Derange (LSJ)

This came up during our league yesterday: Once a Derange is in play, can it be *moved with the D-acion* onto antoher !Malkavian? At some point of the game yesterday, there were 10 !Malks on the table, some Malkavian Derangement: Paranoia, and even a Mind of a Child. :) Sadly there was vote lock, und my higher-up !Malks weren't at hand for the Sacrifice. :) Also, my prey played Consanguinious boon on his Lasombra. I pointed out he should name !Malks, as he had already 2. We had a good laugh. Eventually, the deck didn't make any VP's. But this may have been bad luck... Carl Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

prea...@utanet.at wrote: > > This came up during our league yesterday: > Once a Derange is in play, can it be *moved with the D-acion* onto > antoher !Malkavian? No. Card text: "This card cannot be played on a Malkavian Antitribu." [RTR 30-JUN-1997] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep

In article <38E49D7D...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > prea...@utanet.at wrote: > > > > This came up during our league yesterday: > > Once a Derange is in play, can it be *moved with the D-acion* onto > > antoher !Malkavian? > > No. Card text: "This card cannot be played on a Malkavian Antitribu." > [RTR 30-JUN-1997] But the Derange can be moved on a non-antitribu Malkavian. Is right? Thanks Aemilianus, Prince of Rome. > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep > [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > No. Card text: "This card cannot be played on a Malkavian Antitribu." > > [RTR 30-JUN-1997] > > But the Derange can be moved on a non-antitribu Malkavian. > Is right? ? Yes. It can be moved to any vampire that is not a Malkavian Antitribu vampire. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: [ quoted text not captured ]

> Eventually, the deck didn't make any VP's. But this may have been bad > luck... > Hehe, would have been a big surprise for everyone if your deck would have made a VP. :) But the idea was nice I give you that. Better luck next time Carl. Graf Metternich [ quoted text not captured ]

> > This came up during our league yesterday: > > Once a Derange is in play, can it be *moved with the D-acion* onto > > antoher !Malkavian? > > No. Card text: "This card cannot be played on a Malkavian Antitribu." > [RTR 30-JUN-1997] Hm, I like it that way. :) Unluckily we didn't play it that way, so one of the vamps ended voluntarily up with 4 or 5 of the Derange cards. :( However, just to play devils advocate, is there no difference in playing a card and moving it? Because Derange says that you cannot "play" it on a !Malk but it doesn't say on the same card that it may not be "moved" to a !Malk. What's the deal here? Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

prea...@utanet.at wrote: > > > Once a Derange is in play, can it be *moved with the D-acion* onto > > > antoher !Malkavian? > > No. Card text: "This card cannot be played on a Malkavian > > Antitribu." [RTR 30-JUN-1997] > However, just to play devils advocate, is there no difference in > playing a card and moving it? Because Derange says that you cannot > "play" it on a !Malk but it doesn't say on the same card that it may > not be "moved" to a !Malk. What's the deal here? See the cited RTR (which is why such things are cited in the first place): GENERAL RULINGS 1) You cannot move a card onto something that it can't normally be played on. For example, a minion with Derange on it can't move the card to a Malkavian antitribu, which can't have Derange played on it. This rule also covers cases where a minion cannot have more than one of a card or type of card. For example, you can't attempt to move a second vehicle onto a minion that is already equipped with one. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8ca1l4$okc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes >See the cited RTR (which is why such things are cited in the first >place): > >GENERAL RULINGS > >1) You cannot move a card onto something that it can't normally be >played on. For example, a minion with Derange on it can't move the card >to a Malkavian antitribu, which can't have Derange played on it. This >rule also covers cases where a minion cannot have more than one of a >card or type of card. For example, you can't attempt to move a second >vehicle onto a minion that is already equipped with one. Rules Team Rulings for 23 June 1998 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). -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes > >1) You cannot move a card onto something that it can't normally be > >played on. James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Rules Team Rulings for 23 June 1998 > Moving cards: The rule against moving a card onto something it cannot > normally be played on is no longer in effect. All in favor of revisiting old errata for sanity testing say, "Aye!" Aye! If LSJ can't keep track of his errata, how are we supposed to? This only proves my case that we need to go over existing rulings and clear out the cobwebs before the revised rulebook goes to print. Noal -- As of 3/30/2000, I am officially "over 30" and therefore unable to be trusted. If you don't know why, ask your parents. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes > >[RTR 30-JUN-1997]: > >GENERAL RULINGS > > > >1) You cannot move a card onto something that it can't normally be > >played on. For example, a minion with Derange on it can't move the card > >to a Malkavian antitribu, which can't have Derange played on it. This > >rule also covers cases where a minion cannot have more than one of a > >card or type of card. For example, you can't attempt to move a second > >vehicle onto a minion that is already equipped with one. > > Rules Team Rulings for 23 June 1998 > > 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). Oops. :-) How about "it is a standing restriction" [LSJ 18-AUG-1998]? http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=382280922&fmt=text (Dueling citations... I like it :-) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep

Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes > > >1) You cannot move a card onto something that it can't normally be > > >played on. > > James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > Rules Team Rulings for 23 June 1998 > > Moving cards: The rule against moving a card onto something it cannot > > normally be played on is no longer in effect. > > All in favor of revisiting old errata for sanity testing say, "Aye!" > Aye! Aye! (I have to do it anyhow) > If LSJ can't keep track of his errata, how are we supposed to? This > only proves my case that we need to go over existing rulings and clear > out the cobwebs before the revised rulebook goes to print. The ruling cited by James Coupe above served to remove the problem of, say, moving a retainer that required a skill onto a vampire who didn't have that skill via Heidelberg Castle, for instance. It doesn't server to errata standing prohibitions, like as for Derange or Discipline cards. If you do find any cobwebs in the rules or errata set, though, please let me know. I'd appreciate the help. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The ruling cited by James Coupe above served to remove the problem > of, say, moving a retainer that required a skill onto a vampire > who didn't have that skill via Heidelberg Castle, for instance. > It doesn't server to errata standing prohibitions, like as for > Derange or Discipline cards. The problem is that the wording you chose made no differentiation between the two. If you limited the wording in the 6/23 ruling that James cited to retainers and equipment, you would remove the apparent contradiction. > If you do find any cobwebs in the rules or errata set, though, > please let me know. I'd appreciate the help. Sure thing, Scott. Regards, Noal -- As of 3/30/2000, I am officially "over 30" and therefore unable to be trusted. If you don't know why, ask your parents. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > The ruling cited by James Coupe above served to remove the problem > > of, say, moving a retainer that required a skill onto a vampire > > who didn't have that skill via Heidelberg Castle, for instance. > > It doesn't [serve] to errata standing prohibitions, like as for > > Derange or Discipline cards. > > The problem is that the wording you chose made no differentiation > between the two. If you limited the wording in the 6/23 ruling that > James cited to retainers and equipment, you would remove the apparent > contradiction. The distinction is not "retainers and equipment". The distinction is "has a prohibtion in card text". That is: the *previous ruling* against <moving stuff> is no longer in force. But that doesn't mean that explicit card text is to be ignored. You still can't move a Sport Bike to a minion that has a Hawg, for example. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> The problem is that the wording you chose made no differentiation >> between the two. If you limited the wording in the 6/23 ruling >> that James cited to retainers and equipment, you would remove the >> apparent contradiction. > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The distinction is not "retainers and equipment". > The distinction is "has a prohibtion in card text". However, strict interpretation of the text of Derange really only prevents the card from going to a !Malk when orginally played. The second sentence, "The vampire with this card may move it to another vampire as a (D) action." clearly has no such limitation. As such, your wording from 6/23/98, not 8/18/98, applies in its current form. > That is: the *previous ruling* against <moving stuff> is no > longer in force. But that doesn't mean that explicit card text > is to be ignored. You still can't move a Sport Bike to a minion > that has a Hawg, for example. In this case, there is no explicit card text barring the Derange from being moved to a !Malk. Hawg and Sport Bike, on the other hand states, "A minion may have only one vehicle." which prevents the minon from receving more than one vehicle by any means. Since specific card text overrides general rulings, changing the general ruling will not affect cards that have exceptions specified. By limiting the ability to move cards to minions unable to play (or be played on with) the card when first used to equipment and retainers, you prevent cards like Derange from being moved to !Malks, but still allow retainers like Homunculus to moved to vampires without Protean and equipment like Femur of Toomler to minions that are not Tzimisce. I'm pretty sure that this covers all of the bases regarding current errata on this subject. If you can think of a corner case that this would apply to, and shouldn't (or vice versa), let me know. If we limit the errata to general rulings, rather a slew of exceptions by changing card text, I think it will make the game more playable in the future. Noal -- As of 3/30/2000, I am officially "over 30" and therefore unable to be trusted. If you don't know why, ask your parents. [ quoted text not captured ]

