Goth Band

Goth Band: "As a +1 stealth (D) action, the Goth Band may move one counter from a master card controlled by another Methuselah to a master card you control that uses counters." Is there any particular reason WHY this was changed?? Yet another card neutered unnecesarily by erratta. *sigh* T

[ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps you should look up the thread before whining yet again like a bitch

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:15:25 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >Goth Band: > "As a +1 stealth (D) action, the Goth Band may move one counter from > a master card controlled by another Methuselah to a master card you > control that uses counters." > >Is there any particular reason WHY this was changed?? Because it was, perhaps, just a bit too powerful when used with Palla Grande and Dreams of the Sphinx? Once they're all out, every turn you pull a counter from Dreams and move it to Palla Grande. Your !Toreador now have a 9-card hand during their turn for the rest of the game, and they all have +1 bleed. No, that's not a bit too strong or anything. And that's just scratching the surface. >Yet another card neutered unnecesarily by erratta. *sigh* Quit your whining already and just play the game, OK? I can't begin to count how many posts you've lobbed out there bitching and moaning about something when your question would have been answered by: - reading the card text - reading the rules, online OR printed - reading the errata/rulings page - just plain having a clue I wouldn't mind if you were just asking questions, but ALL your posts start off with a miserable whiny tone to them about how Things Just Aren't Right(tm) because they don't work the way you think they do. You're no newbie -- you've been around this newsgroup long enough to know that this game relies on very literal interpretations. Sheesh. -- Derek ...Vampire Squirrel has come to bite your nuts!

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Goth Band: > "As a +1 stealth (D) action, the Goth Band may move one counter from > a master card controlled by another Methuselah to a master card you > control that uses counters." > > > Is there any particular reason WHY this was changed?? The function hasn't been changed - it works exactly like it's always worked. The text was changed when the long-standing (D)-symbol-errata was removed so as to maintina the function of the card. > Yet another card neutered unnecesarily by erratta. *sigh* Not true (yet again). -- 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/

[ quoted text not captured ] For petes sake Jay. You make the most useless posts known to man, and now you insult me unnecearily. I don't suppose you have the faintest clue who you are talking to do you? Rather than digging through endless ancient archived threads for an answer, perhaps I was looking for a summary? No I guess that didnt' occur to you. T

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 22:21:45 GMT, Derek Ray <lor...@yah0o.com> wrote: >> >>Is there any particular reason WHY this was changed?? > >Because it was, perhaps, just a bit too powerful when used with Palla >Grande and Dreams of the Sphinx? > >Once they're all out, every turn you pull a counter from Dreams and move >it to Palla Grande. Your !Toreador now have a 9-card hand during their >turn for the rest of the game, and they all have +1 bleed. Not quite. When the third counter is added to the Dreams it is burnt, regardless of however many counters are on it at the time. Guess I'll just pull my goth band and add 2 more Palla Grandes. No point in having them really. T

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:22:22 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> Goth Band: >> "As a +1 stealth (D) action, the Goth Band may move one counter from >> a master card controlled by another Methuselah to a master card you >> control that uses counters." >> >> >> Is there any particular reason WHY this was changed?? > >The function hasn't been changed - it works exactly like it's always >worked. The text was changed when the long-standing (D)-symbol-errata >was removed so as to maintina the function of the card. > >> Yet another card neutered unnecesarily by erratta. *sigh* > >Not true (yet again). > The original (And I'll note un-reprinted) Goth Band could pull counters from your own master cards. So there was a change to the text. And as the dreams/palla isnt that powerful if you play the dreams correctly (it will be burned when the third counter is added) I don't see any reason for the change. T

In message <3bff5c98.521688296@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >The original (And I'll note un-reprinted) Goth Band could pull >counters from your own master cards. Not true. Proof through assertion is no proof at all. Please provide solid proof that Goth Band's functionality has changed. Please note: your not understanding how the rules worked previously or work now isn't proof. > So there was a change to the >text. There was. This is not a change to the functionality, however When Goth Band was reprinted, you couldn't target your own cards via (D) actions. This is how Goth Band functioned. When the ruling on (D) actions was reversed (in amongst the 6/23 and 7/7 rulings), Goth Band's text was changed to preserve how it functioned prior to that reversal. Similarly, see Darius Styx (you can't target yourself) and Powerbase: Mexico City (you can't steal it yourself), which were initially handled in the same set of rulings. Text was changed as a result of the ruling (which restored the integrity of a large number of cards). Jyhad was originally written that (D) actions could target yourself in a similar manner to their undirectedness now, from all signs. However, a ruling was issued that (D) actions couldn't target yourself and that (D) meant something different - it provided more options, rather than being reminder text. As such, cards in later sets were designed under this set-up. You could never target yourself when Goth Band was designed and released. When the ruling was over-turned, Goth Band would have had *new* functionality that it could never have been designed for. Hence the card-design preserving errata. Please, do some research before defecating on the newsgroup. -- James Coupe Everybody knows that "No" means "Yes" PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Just like glasses come free on the NHS EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 But the more I look through them the more I see 13D7E668C3695D623D5D I'm becoming more like Alfie

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:59:34 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > >Not quite. When the third counter is added to the Dreams it is burnt, >regardless of however many counters are on it at the time. And a third counter is never added to the Drerams. It always has zero one or 2.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:01:41 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >And as the dreams/palla isnt that powerful if you play the dreams >correctly (it will be burned when the third counter is added) I don't >see any reason for the change. I think they've missed your point. They think that Dreams is burned when it has three counters on it whereas, by card text, it is burned when a third counter is added to it (regardless of what might have happened to the previous two). A Goth Band can speed that up but can't slow it down. BTW all this whining and bitching about your post is so hypocritical that it's funny. Andrew

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:22:22 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > >Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> Goth Band: > >> "As a +1 stealth (D) action, the Goth Band may move one counter from > >> a master card controlled by another Methuselah to a master card you > >> control that uses counters." > >> > >> > >> Is there any particular reason WHY this was changed?? > > > >The function hasn't been changed - it works exactly like it's always > >worked. The text was changed when the long-standing (D)-symbol-errata > >was removed so as to maintina the function of the card. > > > >> Yet another card neutered unnecesarily by erratta. *sigh* > > > >Not true (yet again). > > > > The original (And I'll note un-reprinted) Goth Band could pull > counters from your own master cards. So there was a change to the > text. A change in text, not a change in functionality. Before the errata, Goth Band could not pull counters from your own master cards (due to the long-standing (D)-symbol errata). After the errata (which came at the same time the (D)-symbol errata was overturned). See the comments in the RTR linked from the errata your are quoting. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:01:41 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > >And as the dreams/palla isnt that powerful if you play the dreams > >correctly (it will be burned when the third counter is added) I don't > >see any reason for the change. > > I think they've missed your point. They think that Dreams is burned > when it has three counters on it whereas, by card text, it is burned > when a third counter is added to it (regardless of what might have > happened to the previous two). No, I see his point. It's merely incorrect; that's all. A counter added to a Dreams that has no counters (regardless of how many counters it had had previously) is the first counter. Trying to find loopholes to support an incorrect idea is dangerous. For instance, making the "first", "second", "third" thing based on all history rather than just the currect situation breaks Jimmy Dunn. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 05:57:06 -0500, LSJ wrote: >> I think they've missed your point. They think that Dreams is burned >> when it has three counters on it whereas, by card text, it is burned >> when a third counter is added to it (regardless of what might have >> happened to the previous two). > >No, I see his point. It's merely incorrect; that's all. > >A counter added to a Dreams that has no counters (regardless of how many >counters it had had previously) is the first counter. > >Trying to find loopholes to support an incorrect idea is dangerous. It's not a loophole. The idea is clearly that you get to use Dreams three times and then it goes away. The counters are just an aide-memoire. This is different from Temptation, say, where the amount of Temptation has to accumulate to a certain level. The language of the card text is correspondingly different - in one case, the trigger is the number of times the action has been repeated. In the other you count the counters on the card at that point in time. Being particular about the precise language used is the VTES methodology, is it not? If you don't like the consequences then you should errata the card. >For instance, making the "first", "second", "third" thing based on >all history rather than just the currect situation breaks Jimmy Dunn. If Jimmy Dunn is broken then you should fix him. That's no reason to misread Dreams of the Sphinx. But if you're saying that the language on all these cards is loose and not to be interpreted too literally, then that sounds reasonable. I'm quite happy to play the Ghoul Retainer in this way and let him put ammo in his gun. Another odd detail is that some cards have a specified type for their counters, e.g. "Debauchery" and the Goth Band makes reference to this type. Dreams of the Sphinx doesn't specify a type for its counters. Maybe they are just "counting" counters in a literal sense. Or maybe they are implicitly "Dreams" counters. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 05:57:06 -0500, LSJ wrote: > > >> I think they've missed your point. They think that Dreams is burned > >> when it has three counters on it whereas, by card text, it is burned > >> when a third counter is added to it (regardless of what might have > >> happened to the previous two). > > > >No, I see his point. It's merely incorrect; that's all. > > > >A counter added to a Dreams that has no counters (regardless of how many > >counters it had had previously) is the first counter. > > > >Trying to find loopholes to support an incorrect idea is dangerous. > > It's not a loophole. The idea is clearly that you get to use Dreams > three times and then it goes away. The counters are just an Yes, that's the idea. And that idea is implemented with counters. If the mechanism was "use it three times" (i.e., a "history" was intended to be involved), it wouldn't use counters at all. > aide-memoire. This is different from Temptation, say, where the > amount of Temptation has to accumulate to a certain level. > > The language of the card text is correspondingly different - in one > case, the trigger is the number of times the action has been repeated. Not true. In the incorrect (equivalent to counterless) version, this is the case. In reality, the trigger is the third counter (i.e., the counter that brings the total number of counters to three). > In the other you count the counters on the card at that point in time. This is true in both cases. Counters are used when a desire to use history is absent. > Being particular about the precise language used is the VTES > methodology, is it not? If you don't like the consequences then you > should errata the card. The text suffices as is. That it can be misinterpreted by people who are actively trying to subvert the obvious meaning is not equivalent to "needs errata". > >For instance, making the "first", "second", "third" thing based on > >all history rather than just the currect situation breaks Jimmy Dunn. > > If Jimmy Dunn is broken then you should fix him. That's no reason to He isn't. That's the point. However, trying to add history to mechanisms which depend only on current state is a problem. The "fix" is to avoid doing so. If he isn't broken, then we shouldn't break him. That is, we should continue to read "first", "second", "third", etc. as depending on game state. > misread Dreams of the Sphinx. But if you're saying that the language I agree. > on all these cards is loose and not to be interpreted too literally, > then that sounds reasonable. I'm quite happy to play the Ghoul > Retainer in this way and let him put ammo in his gun. It is read literally. > Another odd detail is that some cards have a specified type for their > counters, e.g. "Debauchery" and the Goth Band makes reference to this > type. Dreams of the Sphinx doesn't specify a type for its counters. > Maybe they are just "counting" counters in a literal sense. Or maybe > they are implicitly "Dreams" counters. Old news. See the other threads on Goth Band. Goth Band "mysteriously" converts types of counters. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:17:22 -0500, LSJ wrote: >The text suffices as is. It doesn't work for me. If one goes into McDonalds and gets a prize for being their trillionth customer, one doesn't expect to see all the other customers still crowded in there. The use of the ordinal form of the number rather than the cardinal clearly implies sequence, i.e. a reference to history. And the fact that other cards use the cardinal form instead may be assumed to be significant. If you want the Sphinx to have the meaning you impute, it ought to say, "when there are three counters on Dreams ..." just like other counter cards do. >That it can be misinterpreted by people who are actively trying to >subvert the obvious meaning is not equivalent to "needs errata". I'm not trying to break the card - I'm just telling you what its text means to me. This appears to weaken it and Talonz' point was that it stops abusive combos with Goth Band. >> Another odd detail is that some cards have a specified type for their >> counters, e.g. "Debauchery" and the Goth Band makes reference to this >> type. Dreams of the Sphinx doesn't specify a type for its counters. >> Maybe they are just "counting" counters in a literal sense. Or maybe >> they are implicitly "Dreams" counters. > >Old news. See the other threads on Goth Band. Goth Band "mysteriously" >converts types of counters. I don't care about Goth Band. I want to know why counters on Dreams of the Sphinx don't have a type when other counters on other cards do. This might be part and parcel of why its use of counters is diffeernt from other cards - the card is intended to work differently. Anyway, don't mind me - you should go eat that turkey. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:2B22C952DE29DCD1.68A2AC4E...@lp.airnews.net... > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:17:22 -0500, LSJ wrote: > > >The text suffices as is. > > It doesn't work for me. can't you read plain english ? > If one goes into McDonalds and gets a prize > for being their trillionth customer, one doesn't expect to see all the > other customers still crowded in there. The use of the ordinal form > of the number rather than the cardinal clearly implies sequence, i.e. > a reference to history. And the fact that other cards use the > cardinal form instead may be assumed to be significant. It's the seconde time i'm asking you this : "Andrew, how old are you ? " Is it so necessary for you to pretend you are right and everyone here is wrong ? Even if it means nitpicking, rule lawyering, fallacious example weaving, about the words and syntax used on the cards each time someone revels that your idea is not correct ? We are not talking grammar, we are talking about a card game here. > If you want the Sphinx to have the meaning you impute, it ought to > say, "when there are three counters on Dreams ..." just like other > counter cards do. If i follow your wording, what if a new ally is printed , say "jazz band", who can put 2 counters on a master card as a +1 stealth action... There are already two counters on your dreams of the sphinx; you use the "jazz band" to add 2 more. Now that there is 4 counters, how will you handle it with this fuzzy, imprecise wording ?? You should have said "when there are more than two counters...". Now imagine you are defining the wording for 200 new cards. Can you think about all the guys who are going to try to break the cards, and all the possibilities that will outcome with the next expansion ? NO. > >That it can be misinterpreted by people who are actively trying to > >subvert the obvious meaning is not equivalent to "needs errata". > > I'm not trying to break the card - I'm just telling you what its text > means to me. This appears to weaken it and Talonz' point was that it > stops abusive combos with Goth Band. Well, you succeded in breaking our nuts... Anyway, Goth Band has always been difficult to use. > >> Another odd detail is that some cards have a specified type for their > >> counters, e.g. "Debauchery" and the Goth Band makes reference to this > >> type. Dreams of the Sphinx doesn't specify a type for its counters. > >> Maybe they are just "counting" counters in a literal sense. Or maybe > >> they are implicitly "Dreams" counters. > > > >Old news. See the other threads on Goth Band. Goth Band "mysteriously" > >converts types of counters. > > I don't care about Goth Band. I want to know why counters on Dreams > of the Sphinx don't have a type when other counters on other cards do. > This might be part and parcel of why its use of counters is diffeernt > from other cards - the card is intended to work differently. Who cares ? Maybe they were called "Drealing beast counters" but there was not enough space on the card. So they just used the term counter. Stop the nonsense. > Anyway, don't mind me - you should go eat that turkey. > > Andrew I eat cheese ;) reyda

