "Look,
>I'm going to die. I can choose how I die. I give 3 pool, 4 minions, my
>Hunting Ground, London Evening Star, Rack, Palatial Estate and Sargon
>Fragment to you. Oh, and since he's going to get me with his damn
>stealthed Nosferatu Law Firm votes, do you want this Archon
>Investigation from my hand?" king-making situations.
Actually... I've found that seems to be the best antidote for ending
up on the screw-side of a deal. Kind of a 'poison-pill strategy.' If
a table split or a sweep is in the works, and I know I'm just bait,
I'll throw my VP to someone else, just to keep it out of the hands of
those that are getting the other VPs anyway. (re: dealmakers/sweepers)
I've ended up keeping one VP out of the hands of BS conspirators, out
of three opportunities that I can remember offhand. In retrospect, I
seriously regret not appropriately distributing the other two.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Andrew S. Davidson
>I suspect that most of the really unpleasant effects
>of Succubus Club could be fixed by errataing it to say
>that you can't trade away the Succubus Club itself
I agree. It doesn't even require errata IMO - just a ruling. Given
that you need the Succubus Club to complete a trade, it's already
debatable whether you can trade away the Succubus Club itself. Just
think of it as a timing issue.
Andrew
jeroen rombouts
> it's probably the easiest and fairest errata, and you could almost
> beleive it was true by current card text anyway
> (i trade away the succubus club..but as soon as it has left me i don't
> have it so i can't trade it, so it doesn't get traded so i do have it, so
> i can trade it, but as it gets traded i don't have it so i can't trade it
> so...ah fuck it, i'll just not trade it.)
>
small amount of time the trade is actually made), the trade fizzles because
the requirements of "...These trades can only happen during your (being the
controller's) untap phase..." were no longer met, because (of course) it's
not the controller's Untap Phase. It isn't even his turn.
This is clearly not the official view, but maybe someone can explain to me
why it isn't. LSJ?
Jeroen
LSJ
Card text.
You control it. You can trade it (during your untap phase).
Same way Charnas can be moved to someone else's vampire once in play.
Same way Millicent Smith moves (even though, when she moves, you no longer
control her, so - by above logic, she couldn't move).
etc.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
James Coupe
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>I agree. It doesn't even require errata IMO - just a ruling. Given
>that you need the Succubus Club to complete a trade, it's already
>debatable whether you can trade away the Succubus Club itself.
It is not clear that you need Succubus Club to *complete* the trade.
jeroen rombouts
> > That's how we ruled it too. Once the SC is traded away (that is: in the
> > small amount of time the trade is actually made), the trade fizzles
because
> > the requirements of "...These trades can only happen during your (being
the
> > controller's) untap phase..." were no longer met, because (of course)
it's
> > not the controller's Untap Phase. It isn't even his turn.
> >
> > This is clearly not the official view, but maybe someone can explain to
me
> > why it isn't. LSJ?
>
> Card text.
> You control it. You can trade it (during your untap phase).
OK. But (as James pointed out) card text is a little unclear on this
matter. Do you need SC to initiate a trade or do you need SC to complete a
trade? Like it is, the first interpretation is the most common, but there's
no card text to support it, neither is there card text to support the second
interpretation. Both could be valid, IMHO.
>
> Same way Charnas can be moved to someone else's vampire once in play.
> Same way Millicent Smith moves (even though, when she moves, you no longer
> control her, so - by above logic, she couldn't move).
> etc.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean.
Jeroen
The Unenlighted one
LSJ
>
> > > That's how we ruled it too. Once the SC is traded away (that is: in the
> > > small amount of time the trade is actually made), the trade fizzles
> because
> > > the requirements of "...These trades can only happen during your (being
> the
> > > controller's) untap phase..." were no longer met, because (of course)
> it's
> > > not the controller's Untap Phase. It isn't even his turn.
> > >
> > > This is clearly not the official view, but maybe someone can explain to
> me
> > > why it isn't. LSJ?
> >
> > Card text.
> > You control it. You can trade it (during your untap phase).
>
> OK. But (as James pointed out) card text is a little unclear on this
> matter. Do you need SC to initiate a trade or do you need SC to complete a
> trade? Like it is, the first interpretation is the most common, but there's
> no card text to support it, neither is there card text to support the second
> interpretation. Both could be valid, IMHO.
No. You control it. It is a card in play. You can trade it (card text).
Where did this "initiate/complete" distinction come from?
There is no basis for such distinction.
You make a trade or you don't.
> >
> > Same way Charnas can be moved to someone else's vampire once in play.
> > Same way Millicent Smith moves (even though, when she moves, you no longer
> > control her, so - by above logic, she couldn't move).
> > etc.
> I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean.
Do you need to control Millicent in order to complete tranferring control
of her to your predator? You don't control her when you complete the
transfer (although you did when you initiated the transfer), so can she
be transferred?
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>Where did this "initiate/complete" distinction come from?
See: straws, clutching at.
jeroen rombouts
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3B9E282C...@white-wolf.com...
Intuitively, there is. But I know in V:TES the most intuitive answers
seldom are the right ones. BTW, this is no criticism on the game, it's just
my sense of (il)logic, I think.
> You make a trade or you don't.
>
> > >
> > > Same way Charnas can be moved to someone else's vampire once in play.
> > > Same way Millicent Smith moves (even though, when she moves, you no
longer
> > > control her, so - by above logic, she couldn't move).
> > > etc.
> > I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean.
>
> Do you need to control Millicent in order to complete tranferring control
> of her to your predator? You don't control her when you complete the
> transfer (although you did when you initiated the transfer), so can she
> be transferred?
>
But in the above examples, changing control of the card itself is explicit
card text. Not so for SC.
(to James:) Another straw to be clutchted at.
LSJ
> >
> > Where did this "initiate/complete" distinction come from?
> > There is no basis for such distinction.
>
> Intuitively, there is. But I know in V:TES the most intuitive answers
> seldom are the right ones. BTW, this is no criticism on the game, it's just
> my sense of (il)logic, I think.
This is intuitive: you are allowed to trade cards in play. SC is a card
in play. Attempting to break "trade" into "you may set up a trade of
a card you control so long as the trade doesn't result in you losing
control of the SC" is not intuitive by any stretch.
> > You make a trade or you don't.
> > Do you need to control Millicent in order to complete tranferring control
> > of her to your predator? You don't control her when you complete the
> > transfer (although you did when you initiated the transfer), so can she
> > be transferred?
> >
> But in the above examples, changing control of the card itself is explicit
> card text. Not so for SC.
Why the distinction? SC's card text allows it to be traded, since it is
a card in play. This is explicit in its card text.
James Coupe
rombouts <jeroen....@pandora.be> writes
>> Where did this "initiate/complete" distinction come from?
>> There is no basis for such distinction.
>
>Intuitively, there is.
At times, yes. e.g. in the playing of an action, which takes place over
a long period of time which may fizzle.
Other effects just happen when you initiate them.
Tetragrammaton
it allows players to spend a big amount of time in making deals,
a time that can be employed in unspormanslike manner,
but that can be hardly ruled by a Judge as a stalling for time..
Just my thought
Emiliano, prince of Rome
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:20010910201241...@mb-cl.aol.com...
> Ok then. 'Cause I'm not insane (but clearly a rabble-rouser), I have
changed my
> mind based on recent discussion.
>
<snip>
>
> Granted, I still don't think it would be bad if it were banned, but then I
have
> no problem with banning cards in general that strike me as problematic.
But
> that's me. Hows about the errata?
>
No further errata, please...