> That is: the *previous ruling* against <moving stuff> is no > longer in force. But that doesn't mean that explicit card text > is to be ignored. > > You still can't move a Sport Bike to a minion that has a Hawg, > for example. Ahem, LSJ, can I get a clear and current ruling on derange now? *Can Derange be moved to a !Malk once it is in play or not?* I need to know, cause if it can't be moved, a Derangement/Paranoia/Sacrifice deck becomes quite viable. :) Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > >> Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >> The problem is that the wording you chose made no differentiation > >> between the two. If you limited the wording in the 6/23 ruling > >> that James cited to retainers and equipment, you would remove the > >> apparent contradiction. > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > The distinction is not "retainers and equipment". > > The distinction is "has a prohibtion in card text". > > However, strict interpretation of the text of Derange really only > prevents the card from going to a !Malk when orginally played. The It doesn't say "originally". It you retrieve it from the ash heap and play it again, you're still faced with the restriction. You're also faced with that restriction if you attempt to have it "played on" a !Malk whether your moving it from elsewhere in play or playing it from your hand. "Played on" is equivalent to "placed on" or "put on". For instance: if Dauntain Black Magician steals an obfuscate discpline card and puts it on Ian Forestal, would you say that Ian has regular or superior Obfuscate? See the [RTR 17-OCT-1995] rulings on contesting, on gaining control of cards, and on Kindred Society Games and the [RTR 12-JAN-1996] ruling on Banisment for further examples of this meaning of "played on". > second sentence, "The vampire with this card may move it to another > vampire as a (D) action." clearly has no such limitation. Except the sentence that immediately follows that one: "This card cannot be played on a Malkavian Antitribu." > As such, your > wording from 6/23/98, not 8/18/98, applies in its current form. [LSJ 18-AUG-98] applies in its current form. > > That is: the *previous ruling* against <moving stuff> is no > > longer in force. But that doesn't mean that explicit card text > > is to be ignored. You still can't move a Sport Bike to a minion > > that has a Hawg, for example. > > In this case, there is no explicit card text barring the Derange from > being moved to a !Malk. There is. The card cannot be played on !Malks. Moving the card to a !Malk would result in it being played on him. > Hawg and Sport Bike, on the other hand states, > "A minion may have only one vehicle." which prevents the minon from > receiving more than one vehicle by any means. And discipline cards? If Heidelberg allowed discipline cards to be moved as well as blood and equipment and retainers, would the text on discipline cards prevent you from moving a Dominate card to a vampire with superior dominate? I think it would. > Since specific card text overrides general rulings, changing the general > ruling will not affect cards that have exceptions specified. By > limiting the ability to move cards to minions unable to play (or be > played on with) the card when first used to equipment and retainers, you > prevent cards like Derange from being moved to !Malks, but still allow > retainers like Homunculus to moved to vampires without Protean and > equipment like Femur of Toomler to minions that are not Tzimisce. That would be an "exception rule" - something that some players take issue with, I believe. Card text is sufficient for this role already. > I'm pretty sure that this covers all of the bases regarding current > errata on this subject. If you can think of a corner case that this > would apply to, and shouldn't (or vice versa), let me know. If we limit > the errata to general rulings, rather a slew of exceptions by changing > card text, I think it will make the game more playable in the future. No changes to card texts - certainly not a "slew". And yes, I prefer this state of affairs rather than the exception rule you suggest. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep

prea...@utanet.at wrote: > > > That is: the *previous ruling* against <moving stuff> is no > > longer in force. But that doesn't mean that explicit card text > > is to be ignored. > > > > You still can't move a Sport Bike to a minion that has a Hawg, > > for example. > > Ahem, LSJ, can I get a clear and current ruling on derange now? Yes: > *Can Derange be moved to a !Malk once it is in play or not?* Not. Derangement cannot wind up "played on" a !Malk though any means, whether played from your hand or moved around in play. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8cavcn$r3i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dharzhak@my- deja.com> writes >If LSJ can't keep track of his errata, how are we supposed to? You become really quite anally sad, like me? [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes >> If LSJ can't keep track of his errata, how are we supposed to? > James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > You become really quite anally sad, like me? *laughs* I refuse to comment on the grounds that it may incriminte me. Actually, that came out more melodramatic than I intended it to be. Sometimes I'd like to be a little tongue-in-cheek, but it always seems to come out looking like the raging bull no matter what I do. Thankfully, most of the local folks know how much of a goof I can be, so they don't take me too seriously when I appear to be going overkill on something. Eventually, I'll either settle down or get to the punchline. Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Ahem, LSJ, can I get a clear and current ruling on derange now? > > Yes: > > > *Can Derange be moved to a !Malk once it is in play or not?* > > Not. > > Derangement cannot wind up "played on" a !Malk though any means, > whether played from your hand or moved around in play. Thanks, I take this now as the standing official ruling on Derange. :) Oh man, this makes possible a horrible deck with Derange, Malkavian Derangements, and Sacrifices. Whoa! :) Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8cdr5p$o3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, prea...@utanet.at writes >Oh man, this makes possible a horrible deck with Derange, Malkavian >Derangements, and Sacrifices. It already was (though I don't see the use of the Derangements, since they get Malks, and Derange creates !Malks). Anyway, if you Derange someone this turn, and Sacrifice them, it doesn't matter what else happens, since they haven't had the change to move the card *anyway*. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > prea...@utanet.at writes > >Oh man, this makes possible a horrible deck with Derange, Malkavian > >Derangements, and Sacrifices. > > It already was (though I don't see the use of the Derangements, since > they get Malks, and Derange creates !Malks). He is probably referring to Malkavian Derangement: Paranoia (which affects Malkavian Antitribu), not Malkavian Derangement: Alternate Personality (which affects Malkavians). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 22:43:09 GMT, prea...@utanet.at said: carl> Thanks, I take this now as the standing official ruling on carl> Derange. :) Oh man, this makes possible a horrible deck with carl> Derange, Malkavian Derangements, and Sacrifices. Whoa! :) One of my favorite decks is one which combines Derange with Vampiric Disease (both in generous doses). Throw in some Sacrifices and Malk Derangements, and *nobody* on the table has any fun (or blood :) except you. *grin* A low-cap vampire with both Derange and Vampiric Disease is pretty screwed. //Petri