In message <CDE09186DA732AFA.DA2F29A6...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@compuserve.com> writes: >It's not a loophole. The idea is clearly that you get to use Dreams >three times and then it goes away. The counters are just an >aide-memoire. Ideas and card text are different things. (One day, your trolling will take this into account.) What inspires something and how card text actually functions are two fundamentally different things. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Add one, take one off. Add one, take one off. Add one, take one off. Please tell me, how many counters have you added? Burning the dreams is not contingent on having 3 counters on it, only on having added the third counter to it. T

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:08:46 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@compuserve.com> wrote: >On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:01:41 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > >>And as the dreams/palla isnt that powerful if you play the dreams >>correctly (it will be burned when the third counter is added) I don't >>see any reason for the change. > >I think they've missed your point. They think that Dreams is burned >when it has three counters on it whereas, by card text, it is burned >when a third counter is added to it (regardless of what might have >happened to the previous two). A Goth Band can speed that up but >can't slow it down. > Thankfully someone else can see logic here. >BTW all this whining and bitching about your post is so hypocritical >that it's funny. > Glad you got some amusement out of this! T

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 05:57:06 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: >> >> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:01:41 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> >And as the dreams/palla isnt that powerful if you play the dreams >> >correctly (it will be burned when the third counter is added) I don't >> >see any reason for the change. >> >> I think they've missed your point. They think that Dreams is burned >> when it has three counters on it whereas, by card text, it is burned >> when a third counter is added to it (regardless of what might have >> happened to the previous two). > >No, I see his point. It's merely incorrect; that's all. > Not that is funny. See my post to J Bond in this matter. 'when the third counter is added' is totally different from 'when there are three counters on this card'. Dreams says the former, not the latter. T

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:17:22 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Yes, that's the idea. And that idea is implemented with counters. >If the mechanism was "use it three times" (i.e., a "history" was >intended to be involved), it wouldn't use counters at all. If you want the Dreams to die after 3 uses, I suggest you errtta it to say so. Otherwise I can still use the Goth band along with a Succubus club to extend its life forever. T

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 05:51:43 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >Before the errata, Goth Band could not pull counters from your >own master cards (due to the long-standing (D)-symbol errata). > I see nothing preventing GB from pulling counters from your masters. The rules text on D actions states they are 'typically' directed at other methesulahs, that doesnt require them to be. Bleed, being a D action, tends to confuse this issue as it cannot be directed at yourself. The ruling that D actions directed at yourself become undirected clearly supports this. T

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:39:34 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3bff5c98.521688296@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>The original (And I'll note un-reprinted) Goth Band could pull >>counters from your own master cards. > >Not true. Proof through assertion is no proof at all. > Not so. Go look at a Sabaat Goth band, "may remove one counter from ANY master card in play'. It can no longer do that by erratta. Function has changed. > >When Goth Band was reprinted, What mysterious reprint was this? It never was as far as I know. Please provide 'proof' of your 'assertion' james. > >As such, cards in later sets were designed under this set-up. You could >never target yourself when Goth Band was designed and released. > You could. Directed actions are 'typically' directed at other methuselahs, but need not be. This was clarified in 98 with the ruling that directed actions against yourself become undirected. Thus the Goth band was entirely capable of removing counters from your own master cards to your master cards. > >Please, do some research before defecating on the newsgroup. > Maybe you should read a few rules and erratta yourself before getting on that high horse of yours James. T

Anybody want to put Talonz and James in the ring for an hour and let them work this out the old fashioned way? Isn't it starting to get a bit chippy? If you really feel somebody is misusing the newsgroup the most annoying thing you can do to that person is not reply to their posts! James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:NC5XbUGmVG$7E...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] He doesnt, it only dies when a third counter is on it. It is Andrew that is argueing against it.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:54:47 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > >I see nothing preventing GB from pulling counters from your masters. >The rules text on D actions states they are 'typically' directed at >other methesulahs, that doesnt require them to be. Bleed, being a D >action, tends to confuse this issue as it cannot be directed at >yourself. > >The ruling that D actions directed at yourself become undirected >clearly supports this. That ruling was made AFTER goth band was printed. Before that time you simply could NOT direct a [D] at your self. At the time Goth band was printed, you could not use it to remove counters from your own master cards. Shortly after there was the self directed [D] action ruling, and at the SAME TIME they clarified the old [D] Cards. Goth band at no time could EVER remove counters from your own master phases.

In message <3c0261eb.1822700@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:39:34 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: >>In message <3bff5c98.521688296@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>>The original (And I'll note un-reprinted) Goth Band could pull >>>counters from your own master cards. >> >>Not true. Proof through assertion is no proof at all. >> > >Not so. Go look at a Sabaat Goth band, "may remove one counter from >ANY master card in play'. > >It can no longer do that by erratta. Function has changed. It could never do that; function has not changed. (D) actions were not allowed at yourself when Goth Band was written. This prevented you stealing your own counters. >>When Goth Band was reprinted, > >What mysterious reprint was this? It never was as far as I know. >Please provide 'proof' of your 'assertion' james. This is a typo for "printed". >>As such, cards in later sets were designed under this set-up. You could >>never target yourself when Goth Band was designed and released. >> > >You could. No, you could not. (D) actions were not allowed at yourself by long- standing ruling. This ruling applied to Goth Band when it was created. >>Please, do some research before defecating on the newsgroup. >> > >Maybe you should read a few rules and erratta yourself before getting >on that high horse of yours James. Bollocks. You are entirely mis-representing and mis-understand the rules. Please do not continue to lecture me on how the rules work when you clearly do not understand them or the changes that have been made to them. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c0666f7.3114569@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>Before the errata, Goth Band could not pull counters from your >>own master cards (due to the long-standing (D)-symbol errata). >> > >I see nothing preventing GB from pulling counters from your masters. This was prevented by the rulings that were in place at the time. You could not (D) action yourself; this applied to Goth Band. When the ruling preventing (D) actions at yourself was over-turned (along with the preservation of the original intent of the (D) symbol), errata was issued to preserve Goth Band's functionality. [ quoted text not captured ]

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:17:22 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > wrote: > > >Yes, that's the idea. And that idea is implemented with counters. > >If the mechanism was "use it three times" (i.e., a "history" was > >intended to be involved), it wouldn't use counters at all. > > If you want the Dreams to die after 3 uses, I suggest you errtta it to > say so. I don't. It doesn't. You assert that it does. That assertion is in error. > Otherwise I can still use the Goth band along with a Succubus club to > extend its life forever. True. [ quoted text not captured ]

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 04:25:28 GMT, J Bond <Bl...@home.com> wrote: >>On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:59:34 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >> >>> >>>Not quite. When the third counter is added to the Dreams it is burnt, >>>regardless of however many counters are on it at the time. >> >> >>And a third counter is never added to the Drerams. It always has zero >>one or 2. >Add one, take one off. >Add one, take one off. >Add one, take one off. >Please tell me, how many counters have you added? Subjective interpretation, I suppose. The third counter may either be the absolute third (as you propose above), or the counter added when two counters are already on the card. Not that it means anything, but you seem to be the only person who's ever raised this. Kudos for thinking outside the box... >Burning the dreams is not contingent on having 3 counters on it, only >on having added the third counter to it. Two interpretations, both valid. But you're asserting it in a very clear and authoritative manner, so by Net standards, you must be the one who's right ;-) Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver

J Bond <Bl...@home.com> wrote: >On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:54:47 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >> >>I see nothing preventing GB from pulling counters from your masters. >>The rules text on D actions states they are 'typically' directed at >>other methesulahs, that doesnt require them to be. Bleed, being a D >>action, tends to confuse this issue as it cannot be directed at >>yourself. >> >>The ruling that D actions directed at yourself become undirected >>clearly supports this. >That ruling was made AFTER goth band was printed. Before that time you >simply could NOT direct a [D] at your self. Give up now, J Bond, Coupe, and others ;-) He's seen this from four different posters. If he cannot follow the chronology, another four people telling him so won't make it any easier... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 01:59:34 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 22:21:45 GMT, Derek Ray <lor...@yah0o.com> wrote: >> >>Once they're all out, every turn you pull a counter from Dreams and move >>it to Palla Grande. Your !Toreador now have a 9-card hand during their >>turn for the rest of the game, and they all have +1 bleed. > >Not quite. When the third counter is added to the Dreams it is burnt, >regardless of however many counters are on it at the time. Uh... so you just would use some mad pl4y sk1llz and wouldn't ever add a third counter to the Dreams until the Goth Band has removed one and reduced it to one? There's no law saying you have to tap Dreams immediately during your untap. -- Derek ...Vampire Squirrel has come to bite your nuts!

