Armies of Rats

If I have 2 army of rats out does my prey lose 2 pool on my untap??

In article <3takkt$5...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, . <eter...@wam.umd.edu> wrote: >If I have 2 army of rats out does my prey lose 2 pool on my untap?? > No. Army of Rats has errata to emphasize that its effect is not cumulative. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text

In <3takkt$5...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, eter...@wam.umd.edu (.) writes: >If I have 2 army of rats out does my prey lose 2 pool on my untap?? Yes Michael -- + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + | Michael Gerdau Institut fuer Meereskunde | | ger...@ifm.uni-hamburg.de Universitaet Hamburg | | Tel. +49(0)40 4123 2988 Troplowitzstrasse 7 | | FAX +49(0)40 560 5724 D-22529 Hamburg (Letters) | | 2b or not 2b that's ff D-20146 Hamburg (Parcels) | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

well, seems like i've made a little error with my precedent mails, never mind... But L. Scott Johnson is right when he says an errata emphasizes that these card effects are not cumulutative, really.

Okay folks, I've been out to lunch on other things for a while. When did this errata on the Army of Rats come about? And more specifically, why? Army of Rats is game breaking card only when a two-player game is concerned (and we all know how fun a that is). My Gangrel deck utilizes 5 of these nasty suckers but the most I have ever been able to make gains on for an extended period of time was two. Sure, I have gotten on the order of 4 out at once but they were all burned before my next untap due to others not caring to bear the brunt of them after my prey was gone. It seems to me that a more applicable errata would have been a cost of 1 pool to play thereby giving the card an opportunity to back fire on the methuselah playing it. John [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.95070...@engr.engr.uark.edu>, WOOLDRIDGE JOHN DAVID <jd...@engr.engr.uark.edu> wrote: >Okay folks, I've been out to lunch on other things for a while. When >did this errata on the Army of Rats come about? And more specifically, why? It got the errata because that was the way the card was written, and it followed the original design. 'Army of Rats in Play' is a state - it either is or it isn't. The card was widely mis-read as being cumulative, so the DT (then the Rules Group) made it known that multiple Armies aren't cumulative back in 9/23/94. They did not however, issue errata at that time. The errata eventually came in the Rulings Summary of 11/9/94. >Army of Rats is game breaking card only when a two-player game is >concerned (and we all know how fun a that is). Game breaking, eh? That's a good enough reason for any errata, IMHO. (Not that two-player games are suitable for making such decisions) [ quoted text not captured ]