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9tjggr$nve$1...@neon.noos.net... > > "Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message > news:2B22C952DE29DCD1.68A2AC4E...@lp.airnews.net... > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:17:22 -0500, LSJ wrote: > > > > >The text suffices as is. > > > > It doesn't work for me. > > can't you read plain english ? Fair go, I can see his reasoning and agree with it. Fair enough, that was not the intent of the designer and that's not how it's currently played. The use of the phrase "when the third counter is added" as opposed to "when this card has more than 2 counters" or "when this card has 3 counter" could quite reasonably lead to someone reaching the conclusion that Andrew has. > > If one goes into McDonalds and gets a prize > > for being their trillionth customer, one doesn't expect to see all the > > other customers still crowded in there. The use of the ordinal form > > of the number rather than the cardinal clearly implies sequence, i.e. > > a reference to history. And the fact that other cards use the > > cardinal form instead may be assumed to be significant. > > It's the seconde time i'm asking you this : "Andrew, how old are you ? " > Is it so necessary for you to pretend you are right and everyone here is > wrong ? > Even if it means nitpicking, rule lawyering, fallacious example weaving, > about the words and syntax used on the cards each time someone revels that > your idea is not correct ? We are not talking grammar, we are talking about > a card game here. Now I don't know Andrew at all, but I dbout that he's nitpicking to further his own ends. I had a prolonged discussion with LSJ about why he ruled the way he did on Left for Dead. Not because I thought I was right and wanted to correct him but because I wanted to understand how he came to his conclusion so that I can adjust my way of thinking. This enables me to make rulings when LSJ is not around that will be consistent with what he will rule when I do ask him. > > If you want the Sphinx to have the meaning you impute, it ought to > > say, "when there are three counters on Dreams ..." just like other > > counter cards do. > > If i follow your wording, what if a new ally is printed , say "jazz band", > who can put 2 counters on a master card as a +1 stealth action... There are > already two counters on your dreams of the sphinx; you use the "jazz band" > to add 2 more. Now that there is 4 counters, how will you handle it with > this fuzzy, imprecise wording ?? You should have said "when there are more > than two counters...". Now imagine you are defining the wording for 200 new > cards. Can you think about all the guys who are going to try to break the > cards, and all the possibilities that will outcome with the next expansion ? > NO. Neither do we expect them to which is why there is a R/C/E archive. For those cards that need their wording changed when it is not obvious how the card functions ( amongst other things ). > > >That it can be misinterpreted by people who are actively trying to > > >subvert the obvious meaning is not equivalent to "needs errata". > > > > I'm not trying to break the card - I'm just telling you what its text > > means to me. This appears to weaken it and Talonz' point was that it > > stops abusive combos with Goth Band. > > Well, you succeded in breaking our nuts... > Anyway, Goth Band has always been difficult to use. Personally, I don't think it really needs errata, everyone I know plays it the correct way.

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9tjggr$nve$1...@neon.noos.net... >We are not talking grammar, we are talking about > a card game here. But Reyda, dear sweet gentle Reyda, so much of this card game IS grammar. Take a look at the new upcoming card "Sight Beyond Sight"*. Now look at "Masquer". The only reason why burning "Masquer" results in temporary intercept as opposed to Lion-O's Sword of Omens query is that "Sight Beyond Sight" has the phrase "Put this card on a Salubri you control", which means that you get to keep "Sight Beyond Sight" in play. *(which in my glorious opinion (as opposed to humble) belongs in a "Thundercats are GO!" CCG) > If i follow your wording, what if a new ally is printed , say "jazz band", > who can put 2 counters on a master card as a +1 stealth action. Geez, "Jazz Band" would be an AWESOME card! Just think of all the added Temptation counters, hell even Phobia could be useful (in constructed play, LSJ, constructed) not to mention Form of Corruption -- --WAIT! the wording on "Jazz Band" is "...on a MASTER card" -- Oh snap! I've been playing with it wrong the whole time! Damn that grammar!!! That precise wording!!! It ruins so many of my plans! Can you think about all the guys who are going to try to break the > cards, and all the possibilities that will outcome with the next expansion ? > NO. You can't think about me, Reyda? I am always trying to break cards, because it ultimately makes the game better. Every morning I wake up* and pick a card out of my mattress/cardbox, and think, "Hmm...How can I break this card?" Most of the time, it involves scissors. *This is a gross exaggeration. I don't necessarily wake up every morning. > Anyway, Goth Band has always been difficult to use. I don't know about that. It seems to tap just like all of my other cards. Or is there a difference in the specific gravity of Goth Band outside of Texas? > Who cares ? Maybe they were called "Drealing beast counters" but there was > not enough space on the card. Probably because of all that pesky grammar. > I eat cheese ;) Evidently not lactose-intolerant, I see. :^B > reyda Reyda rocks! -Mike Ooi Idiot-Savant Grammarian of the Hill Country Wastes

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3BFD2512...@white-wolf.com... > > The text suffices as is. > > That it can be misinterpreted by people who are actively trying to > subvert the obvious meaning is not equivalent to "needs errata". What? Who would dare try to subvert obvious meanings on cards? "Masquer" works perfectly as written... :^B > > If Jimmy Dunn is broken then you should fix him. That's no reason to > > He isn't. That's the point. A broken Jimmy. Now that would need fixing. In a great hurry. > However, trying to add history to mechanisms which depend only on > current state is a problem. The "fix" is to avoid doing so. > If he isn't broken, then we shouldn't break him. That is, we should > continue to read "first", "second", "third", etc. as depending on > game state. Yes. Please don't break my Jimmy. > > Another odd detail is that some cards have a specified type for their > > counters, e.g. "Debauchery" and the Goth Band makes reference to this > > type. Dreams of the Sphinx doesn't specify a type for its counters. > > Maybe they are just "counting" counters in a literal sense. Or maybe > > they are implicitly "Dreams" counters. > > Old news. See the other threads on Goth Band. Goth Band "mysteriously" > converts types of counters. But what about Dominique's Vandal Counters? Can they be moved by Goth Band? Goth Band's text: As a +1 stealth (D) action, the Goth Band may move one counter from any master card controlled by another Methuselah to a master card you control that uses counters. The counter is changed to a counter of the type appropriate to the new card. Dominique's text: As a (D) action, Dominique may put a vandal counter on a location. If a location has a number of vandal counters equal to its cost (or 1 vandal counter if it has no cost), burn it. So if Dominique puts a vandal counter on a location that is a master card, why wouldn't the Goth Band be able to move the counter? "Goth Band may move one counter from any master card controlled by another Methuselah", not "Goth Band may move one counter from any master card controlled by another Methuselah THAT USES COUNTERS". If you have ruled that they can't, then ?!?Huh?!? If you have ruled that they can, then Ethan Burrow has been lying to us... -Mike Ooi Having no idea why I jumped into this one of all threads?

"R. David Zopf" <guenh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:9tkkol$tua$2...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net... > Give up now, J Bond, Coupe, and others ;-) He's seen this from four > different posters. If he cannot follow the chronology, another four > people telling him so won't make it any easier... Let me try too. You see, Talonz (is the 'z' hard or soft?), before this discussion began, even before the printing of the Sabbat Expansion, there was this band... A merry band. A happy-go-lucky band. A Band of Brothers(HBO), if you will. This band made music. Granted, we don't know what kind of music it was or if it was pleasing to our ears, because it was a long time ago, when this group of people known as the Romans got their come-uppance from various barbarian hordes whose last names ended in -goth. And they roamed the countryside looking for Master cards to move counters from and Master cards to move counters to. And they said to each other: "Hey! Let's quit roaming the countryside looking for Master cards. Let's use our own!" And then one of the band members (probably the drummer) said: "Hey! We can't!" The other band members said: "Why not? There's no card text on us that says we can't!" (admittedly a weird thing to say, but work with me) And the smartest one (the manager) said: "You're right, but remember, currently we can't take (D) actions against ourselves because we're using an older set of rules. And no, your girlfriend Yoko cannot join the band!" And the band was happy with that explanation, for they all secretly hated Yoko, even John did. But then, something happened. And now everything sucks. Our little band found a new set of rulings, which allowed them to (D) themselves as much as they liked, sometimes even twice a day, but with that set of rulings came ERRRRRATTTTA. It clung to them. It showed up on all their shirts, even the nasty Yoko tie-dyes. And it said they couldn't take counters from Master Cards they controlled. And someone shot one of them. -Mike Ooi working like a dog (retail during Holidays)

[snip stuff not pretaining to vandalism] > But what about Dominique's Vandal Counters? Can they be moved by Goth Band? > > Goth Band's text: > As a +1 stealth (D) action, the Goth Band may move one counter from any > master card controlled by another Methuselah to a master card you control > that uses counters. The counter is changed to a counter of the type > appropriate to the new card. > > Dominique's text: > As a (D) action, Dominique may put a vandal counter on a location. If a > location has a number of vandal counters equal to its cost (or 1 vandal > counter if it has no cost), burn it. > > So if Dominique puts a vandal counter on a location that is a master card, > why wouldn't the Goth Band be able to move the counter? "Goth Band may move > one counter from any master card controlled by another Methuselah", not > "Goth Band may move one counter from any master card controlled by another > Methuselah THAT USES COUNTERS". I can't see why a Goth Band couldn't move the counter unless the counter is on a Master you control. That also begs the question, what happens if it's your master that has the vandal counters on it ( and doesn't use counters itself )? Can you go fetch counters from elsewhere and vandalise your own location? :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Mike Ooi wrote: > But what about Dominique's Vandal Counters? Can they be moved by Goth Band? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:08:46 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@compuserve.com> wrote: >On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:01:41 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > >>And as the dreams/palla isnt that powerful if you play the dreams >>correctly (it will be burned when the third counter is added) I don't >>see any reason for the change. > >I think they've missed your point. They think that Dreams is burned >when it has three counters on it whereas, by card text, it is burned >when a third counter is added to it (regardless of what might have >happened to the previous two). A Goth Band can speed that up but >can't slow it down. A very poor attempt at semantic rules-lawyering, and also completely ignoring the actual mechanics of making that sort of thing work. If the previous X counters are not present on the card, who is to say how many counters were on it in the first place? Certainly not a judge, who wasn't there the whole time. All players' stories are, of course, suspect. The only way to be sure is to maintain some sort of record, and the counters on the card serve as that record. Goth Band can remove the counters, effectively altering the record. It's that simple. Trying to pretend that gamers will actually NOT make a fuss over something that isn't concretely, permanently recorded in some way won't help your case any: look at the hullabaloo over putting the Praxis Seizure cards on the vampire. Andrew, for the most part, you've been behaving and haven't posted such a conspicuously obvious troll in some time. So tell me, what's up with this crap? Are you that pissed off over Doomtown getting sacked that you feel compelled to try to disrupt everything else? You've stated that you don't play the game and aren't going to, meaning that all you're really doing here is idly hanging out and trying to piss on things. A more "sour grapes" attitude I've not seen in some time. And please don't waste everyone's time responding with shoddily constructed, spiderweb-thin strands of support for your position, hoping that someone will believe that you really ARE just concerned about the rules and the interpretation thereof. You obviously have simply seized on bonehead's post to stir up as much trouble as you can. The question is: why? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <tvrso1r...@news.supernews.com>, GreySeer <e...@i.think.not> writes: <Goth Band and Dominique> >That also begs the question, what happens if it's your master that has the >vandal counters on it ( and doesn't use counters itself )? Can you go fetch >counters from elsewhere and vandalise your own location? Goth Band can only put counters on a card that already uses counters. That is, you couldn't steal a counter from Card X and put it on your copy of The Barrens just to steal someone else's counters. When counters hit the new card, Goth Band converts them to that card's type. (Official card text.) Hence, a vandal counter moved will always end up being a non-vandal counter at the end. (Since no cards currently in play, save Dominique, use vandal counters.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:25:02 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:17:22 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Yes, that's the idea. And that idea is implemented with counters. >> >If the mechanism was "use it three times" (i.e., a "history" was >> >intended to be involved), it wouldn't use counters at all. >> >> If you want the Dreams to die after 3 uses, I suggest you errtta it to >> say so. > >I don't. It doesn't. You assert that it does. That assertion is in error. > Based on cardtext, I am not. Its quite simple really. "Put a counter on this card each time you tap it; when the third counter is added, burn this card. " I tap it and add a counter. I(see below) move one off with the GB. I add another counter. I move it off. I add another counter. I move it off. I have now added three counters, and that satisfies the cardtext for burning the Dreams. Irregardless of how many counters are on it currently, because merely having 3 counters on it will not burn it. >> Otherwise I can still use the Goth band along with a Succubus club to >> extend its life forever. > >True. > And therefore, under your incorrect interpretation, I could still use this combo that allegedly was the problem with goth band. Solution to both? Leave the cardtext on Dreams as is, and drop this confusion between 'third counter added' and 'three counters on it'. They are not the same. T

[ quoted text not captured ] As I have said, that ruling was a clarification. The D action rules in the Jyhad rulebook could be interpreted either way iirc. And thus you could do D actions against yourself and they would become undirected, and this was confirmed by the later ruling. T

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 00:43:09 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >You are entirely mis-representing and mis-understand the rules. I am not. They are there in plain text. > Please >do not continue to lecture me on how the rules work when you clearly do >not understand them or the changes that have been made to them. > Only if you do the same James (lecture-wise). I make no apologies for not knowing a past incorrect ruling that was made 5-8 years ago. T

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 00:44:05 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c0666f7.3114569@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>>Before the errata, Goth Band could not pull counters from your >>>own master cards (due to the long-standing (D)-symbol errata). >>> >> >>I see nothing preventing GB from pulling counters from your masters. > >This was prevented by the rulings that were in place at the time. > >You could not (D) action yourself; this applied to Goth Band. > >When the ruling preventing (D) actions at yourself was over-turned >(along with the preservation of the original intent of the (D) symbol), >errata was issued to preserve Goth Band's functionality. > Seeing as the original D action rules were somewhat open to interpretation, I could see the confusion caused by such a ruling. If one interepreted the rules according to the current and correct D action ruling (Dactions against yourself are undirected) then you could use the GB as I describe. Especially if you never saw the first incorrect ruling. This is why I despise endless online rulings that for the most part do not reach the general public without great effort. T

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. GB and Succubus club. I can now use Dreams endlessly under the 'popular' interpretation. T

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:25:02 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > >Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:17:22 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Yes, that's the idea. And that idea is implemented with counters. > >> >If the mechanism was "use it three times" (i.e., a "history" was > >> >intended to be involved), it wouldn't use counters at all. > >> > >> If you want the Dreams to die after 3 uses, I suggest you errtta it to > >> say so. > > > >I don't. It doesn't. You assert that it does. That assertion is in error. > > Based on cardtext, I am not. Its quite simple really. Based on the official rules, you are. It is even more simple. > "Put a counter on this card each time you tap it; when the third > counter is added, burn this card. " > > I tap it and add a counter. I(see below) move one off with the GB. > I add another counter. I move it off. This is the second time you've added the "first" counter. > I add another counter. I move it off. And this is the third time you've added the "first" counter. > I have now added three counters, and that satisfies the cardtext for > burning the Dreams. Irregardless of how many counters are on it No. You have to add the "third" counter (i.e., the counter that brings the total number of counters on the card to three). You have only added the first counter. > currently, because merely having 3 counters on it will not burn it. Semantics. Adding the counter that brings it to 3 will burn it; this is equivalent to saying that having 3 (or more) counters will burn it. > >> Otherwise I can still use the Goth band along with a Succubus club to > >> extend its life forever. > > > >True. > > And therefore, under your incorrect interpretation, I could still use > this combo that allegedly was the problem with goth band. The interpretation is correct. This "combo" is not a problem. It has not been so alleged. You are misremembering or misrepresenting the "Goth Band moves counters from your own master card" problem. > Solution to both? Leave the cardtext on Dreams as is, and drop this > confusion between 'third counter added' and 'three counters on it'. > > They are not the same. They are. Trying to make it otherwise overpowers Jimmy Dunn as well as Thaumaturgy combat (since once any minion gets into combat, the "first" round of combat is past, and every round or every combat thereafter - by your incorrect interpretation of the "first" , "second" etc. - is open to, e.g., Walk of Flame). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:37:11 +1100, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: > I had a prolonged discussion with LSJ about why he ruled the >way he did on Left for Dead. If I may ask, what was this ruling? I do not see one in the Oct 25 rulings. T

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:01:33 GMT, J Bond <Bl...@home.com> wrote: > >At the time Goth band was printed, you could not use it to remove > >counters from your own master cards. > > > >Shortly after there was the self directed [D] action ruling, and at > >the SAME TIME they clarified the old [D] Cards. > > > >Goth band at no time could EVER remove counters from your own master > >phases. > > As I have said, that ruling was a clarification. The D action rules > in the Jyhad rulebook could be interpreted either way iirc. You seem to misunderstand the concept of "official rules". There is only one set of official rules current at any given time. This is true no matter how many different interpretations (i.e., rulings) could be made. The "(D) symbol" errata (that the (D) made the action directed and thus it could not be taken against your own stuff) was official. At that time, the Goth Band functioned as it does now. When the (D) symbol errata was overturned (switching to 'the controller of the target is what determines directedness), the Goth Band was altered to maintain its functionality. Thus the functionality of the Goth Band has never changed. > And thus you could do D actions against yourself and they would become > undirected, and this was confirmed by the later ruling. No. This became true by a later RTR which overturned the previous (official) errata. That doesn't change the fact that the errata was official prior to being overturned. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 20:38:07 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 05:27:43 GMT, Derek Ray <lor...@yah0o.com> wrote: >>>>Once they're all out, every turn you pull a counter from Dreams and move >>>>it to Palla Grande. Your !Toreador now have a 9-card hand during their >>>>turn for the rest of the game, and they all have +1 bleed. > >GB and Succubus club. > >I can now use Dreams endlessly under the 'popular' interpretation. You misspelt "correct", there. Assuming you can find someone else who will (a) make the trade with you, and (b) won't just keep the Dreams once you give it to them and remove a counter with the Goth Band, you could conceivably have a 9-card hand during your turn forever, yes. However, this will end as soon as you get to a 3-player table, or until the table sees you as a threat; whichever comes first. If you're putting the counters onto Palla Grande to keep it around forever, expect someone to lie to you and keep your Dreams at some point, or just refuse to trade if they're feeling honest. The "abusive" version I described above requires no cooperation from other players at the table, which is why it would be a problem were Goth Band to be permitted to target your own Master cards. We'd all appreciate it if you actually tried to think things through first prior to posting -- it would save us having to verbally hit you over the head with a LART. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c04b2b0.88048646@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >If one interepreted the rules according to the current and correct D >action ruling (Dactions against yourself are undirected) then you >could use the GB as I describe. The ruling was uber-explicit. When it was in place and you knew about it, it was absolutely explicit on this matter. >Especially if you never saw the first incorrect ruling. The ruling was not "incorrect". It was questioned by many, over time, and had many interesting implications. It was not, however, incorrect. >This is why I despise endless online rulings that for the most part do >not reach the general public without great effort. The 7/7 and 6/23 changes were absolutely vital steps in establishing a playing field that did not degenerate into Arika/Return to Innocence, anti-A/RtoI and weenies with Computer Hacking, Zip Guns and DBR decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c05b374.88243881@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>You are entirely mis-representing and mis-understand the rules. > >I am not. They are there in plain text. You are. The function of Goth Band has not changed. Some rules were changed some time back; errata was issued to preserve Goth Band's functionality completely as it was. >> Please >>do not continue to lecture me on how the rules work when you clearly do >>not understand them or the changes that have been made to them. >> > >Only if you do the same James (lecture-wise). I understand the rules, you clearly do not. Whilst you continue to repeatedly to lecture us about rules you very clearly do not understand, you will almost certainly be treated in a manner you do not like. You have made it extremely clear - and continue to do so with every post - that you do not understand the rules, either as they were or as they are. Do. Some. Research. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 19:35:17 +0100, Reyda wrote: >If i follow your wording, what if a new ally is printed , say "jazz band", >who can put 2 counters on a master card as a +1 stealth action... There are >already two counters on your dreams of the sphinx; you use the "jazz band" >to add 2 more. Now that there is 4 counters, how will you handle it with >this fuzzy, imprecise wording ?? You should have said "when there are more >than two counters...". Now imagine you are defining the wording for 200 new >cards. Can you think about all the guys who are going to try to break the >cards, and all the possibilities that will outcome with the next expansion ? >NO. Now I check further I see that the standard template for this sort of thing is to put three counters on the card, remove one each time and then burn the card when they are all gone. E.g. Ablative Skin, Pallo Grande, Ambrosius. There are two possible reasons that Dreams of the Sphinx is different: 1. It really is intended to work differently from other 3-counter cards 2. It was written in a sloppy, careless way. Pick one. Andrew

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 22:12:20 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >Now I check further I see that the standard template for this sort of >thing is to put three counters on the card, remove one each time and >then burn the card when they are all gone. E.g. Ablative Skin, Pallo >Grande, Ambrosius. There are two possible reasons that Dreams of the >Sphinx is different: > >1. It really is intended to work differently from other 3-counter >cards Considering that when it was written (Ancient Hearts), there wasn't any way to affect the number of counters on a Master card no matter WHO owned it, this seems highly unlikely. >2. It was written in a sloppy, careless way. Considering the rest of Ancient Hearts, which I am beginning to believe was never actually playtested (RtI, Tomb, Patrizia, etc.) by anyone who actually played the game, this is the obvious answer. Chalk another one up to WotC. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:25:36 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >It's that simple. Trying to pretend that gamers will actually NOT make >a fuss over something that isn't concretely, permanently recorded in >some way won't help your case any: look at the hullabaloo over putting >the Praxis Seizure cards on the vampire. All sorts of things don't get recorded in a concrete way. Votes cast in a referendum, for example. Or victory points - the most important game feature of all. Not unless you ante cards. Andrew

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 20:58:34 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >The "abusive" version I described above requires no cooperation from >other players at the table, which is why it would be a problem were Goth >Band to be permitted to target your own Master cards. Nonsense. You justify the errata to Goth Band by reference to a misreading of Dreams. But this misreading of Dreams is not otherwise there for any purpose - just some fanciful concern about Jimmy Dunn. If the cards were simply played as printed instead of both texts being mangled, they would work fine - one could not be used to abuse the other. Andrew

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 23:03:56 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 20:58:34 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: > >>The "abusive" version I described above requires no cooperation from >>other players at the table, which is why it would be a problem were Goth >>Band to be permitted to target your own Master cards. > >Nonsense. You justify the errata to Goth Band by reference to a >misreading of Dreams. But this misreading of Dreams is not otherwise As LSJ has stated elsewhere, it's not a "misreading" of Dreams. This is why there is a net.rep -- to make decisions when people are running about trying to play with semantics in order to get their way. The English language is imperfect in a number of ways, and this happens to be one of them -- one can perform enormous mental convolutions to find interpretations that fit one's desire, due to words having multiple meanings. It is plain for anyone to see that forcing people to "remember" how many times Dreams has been tapped and ignoring the number of counters actually on it is elaborate, contrived, and will eventually fail miserably while exploding into a pointless argument. Therefore, the only logical ruling to make when faced with the kind of semantic games you are playing is that the counters on Dreams represent exactly what they're intended to mean; a record of how many times the card has been tapped. Yes, the original writers were foolish in creating an additional template for keeping records (especially since Ambrosius, who uses a near-identical template, came out in the same set). However, we can't go back and shoot those writers; we just have to deal with what's there. >there for any purpose - just some fanciful concern about Jimmy Dunn. >If the cards were simply played as printed instead of both texts being >mangled, they would work fine - one could not be used to abuse the >other. Fine. Then I'll just abuse Powerbase: Madrid and Palla Grande instead, or actually, Powerbase: Chicago would work just as well. Now can we leave Goth Band dead, since it never got reprinted ANYWAY, and have done with it? Other posts have addressed the -real- reason for the errata to Goth Band; my posts intend to address why removing that errata would be a dumb idea. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 23:03:27 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:25:36 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Votes cast in a referendum are constantly being referred to, however, so are not likely to slip anyone's mind. Also, they can be recounted in a concrete fashion by adding up the cards played (which will generally be on top of the discard heap, or directly in front of the minion playing the action modifier/reaction card) and the card text on those vampires with votes. There's no long-term memory necessary in a referendum, as opposed to Dreams, where it's not inconceivable that someone would tap it once, wait a few turns, tap it again, wait a few turns, and tap it a third time. (Has been seen before, to keep others from playing THEIR Dreams.) Victory points are quite easy to remember, although I have seen people be briefly confused over "who got who" before. Generally, the oust-ee is well aware of who ousted him, and can name them accordingly. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <8A31E3B408932987.30D0B425...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >>The "abusive" version I described above requires no cooperation from >>other players at the table, which is why it would be a problem were Goth >>Band to be permitted to target your own Master cards. > >Nonsense. You justify the errata to Goth Band by reference to a >misreading of Dreams. No. Goth Band has errata to preserve its original play function. It may be desirous to have it function in such a fashion as regards Dreams of the Sphinx. However, if Dreams of the Sphinx did not exist, the errata would still be needed, just the same, in order to preserve the costing ratios and original intent of Goth Band. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 23:19:55 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >only logical ruling to make when faced with the kind of semantic games >you are playing is that the counters on Dreams represent exactly what >they're intended to mean; a record of how many times the card has been >tapped. Of course, that's what they are. It's you who's trying to subvert that by turning them into a more abstract measure of something else. If you go with LSJ's reading of the card then this encourages players to fiddle the count to squeeze more uses out of Dreams. But, if you read the card literally, then you can't effectively reduce the numer of counters added and so players wouldn't bother trying. The counting mechanism would always work perfectly, without any recourse to memory or note-taking, because no-one is going to bother removing counters if doing so has no effect. Why should the Sphinx be special and protect its count from interference in this clever way? Maybe because it is such a powerful card? It is certainly used far more often than any of the other 3-count cards. Perhaps WotC were wiser than you think, anticipated abuse, and so did something to stop it from arising. That's why the card has a different template. The Goth Bands have to look elsewhere for fun. Their card text allows them to mess with _any_ master in play. Is there another reason why this is broken and requires errata? And, with the errata, does anyone play the card? Does the errata make it a coaster? Andrew

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:37:02 -0500, LSJ wrote: >This is the second time you've added the "first" counter. This is so funny - a good example for Derek who wonders why I come here to read this stuff. >Trying to make it otherwise overpowers Jimmy Dunn as well No it doesn't. I took a look at Jimmy and he seems ok to me. He says: "Sabbat: Jimmy Dunn cannot be contested. If a second Jimmy comes into play, burn the first Jimmy in play instead of contesting him." "First" and "second" here are in the context of the two contesting Jimmies. The cardinality of the terms relates to the sequence in which they were played. The game is not purely considered as a static snapshot - the history of the cards is significant. The same is true of Dreams of the Sphinx. The only weakness of the card text is that it assumes that you can't have more than two Jimmies contesting at once. You might not be able to do that now but it's not a safe assumption forever. Andrew

On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:28:56 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:37:02 -0500, LSJ wrote: > >>This is the second time you've added the "first" counter. > >This is so funny - a good example for Derek who wonders why I come >here to read this stuff. > >>Trying to make it otherwise overpowers Jimmy Dunn as well > >No it doesn't. I took a look at Jimmy and he seems ok to me. He >says: > >"Sabbat: Jimmy Dunn cannot be contested. If a second Jimmy comes into >play, burn the first Jimmy in play instead of contesting him." > >"First" and "second" here are in the context of the two contesting >Jimmies. The cardinality of the terms relates to the sequence in >which they were played. The game is not purely considered as a static >snapshot - the history of the cards is significant. The same is true >of Dreams of the Sphinx. Incorrect, If First is in the context you are using it for dreams, it applies to jimmy too. Once one jimmy has been burned, the first Jimmy dunn is in an ash heap, and gets burned on every subsquesant jimmy that gets played, remember it is the FIRST jimmy that gets burned when you bring one out. After the FIRST jimmy is burned the SECOND is in play. And when a THIRD is brought out, it burns the FIRST jimmy, not the SECOND. See where your idiotic ruling leads? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <77D04988E8B65370.7EC3D0AD...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >"First" and "second" here are in the context of the two contesting >Jimmies. "Third", on Dreams, is in relation to the counters in play. You cannot have your cake and eat it. -- James Coupe When correctly viewed PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Everything is lewd EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 I could tell you things about Peter Pan 13D7E668C3695D623D5D And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man

In message <481C7509928697AD.E00BC8C5...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >Why should the Sphinx be special and protect its count from >interference in this clever way? Maybe because it is such a powerful >card? It is certainly used far more often than any of the other >3-count cards. Perhaps WotC were wiser than you think, anticipated >abuse, and so did something to stop it from arising. That's why the >card has a different template. > >The Goth Bands have to look elsewhere for fun. Half the point is that *someone else's* Goth Band has to look elsewhere for fun. You cannot use your Goth Band to extend the life of your Dreams of the Sphinx. [ quoted text not captured ]

<Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c08b549.88713685@news... [ quoted text not captured ] It was Left for Dead vs Psyche! ( you'll have to look it up on usenet if you want the full thread but I'll give you a summary here ) Ally A blocks Vampire B w/ CEL. Vamp B kills Ally A, A's Meth plays Left for Dead, the Ally is still alive and combat has ended. The point of debate was: Can Vamp B play Psyche! to re-start combat with the Ally? To which the response was no. After a few emails LSJ provided me with what I felt was an adequate explination as to why he ruled this way, the last part is as follows: >I think I follow. You play Psyche! as combat is ending, so you have to meet >the requirements of Psyche! as combat is ending ( which you can't in the >case of LfD or Minor Boon as the minion is not ready as combat is ending ). >If you can play it, combat ends, after combat effects take place, then >combat starts again. Technically, you play Psyche! after combat, but the requirements (both ready) have to be true at the time combat ends, yeah.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:37:02 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> If you want the Dreams to die after 3 uses, I suggest you errtta it to >> >> say so. >> > >> >I don't. It doesn't. You assert that it does. That assertion is in error. >> >> Based on cardtext, I am not. Its quite simple really. > >Based on the official rules, you are. It is even more simple. > What official rules is that? I see nothing in the CR&E. Therefore I must go with cardtext. If on the other hand you will be issuing erratta to say otherwise in the next edition of CR&E, that would be applicable. It would be illogical because it would clearly ignore cardtext, but it would be applicable nonetheless. >> "Put a counter on this card each time you tap it; when the third >> counter is added, burn this card. " >> >> I tap it and add a counter. I(see below) move one off with the GB. >> I add another counter. I move it off. > >This is the second time you've added the "first" counter. > First counter towards what? Why are you only counting the counters on the card? Both questions would make sense if the trigger was 'if there are 3 counters on this card', but it is not. If you've added two 'first' counters, you have added two counters. That's 2 thirds of the way to satisfying the actual cardtext. > >They are. Trying to make it otherwise overpowers Jimmy Dunn as well >as Thaumaturgy combat (since once any minion gets into combat, the >"first" round of combat is past, and every round or every combat >thereafter - by your incorrect interpretation of the "first" , >"second" etc. - is open to, e.g., Walk of Flame). > ???? The first Jimmy is burnt if a second enters play. Pretty straightforward. Thaum combat is based on the second round of THAT combat. Fighting a second combat effectively starts a recount of the rounds, as we all know. There would be no confusion whatsoever. T

On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:51:31 GMT, J Bond <Bl...@home.com> wrote: > >Once one jimmy has been burned, the first Jimmy dunn is in an ash >heap, and gets burned on every subsquesant jimmy that gets played, LOL! Cards only get burned from play J. Cards inthe ash heap are out of play except for dumpster diving abilities. Any other interpretation would mean that you could contest vampires in the asheap, and I doubt you would argue for that happenstance. T

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:09:34 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >>Especially if you never saw the first incorrect ruling. > >The ruling was not "incorrect". It was questioned by many, over time, >and had many interesting implications. It was not, however, incorrect. > Good grief why do you bother with this? It clearly was. The Jyhad D action rules could be read either way, and imo was incorectly interpreted one way so as to give rise to the 'cant Daction yourself' ruling. Which seeing as it was overturned for the 'Dactions on you become undirected', was an incorrect ruling. >>This is why I despise endless online rulings that for the most part do >>not reach the general public without great effort. > >The 7/7 and 6/23 changes were absolutely vital steps in establishing a >playing field that did not degenerate into Arika/Return to Innocence, >anti-A/RtoI and weenies with Computer Hacking, Zip Guns and DBR decks. > So? When will it end? To what degree must players take steps to file and remember all this information? I think this is one of the major reasons keeping more new players from entering the game. In essence, erratta CAN kill games. I've seen it happen and would rather it didnt' to VTES. If the card is not reprinted, then there should be no erratta unless it is a clarification. T

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:12:16 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c05b374.88243881@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>>You are entirely mis-representing and mis-understand the rules. >> >>I am not. They are there in plain text. > > >You are. The function of Goth Band has not changed. Some rules were >changed some time back; errata was issued to preserve Goth Band's >functionality completely as it was. > You are referring to an age-old ruling that I did not know, and clearly I will not apologize for that. Do not make a sweeping statement that I do not know the rules and use this as a basis of your argument. I did not know one ruling. Big deal. > Whilst you continue to >repeatedly to lecture us about rules you very clearly do not understand, I havn't lectured anybody, except arguable on the Dreams issue. And it is obvious to me that many people utterly fail to understand the difference between accounting(adding) and holding(current count). I cannot help those who refuse to see that. > >Do. Some. Research. > Why do you think I'm here? I am attempting to make sure I am up to stuff on all current rulings. Reading through ALL the rulings and making posts is one way to do that. Telling me to do research because I did not know a 5+year old defunct ruling is just ignorant. If you have a fact to raise, do so and drop all the pretentious antagonistic rhetoric. T

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 20:58:34 GMT, Derek Ray <lor...@yah0o.com> wrote: > >The "abusive" version I described above requires no cooperation from >other players at the table, which is why it would be a problem were Goth >Band to be permitted to target your own Master cards. > And as I've pointed out, that version should not be valid by the Dreams text itself. Not endlessly anyways. And of course the sucubuus club combo is problematic. But far from impossible. T

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 23:19:55 GMT, Derek Ray <lor...@yah0o.com> wrote: >This is why there is a net.rep -- to make decisions when people are >running about trying to play with semantics This is not semantics. The card-text is easily distinguishable from other counter mechanisms. > >It is plain for anyone to see that forcing people to "remember" how many >times Dreams has been tapped and ignoring the number of counters >actually on it is elaborate, contrived, and will eventually fail Gee I have no problem counting to 3 Derek. I doubt anyone else will. >miserably while exploding into a pointless argument. Therefore, the >only logical ruling to make when faced with the kind of semantic games >you are playing is that the counters on Dreams represent exactly what >they're intended to mean; a record of how many times the card has been >tapped. And if the counters have been moved off? Then they aren't a record at all(under the popular interpretation), but merely a stoarage space for counters that means nothing until there are three of them. Really, if the cardtext changes to read 'when there are three counters...burn this card' then the text will match the ruling. Until then, the rulling simply doesnt' match the card-text. T

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 01:32:39 +1100, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: >Technically, you play Psyche! after combat, but the requirements (both >ready) >have to be true at the time combat ends, yeah. Why wouldn't the ally be considered ready? And thus subject to a pscyhe? T

[ quoted text not captured ] But by using the term first as has been proposed there is no other interpretation possible. The first jimmy played is ALWAYS the first jimmy played.

In message <3c071dfc.181066722@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:12:16 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: > >>In message <3c05b374.88243881@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>>>You are entirely mis-representing and mis-understand the rules. >>> >>>I am not. They are there in plain text. >> >> >>You are. The function of Goth Band has not changed. Some rules were >>changed some time back; errata was issued to preserve Goth Band's >>functionality completely as it was. >> > >You are referring to an age-old ruling that I did not know And when it was very clearly explained to you, you continued to kick up a fuss. >, and >clearly I will not apologize for that. Can you apologise for the rest of your ranting, after that ruling was pointed out to you *repeatedly*? >Do not make a sweeping >statement that I do not know the rules You very, very clearly do not know the rules. You know a limited subset of them, however. >> Whilst you continue to >>repeatedly to lecture us about rules you very clearly do not understand, > >I havn't lectured anybody, This is how it comes across to a number of other people, based on their reactions, I would posit. >I cannot help those who refuse to see that. >>Do. Some. Research. >> > >Why do you think I'm here? Research is done before you post tripe to the newsgroup, not afterwards. >Telling me to do research because I did not know a 5+year old defunct >ruling is just ignorant. Perhaps you could have looked up the ruling from when Goth Band was changed. This explains it. Would that have been so hard? No. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c09206a.181688652@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>miserably while exploding into a pointless argument. Therefore, the >>only logical ruling to make when faced with the kind of semantic games >>you are playing is that the counters on Dreams represent exactly what >>they're intended to mean; a record of how many times the card has been >>tapped. > >And if the counters have been moved off? Then they aren't a record at >all(under the popular interpretation), but merely a stoarage space for >counters that means nothing until there are three of them. They are a record, because the correct and official interpretation works with that - that "third" is relative to the counters in play, as shown over a large number of cards (which refer to specific combats, rather than just one etc.). Your unofficial, incorrect interpretation does not allow them to record anything. However, it is both unofficial and incorrect. Current official rulings have the counters act as a record. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c0319e0.180014103@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>> >> If you want the Dreams to die after 3 uses, I suggest you errtta it to >>> >> say so. >>> > >>> >I don't. It doesn't. You assert that it does. That assertion is in error. >>> >>> Based on cardtext, I am not. Its quite simple really. >> >>Based on the official rules, you are. It is even more simple. >> > >What official rules is that? I see nothing in the CR&E. Therefore I >must go with cardtext. And when the official net rep and rules authority tells you that your interpretation is incorrect, he is correct and you are not. There are many questions that have been asked over time regarding many items. Not all of these are included in the lists, as this would require them to archive practically every single post ever made. However, LSJ has given you a ruling. If you don't like it, appeal to White Wolf to replace him. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c0b23dd.182571713@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>Technically, you play Psyche! after combat, but the requirements (both >>ready) >>have to be true at the time combat ends, yeah. > >Why wouldn't the ally be considered ready? Because combat ends due to the ally dying and Left for Dead's card text. Thus, at the point of combat ending, the ally wasn't ready. This invalidates Psyche!'s requirements, per LSJ's ruling. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c061d19.180839098@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>>Especially if you never saw the first incorrect ruling. >> >>The ruling was not "incorrect". It was questioned by many, over time, >>and had many interesting implications. It was not, however, incorrect. >> > >Good grief why do you bother with this? It clearly was. It was not incorrect. The Rules Team have the absolute authority to change the rules, if they so choose. That's what they're there for, in some instances. It did not match designer intent, by all appearances (Cat Burglary, for instance, regarding the functionality of the (D) symbol and what it allows; Rampage is an arguable case for the ability of *where* to direct such actions). However, this does not make it incorrect. The Rules Team are *always* official. In situations where they deviate from your understanding (and they do not later correct themselves), they are correct. It's that simple. They're official, they're correct. >Which seeing as it was overturned for the 'Dactions on you become >undirected', was an incorrect ruling. It was over-turned by a separate Rules Team (the then (and presumably now) current one). For instance, a number of rulings have been made regarding self- contestating in the past. These were correct at the time, based on the rules as they stood at the time. The rules have changed. This does not invalidate the situation as it was before (though such rulings would, obviously, have to be revised in the present situation, where necessary), nor does it mean that the rules before were incorrect. It does, however, mean that they have changed. >>>This is why I despise endless online rulings that for the most part do >>>not reach the general public without great effort. >> >>The 7/7 and 6/23 changes were absolutely vital steps in establishing a >>playing field that did not degenerate into Arika/Return to Innocence, >>anti-A/RtoI and weenies with Computer Hacking, Zip Guns and DBR decks. > >So? Perhaps you would prefer a game that did degenerate into the circumstance above. A brief guess at alternative histories would have player support dwindling as people dropped out of tournaments and front-line play, resulting in major changes as White Wolf would have been faced with an extremely different player base. Sometimes change is hard; it is also sometimes necessary. >When will it end? To what degree must players take steps to >file and remember all this information? At the time, it was absolutely necessary. It had some problems - which were surmounted as time passed - and now the game is thriving. As time goes on, the situation lessens as card texts are reprinted in later sets (e.g. Tomb). Something being hard does not stop it being worthwhile. In the long run, the steps of the 7/7 and 6/23 rulings established a firm foundation to continue player interest in the game, since people could play numerous deck styles competitively, rather than just two or three (thus invalidating most of their collection). >If the card is not reprinted, then there should be no erratta unless >it is a clarification. Clarifications are not errata. You clearly do not understand the difference. And whilst the current Design Team are doing an excellent job in not producing broken cards, assume that a card from Bloodlines is broken. Let's make it a Temporis card. When and where would you reprint it? [ quoted text not captured ]

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:37:02 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > wrote: > > >> >> > >> >> If you want the Dreams to die after 3 uses, I suggest you errtta it to > >> >> say so. > >> > > >> >I don't. It doesn't. You assert that it does. That assertion is in error. > >> > >> Based on cardtext, I am not. Its quite simple really. > > > >Based on the official rules, you are. It is even more simple. > > What official rules is that? The official ruling posted by me on this newsgroup in this thread as a follow up to your post, among others. > I see nothing in the CR&E. Therefore I > must go with cardtext. If on the other hand you will be issuing > erratta to say otherwise in the next edition of CR&E, that would be > applicable. Official rulings apply when made. No errata is needed, since card text is not being changed. It would be a change to card text to get it to function the way you have it functioning iun your house rules. That change will not become official, however. (At least, not so far as I can see). > It would be illogical because it would clearly ignore cardtext, but it > would be applicable nonetheless. The current ruling follows card text (counters) in contrast to your house rules which seeks to rely on history instead. > >> "Put a counter on this card each time you tap it; when the third > >> counter is added, burn this card. " > >> > >> I tap it and add a counter. I(see below) move one off with the GB. > >> I add another counter. I move it off. > > > >This is the second time you've added the "first" counter. > > First counter towards what? Towards anything. > Why are you only counting the counters on > the card? Because they're the ones in play. > Both questions would make sense if the trigger was 'if > there are 3 counters on this card', but it is not. No, but it is equivalent, as I've said. > If you've added two 'first' counters, you have added two counters. > That's 2 thirds of the way to satisfying the actual cardtext. No. Card text waits until the third counter. It doesn't wait until the card is used three times - it waits until there's a counter added that brings the total number of counters to three ("the third counter"). > >They are. Trying to make it otherwise overpowers Jimmy Dunn as well > >as Thaumaturgy combat (since once any minion gets into combat, the > >"first" round of combat is past, and every round or every combat > >thereafter - by your incorrect interpretation of the "first" , > >"second" etc. - is open to, e.g., Walk of Flame). > > > > ???? > > The first Jimmy is burnt if a second enters play. Pretty > straightforward. Yes. And by your house rules on the ordinals, when the third Jimmy enters play, both the second and the third Jimmys remain (uncontesting, since Jimmys don't contest), since nothing happens when the "third" Jimmy enters play by card text. (Note that this is not the official rule - the official rule functions parallel to the DotS case - the "second Jimmy" is merely the Jimmy put into play when there is one Jimmy ("the first Jimmy") already in play - regardless of how many Jimmies have been in play so far (the history). > Thaum combat is based on the second round of THAT combat. Fighting a > second combat effectively starts a recount of the rounds, as we all > know. Yes, we all know that. And we all (with a few vocal exceptions) know the same thing about DotS. > There would be no confusion whatsoever. Not until your try making peicemeal rules (like different relations of the ordinals to history for DotS vs. Tha combat and Jimmy). -- 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/

On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:26:23 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 23:19:55 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: > >>only logical ruling to make when faced with the kind of semantic games >>you are playing is that the counters on Dreams represent exactly what >>they're intended to mean; a record of how many times the card has been >>tapped. > >Of course, that's what they are. It's you who's trying to subvert >that by turning them into a more abstract measure of something else. No, they're just a record, and they're counters. Someone else's Goth Band can screw with the counters, which alters the record. There's nothing at all abstract about this. It's pretty damn simple, it's straightforward, both of which are good things when dealing with gamers, who will whine about EVERYTHING to get their way. >If you go with LSJ's reading of the card then this encourages players >to fiddle the count to squeeze more uses out of Dreams. But, if you So? More power to 'em if they can figure out a way. Right now, I don't think anything but Goth Band will let you do so, and it can't even be your own Goth Band. This doesn't mean I don't think it was a stupid idea to change the template when AH was in design, but I can't fix that since it happened an awfully long time ago. >read the card literally, then you can't effectively reduce the numer >of counters added and so players wouldn't bother trying. The counting >mechanism would always work perfectly, without any recourse to memory >or note-taking, because no-one is going to bother removing counters if >doing so has no effect. ...and if you try to interpret things this way, then you run into the Jimmy Dunn issue and anything ELSE that uses the "first, second, third" phrasing. It's good to leave things more concrete than that, since Jimmy Dunn doesn't use counters to signify whether he's first, second, etc. >3-count cards. Perhaps WotC were wiser than you think, anticipated >abuse, and so did something to stop it from arising. That's why the >card has a different template. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *ahem* I apprecate the note of hilarity, really. But come on. >The Goth Bands have to look elsewhere for fun. Their card text allows >them to mess with _any_ master in play. Is there another reason why >this is broken and requires errata? And, with the errata, does anyone >play the card? Does the errata make it a coaster? Well, in the message you responded to, I list Powerbase: Chicago as an alternative way to keep your Palla Grande out forever for free. You could combine other "add-counter-on-untap" Masters with Short Term Investment or something, though that seems highly inefficient for pool gain. Who knows what else is out there? I've never really thought about it much beyond the Palla Grande issue; finding one overpowered instance is generally sufficient for me. Do I see Goth Bands played with right now? Nope. I'm not entirely sure it's a coaster, myself, but I doubt I'd ever put one in a deck just hoping that someone would play a counter-master-card. Maybe if more Masters that use counters come out in future sets. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 22:32:40 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >>It is plain for anyone to see that forcing people to "remember" how many >>times Dreams has been tapped and ignoring the number of counters >>actually on it is elaborate, contrived, and will eventually fail > >Gee I have no problem counting to 3 Derek. I doubt anyone else will. Are you actually going to defend this statement? Do you play games at all? Have you EVER seen hardcore gamers at close range? Go stand next to the wargaming miniatures tables sometime at a convention, and tell me that concrete records of EVERYTHING aren't necessary. Or better yet, go stand near the Magic players. They'll argue even WITH the concrete records. Expecting rational, mature behavior from gamers 100% of the time is, frankly, quite a stretch. Designing anything assuming such behavior would be an enormous mistake. >>miserably while exploding into a pointless argument. Therefore, the >>only logical ruling to make when faced with the kind of semantic games >>you are playing is that the counters on Dreams represent exactly what >>they're intended to mean; a record of how many times the card has been >>tapped. > >And if the counters have been moved off? Then they aren't a record at >all(under the popular interpretation), but merely a stoarage space for >counters that means nothing until there are three of them. This serves quite admirably as a record. "Record" doesn't just mean "ten-inch LP", you know. >Really, if the cardtext changes to read 'when there are three >counters...burn this card' then the text will match the ruling. Fortunately, no such errata is necessary, as the text already matches the ruling. Thank you for playing; we have some lovely departing gifts for you at the door. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:27:59 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >No, they're just a record, and they're counters. Someone else's Goth >Band can screw with the counters, which alters the record. Not in this case. When the Goth Band goes to remove one of the counters, the Sphinx opens one eye and says in a voice which rumbles like an earthquake, "You can't fool me! Your master still only gets three tries at my riddle.". >Right now, I don't think anything but Goth Band will let you do so, and it can't even be >your own Goth Band. Indeed - LSJ's ruling about Sphinx currently only has meaning if you can use Goth Band on your own Sphinx. But then you forbid this use because of the ruling. It's circular reasoning. >...and if you try to interpret things this way, then you run into the >Jimmy Dunn issue and anything ELSE that uses the "first, second, third" >phrasing. It's good to leave things more concrete than that, since >Jimmy Dunn doesn't use counters to signify whether he's first, second, >etc. Jimmy Dunn is just a silly straw man. You know what Jimmy Dunn means. I know what Jimmy Dunn means. I could explain the language in painful detail but it's a waste of time. Jimmy Dunn and Dreams of the Sphinx are so different that the way you read one has no bearing on the way you read the other. >Well, in the message you responded to, I list Powerbase: Chicago as an >alternative way to keep your Palla Grande out forever for free. So the real problem is keeping Palla Grande out forever? This doesn't seem to be a broken combo. Without the Goth Band, you still have the option of playing another Palla Grande to keep the debauchery going. The Goth Band doesn't make the card especially more efficient as the Goth Band requires a card slot too and additionally requires 2 pool and a recruiting action. It wouldn't let you thin down the number of Palla Grande in your deck all that much because, if your strategy is based upon drawing one, you still need to put more than one in your deck. If I was playing Palla Grande, I think that Goth Band would be a liability - an obvious incitement for someone to come and break up the party. And I see that Palla Grande and Goth Band were both created for the same clan in the same set - this is surely no coincidence. When we were sidetracked by Dreams of the Sphinx, I was puzzled why a Goth Band should have the power to manipulate counters but now it all makes sense. Palla Grande has "debauchery" counters. If you have a band of eager goths at your beck and call, they will help you obtain drink, drugs and decadent devices to keep the debauch going for night after night. The cards are intended to work together. Adding Powerbase: Chicago to the combo doesn't make it any more broken. Unlike the Sphinx, the Powerbases count in the right direction - extra counters are good rather than bad. If you take a counter from your own powerbase, then you are giving up the benefit that the counter would provide as pool on the Powerbase. That's balanced. The goths are stealing the commodities traders' coke to use in their debauch. The traders then fail to provide their usual return on investment. It is indeed the Sphinx that's the problem because it counts in the opposite direction to most master cards - extra counters are bad rather than good. The only other card that counts the wrong way seems to be Strained Vitae Supply but I suppose that's not a big deal because the card's effect is so much weaker. It's therefore appropriate that Dreams of the Sphinx should be interpreted in a strict way because of this - it has a mechanical defect which can be abused if you don't. >Do I see Goth Bands played with right now? Nope. That's a shame. Allies are generally under-utilised and so when a matter such as this arises, they should be given the benefit of the doubt, not errata. If any card should get errata, it's Dreams of the Sphinx. It's one of the few cards in the game that can go in every deck - one of the signs of a broken card. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:27:59 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: > >Right now, I don't think anything but Goth Band will let you do so, and it can't even be > >your own Goth Band. > > Indeed - LSJ's ruling about Sphinx currently only has meaning if you > can use Goth Band on your own Sphinx. Not true. The ruling "has meaning" when another Methuselah controls the Goth Band. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:22:22 -0500, LSJ wrote: >The function hasn't been changed - it works exactly like it's always >worked. I was rooting around in Google and came across several threads written in late 96 after the release of Sabbat. They contain a lot of grumbling about the general brokenness of this expansion and the Goth Band/Dreams combo is cited several times. It seems that players did then take it for granted that you could use the two cards together. Maybe WotC subsequently ruled that you couldn't in response to this. I also came across this relevant quote from you back then: >Especially, the "history" counters used by Strained Viate Supply and Dreams >of the Sphinx should be viewed as inviolate - the only reason that counters >are used at all is that history isn't supposed to be kept in a CCG (although >several cards; like 6th Tradition, Lextalionis, and Compel the Spirit; make >their own exceptions (and these exceptions lead to confusion in certain cases). >Mucking with history counters is a trait best left to that other game. It's amusing to be citing the history of arguments about history, eh? Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:22:22 -0500, LSJ wrote: > >The function hasn't been changed - it works exactly like it's always > >worked. > > I was rooting around in Google and came across several threads written > in late 96 after the release of Sabbat. They contain a lot of > grumbling about the general brokenness of this expansion and the Goth > Band/Dreams combo is cited several times. It seems that players did > then take it for granted that you could use the two cards together. > Maybe WotC subsequently ruled that you couldn't in response to this. The concept of players who have mistaken ideas of what the rules are grumbling about the state of those rules is not alien around here. At any rate, the posts you found in Google should have included official corrections to the misconceptions that the two could be used together, since that errata (no self-directed-(D)) came before. Sometime well before [TOM 06-JAN-1996], for instance. But the approach to the (D)-symbols wasn't "very scientific" in the original RT days, [TOM 06-MAR-1996], so it's not surprising that some of the players didn't know the final form of the rule when Sabbat came out. > I also came across this relevant quote from you back then: > >Especially, the "history" counters used by Strained Viate Supply and Dreams > >of the Sphinx should be viewed as inviolate - the only reason that counters > >are used at all is that history isn't supposed to be kept in a CCG (although > >several cards; like 6th Tradition, Lextalionis, and Compel the Spirit; make > >their own exceptions (and these exceptions lead to confusion in certain cases). > >Mucking with history counters is a trait best left to that other game. > > It's amusing to be citing the history of arguments about history, eh? Very good. That's the article I cited in the "Difference Between History and Game State" article yesterday. See the article I posted yesterday for my comments on that article. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:09:09 -0500, LSJ wrote: >At any rate, the posts you found in Google should have included official >corrections to the misconceptions that the two could be used together, since >that errata (no self-directed-(D)) came before. Sometime well before >[TOM 06-JAN-1996], for instance. > >But the approach to the (D)-symbols wasn't "very scientific" in the >original RT days, [TOM 06-MAR-1996], so it's not surprising that some >of the players didn't know the final form of the rule when Sabbat came >out. I've had a look at bunch of threads from that era. From what I can see there was no "final form" of this rule. Tom Wylie issued some specific rulings on Rampage and Konstantin and you turned these into a more general rule in your unofficial summary of the WotC rulings, right? The general idea seemed to be that directed actions (indicated by (D)) could only target other Meths unless the card indicated otherwise, in which case it could break the general rule. The question would have been whether Goth Band's text ("any master in play") was strong enough to let it work on your own masters too. I would have said that it was and many other players seemed to think so too. Others thought different and so a WotC ruling would have been required to clarify eaxtly what they meant by the card. But no ruling was forthcoming because the net-rep system was broken in the Sabbat era. It didn't get fixed until you took over and you weren't a WotC insider. Your agenda was different from theirs and you ultimately rewrote the rules for directed actions. The bottom line today is that Goth Band has errata and the errata weakens the card to the point that no-one plays with it. You publish this errata because of a supposition of how the card was intended to work. But it seems to be anyone's guess what WotC actually intended. It seems simplest just to play the card as printed - in line with the way that you always thought directed actions worked and which is now what appears in the rulebook. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:09:09 -0500, LSJ wrote: > > >At any rate, the posts you found in Google should have included official > >corrections to the misconceptions that the two could be used together, since > >that errata (no self-directed-(D)) came before. Sometime well before > >[TOM 06-JAN-1996], for instance. > > > >But the approach to the (D)-symbols wasn't "very scientific" in the > >original RT days, [TOM 06-MAR-1996], so it's not surprising that some > >of the players didn't know the final form of the rule when Sabbat came > >out. > > I've had a look at bunch of threads from that era. From what I can > see there was no "final form" of this rule. Tom Wylie issued some > specific rulings on Rampage and Konstantin and you turned these into a > more general rule in your unofficial summary of the WotC rulings, > right? Tom verified the rulings summary line by line. > get fixed until you took over and you weren't a WotC insider. Your > agenda was different from theirs and you ultimately rewrote the rules > for directed actions. No. The rules were already written in both the Jyhad and V:TES rulebooks. My "agenda" was merely to use them as written. > The bottom line today is that Goth Band has errata and the errata > weakens the card to the point that no-one plays with it. You publish OK. But the point is that it has always been this way. > this errata because of a supposition of how the card was intended to > work. But it seems to be anyone's guess what WotC actually intended. Not true. WotC knew what they intended. > It seems simplest just to play the card as printed - in line with the > way that you always thought directed actions worked and which is now > what appears in the rulebook. Thanks for the advice. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:09:09 -0500, LSJ wrote: > > > > >At any rate, the posts you found in Google should have included official > > >corrections to the misconceptions that the two could be used together, since > > >that errata (no self-directed-(D)) came before. Sometime well before > > >[TOM 06-JAN-1996], for instance. > > > > > >But the approach to the (D)-symbols wasn't "very scientific" in the > > >original RT days, [TOM 06-MAR-1996], so it's not surprising that some > > >of the players didn't know the final form of the rule when Sabbat came > > >out. > > > > I've had a look at bunch of threads from that era. From what I can > > see there was no "final form" of this rule. Tom Wylie issued some > > specific rulings on Rampage and Konstantin and you turned these into a > > more general rule in your unofficial summary of the WotC rulings, > > right? > > Tom verified the rulings summary line by line. Update: Tom gave the general rule: "you generally cannot direct [(D)] actions at yourself" [TOM XX-XXX-1995] (Message-ID: <452i5m$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, not archived on Google, although a few follow-up posts are: [TOM 10-OCT-1995]). The "specific rulings on ... Konstantin" was a specific clarification on Konstantin and Tara, and was written to indicate the general rule being used: "Kostantin's and Tara's actions are both (D) actions, so may not be directed against one of your minions." [TOM 15-DEC-1995] (I assume that that's the message to which you refer, since you declined to cite the messages to which you refer.) The RT used this general rule as the basis of the single "Reversal" ruling in [RTR 24-JAN-1996]. If you find another form of the rule posted after this "final form" of the rule, let me know. > > The bottom line today is that Goth Band has errata and the errata > > weakens the card to the point that no-one plays with it. You publish > > OK. But the point is that it has always been this way. > > > this errata because of a supposition of how the card was intended to > > work. But it seems to be anyone's guess what WotC actually intended. > > Not true. WotC knew what they intended. Addendum: One need only look to Powerbase: Mexico City (the Sabbat printing) to discover what the intention was for the (D) symbol at that time. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:42:48 -0500, LSJ wrote: >No. The rules were already written in both the Jyhad and V:TES rulebooks. >My "agenda" was merely to use them as written. Eh? It seems that the big issue was whether a definition of a directed action was based on the presence of the (D) or the target of the action (another player). Tom Wylie looked for the (D) as per the rule book ("if the (D) does not appear, it is not a directed action."). You looked at the target and essentially ignored the (D). This later philosophy may be sensible but was not well-supported by the rules - that's why you changed them and then gave Goth Band errata. >> this errata because of a supposition of how the card was intended to >> work. But it seems to be anyone's guess what WotC actually intended. > >Not true. WotC knew what they intended. How do you know this? It seems that the design team were fairly remote from the DCI, let alone the player community. When Tom claimed to know their mind (e.g. vote pushing) you didn't believe him. I am sceptical too. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:42:48 -0500, LSJ wrote: > >No. The rules were already written in both the Jyhad and V:TES rulebooks. > >My "agenda" was merely to use them as written. > > Eh? It seems that the big issue was whether a definition of a > directed action was based on the presence of the (D) or the target of > the action (another player). Tom Wylie looked for the (D) as per the > rule book ("if the (D) does not appear, it is not a directed > action."). You looked at the target and essentially ignored the (D). > This later philosophy may be sensible but was not well-supported by > the rules - that's why you changed them and then gave Goth Band > errata. The rulebooks both gave the definition of a directed action. See the text of the RTR in which the (D)-symbol-errata was removed (and the Goth Band errata was issued). > >> this errata because of a supposition of how the card was intended to > >> work. But it seems to be anyone's guess what WotC actually intended. > > > >Not true. WotC knew what they intended. > > How do you know this? It seems that the design team were fairly > remote from the DCI, let alone the player community. When Tom claimed > to know their mind (e.g. vote pushing) you didn't believe him. I am > sceptical too. Here you have mistakenly jumped from "WotC" to "Design Team". But again, see Powerbase: Mexico City (printed at the same time as Goth Band) for an indication of the intentions of the Design Team. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:09:11 -0500, LSJ wrote: >Tom gave the general rule: >"you generally cannot direct [(D)] actions at yourself" [TOM XX-XXX-1995] >(Message-ID: <452i5m$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, not archived on Google, although >a few follow-up posts are: [TOM 10-OCT-1995]). >... >The RT used this general rule as the basis of the single "Reversal" ruling >in [RTR 24-JAN-1996]. That rule is ok. The question would be whether Goth Band was one of the exceptions. The rule implies that they exist ("generally") and the Golden Rule is the foundation which supports them. Absent a specific ruling on the card from WotC, I don't accept that it was never played that way when so much commentary indicated that players thought that you could use it on your own Dreams. Contrary opinions only turned up months later, after you had become the net-rep. Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. The Net.Rep. But not the RT. The RT (headed by Tom) was still in place at that time. Their rule (you cannot direct (D) actions at yourself unless card text indicates otherwise) was still in effect, as it had been at least since <452i5m$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> above. The question "is Goth Band an exception" is easily answered by that rule and card text. Since the RT then did not issue any errata for Goth Band to make it an exception (and I, not being part of the RT, was not allowed to issue such errata even if I were so inclined, did not issue the errata either). Sure it was played the wrong way. I never said or suggested otherwise, as you well know. The point is that it was never the official way to play. Many people think 4CL is the rule, too. That doesn't mean it was ever official, no matter how much time elapses between the assertion and the official correction. "Specific rulings from WotC" were few and far between at that time, which is why I ended up in the position of Net.Rep in the first place. I've provided references to the general rule you requested, your moving target defense notwithstanding. Please provide references to an official reversal of this rule (or exception made for Goth Band) if you wish to pursue this thread. Out. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:59:35 -0500, LSJ wrote: >The question "is Goth Band an exception" is easily answered by that >rule and card text. Not in the way you're suggesting. It reads, "may remove one counter from any master card in play". Tom Wylie's original ruling related to Konstantin who reads, "may steal equipment from another minion". Konstantin's wording is mostly silent about the scope of its targeting. It is indefinite and that's why it doesn't override the implications of the action being directed. Goth Band is different. By card text, its scope is explicitly global - it covers all master cards in play and this clearly includes your own. That's why it overrode the ordinary constraints of a directed action. And that's why you've given it the errata that you have. To make the card only apply to other players' masters you had to change the text on the card. If the printed text didn't include your own masters then no errata would have been required. Note that Konstantin _didn't_ have his text changed in Final Nights. Why does Konstantin keep his original text while Goth Band doesn't? The pretext of saying that you're trying to preserve the cards' function across the general redefinition of directed actions just won't wash. Goth Band clearly got errata to change its function - to break up the supposed combo with Dreams of the Sphinx. Konstantin didn't get errata because there was no such combo to worry about. This just seems to be part of your general program of trying to minimise the apparent amount of errata by renaming, redefining or excusing it. It's like the way that politicians massage the unemployment statistics by calling them long-term disabled, early retirees or anything else they can think of. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:59:35 -0500, LSJ wrote: > > >The question "is Goth Band an exception" is easily answered by that > >rule and card text. > > Not in the way you're suggesting. Too much snippage to follow the thread. If you'd like to try again and quote the stuff you're referring to, please do. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <924675AAD6E28D78.AC82604B...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >Goth Band is different. By card text, its scope is explicitly global >- it covers all master cards in play and this clearly includes your >own. That's why it overrode the ordinary constraints of a directed >action. No, it did not and never has. Explicit card text was needed to over-rule that rule. There were a number of (D) actions that could be targeted at yourself by saying "Oh, but it says any." For instance, Powerbase: Mexico City. However, since the ruling stood that you could not direct an action at yourself, you could not steal the blood from PB:MC yourself. This is how it worked by card text and the no (D) at yourself rules. This is how it works with the errata to preserve the design. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 08:46:50 -0500, LSJ wrote: >> >The question "is Goth Band an exception" is easily answered by that >> >rule and card text. >> >> Not in the way you're suggesting. > >Too much snippage to follow the thread. >If you'd like to try again and quote the stuff you're referring to, >please do. The whole thread has 88 messages in it now. I could repost the entire post of yours that I was responding to but that doesn't seem like good netiquette. Me, I keep a copy of every single post here (22728 posts now) and my newsreader, Agent, threads them beautifully. Anyway, the short form is two points: 1. Goth Band does have explicit text which overrides the (D). Its wording clearly encompasses your own masters - that's why you have changed it. 2. Goth Band got errata while Konstantin didn't. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 08:46:50 -0500, LSJ wrote: > > >> >The question "is Goth Band an exception" is easily answered by that > >> >rule and card text. > >> > >> Not in the way you're suggesting. > > > >Too much snippage to follow the thread. > >If you'd like to try again and quote the stuff you're referring to, > >please do. > > The whole thread has 88 messages in it now. I could repost the entire > post of yours that I was responding to but that doesn't seem like good > netiquette. Me, I keep a copy of every single post here (22728 posts > now) and my newsreader, Agent, threads them beautifully. Netiquette doesn't address how many posts you or some server archives. It addresses quoting for context (not the "entire post") Try it. > Anyway, the short form is two points: > > 1. Goth Band does have explicit text which overrides the (D). Its > wording clearly encompasses your own masters - that's why you have > changed it. The card text doesn't override the (D). The wording would encompass your own masters if the (D) symbol doesn't preclude such. The (D) symbol did preclude such when Goth Band was written (again, see the Powerbase: Maxico City card which was printed at the same time - no, seriously, compare the two printed cards). The reason "I" have changed it is, as stated several times in this thread as well as in the RTR in which is was changed was to preserve that functionality when the (D) symbol functionality was restored to the rulebook version. > 2. Goth Band got errata while Konstantin didn't. Konstantin doesn't need it - any minion can steal-from-friendlies [6.1.3] That he has two ways of doing this (one from his special and one from the rules) isn't worth adding errata to preserve the separation present before the (D) symbol errata was removed. Yes, the removal of the (D) symbol errata changed the scope of Konstantin's special ability. It also changed Arson's, etc. For the cases where the change was/could be problematic, errata was issued to preserve the functionality. For the other cases, no errata was issued. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 10:23:58 -0500, LSJ wrote: >The (D) symbol did preclude such when Goth Band was written (again, see >the Powerbase: Maxico City card which was printed at the same time - no, >seriously, compare the two printed cards). I don't have a Sabbat copy of either card. But insufficient quoting doesn't stop me. A quick search soon highlighted the issue with the original Powerbase: Mexico City >> Powerbase: Mexico City says that "any Sabbat vampire may take a (D) >> action to move all the blood on the 'base to his or her controller's pool. >> Burn this card when the last blood counter on it is removed." >> Powerbase: New York says that "any Sabbat vampire controlled by another >> Methuselah can take a (D) action to move all the blood on the 'base to his >> or her controller's blood pool. Burn this card when the last blood counter >> on it is removed." The card text of Powerbase: Mexico City therefore allows you to direct the action at yourself. When Sabbat came out, some people queried this because it seemed odd but there was no official errata from WotC (that I can find). The card was effectively the same as Goth Band. The text can be and was used to allow self-direction until you gave it errata. >Yes, the removal of the (D) symbol errata changed the scope of Konstantin's >special ability. It also changed Arson's, etc. For the cases where the >change was/could be problematic, errata was issued to preserve the >functionality. For the other cases, no errata was issued. Playing Goth Band as printed only seems to be problematic if you misread Dreams of the Sphinx. That's the card that should have got errata. One player at the time went further and banned it! It's a shame that you've already reprinted it in its broken form. Andrew

In message <ACDDAE8181081F05.C4ED4772...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about: >Playing Goth Band as printed only seems to be problematic if you >misread Dreams of the Sphinx. That's the card that should have got >errata. One player at the time went further and banned it! It's a >shame that you've already reprinted it in its broken form. Straw man. I can abuse Goth Band with any Master card that accumulates counters automatically; specifically, Powerbase: Chicago or Madrid. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <ACDDAE8181081F05.C4ED4772...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >The card text of Powerbase: Mexico City therefore allows you to direct >the action at yourself. And the ruling on (D) actions prevented this. Had the ruling not existed, you could have directed it at yourself. The ruling did, however, exist, so you couldn't. This ruling existed when the card was designed and balanced, as with Goth Band. When that ruling was removed, card text was changed to matched designed, balanced and intended functionality. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <ma0q0u4oivvbtsb0i...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >>Playing Goth Band as printed only seems to be problematic if you >>misread Dreams of the Sphinx. That's the card that should have got >>errata. One player at the time went further and banned it! It's a >>shame that you've already reprinted it in its broken form. > >Straw man. I can abuse Goth Band with any Master card that accumulates >counters automatically; specifically, Powerbase: Chicago or Madrid. Not to mention the fact that in its current form, everything related to this works and isn't broken. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 17:05:45 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >>Playing Goth Band as printed only seems to be problematic if you >>misread Dreams of the Sphinx. That's the card that should have got >>errata. One player at the time went further and banned it! It's a >>shame that you've already reprinted it in its broken form. > >Straw man. I can abuse Goth Band with any Master card that accumulates >counters automatically; specifically, Powerbase: Chicago or Madrid. There's a significant difference. If you use the Goth Band with your own Powerbase then you're robbing Peter to pay Paul - that's balanced. Dreams of the Sphinx is broken because its counters are bad not good - it counts the wrong way. Andrew

In message <79DF34E9E5EDD460.B6DCA9C3...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >Dreams of the Sphinx is broken because its counters are bad not good - >it counts the wrong way. This requires you to rob someone else's Dreams. Goth Band has never, under any of the official sets of rules, allowed you to steal your own counters from Dreams. It is not and has never been a problem. -- James Coupe When correctly viewed PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Everything is lewd EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 I could tell you things about Peter Pan 13D7E668C3695D623D5D And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man

In message <79DF34E9E5EDD460.B6DCA9C3...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about: >On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 17:05:45 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >> >>Straw man. I can abuse Goth Band with any Master card that accumulates >>counters automatically; specifically, Powerbase: Chicago or Madrid. > >There's a significant difference. If you use the Goth Band with your >own Powerbase then you're robbing Peter to pay Paul - that's balanced. Not even close. Powerbase: Chicago simply isn't all that much of an effect on its own; spending 1 pool to have a relatively permanent Palla Grande can't HELP but be a good thing. And pretty damn strong, too. -- Derek ...Vampire Squirrel has come to bite your nuts!

On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 04:30:26 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >>There's a significant difference. If you use the Goth Band with your >>own Powerbase then you're robbing Peter to pay Paul - that's balanced. > >Not even close. Powerbase: Chicago simply isn't all that much of an >effect on its own; spending 1 pool to have a relatively permanent Palla >Grande can't HELP but be a good thing. And pretty damn strong, too. Not even close. It's a three card combo which requires pool and actions to set up. And all three cards are unique. You can be more effective simply by putting three copies of Palla Grande in your deck instead - that's cheaper, easier and more focussed. Palla Grande is a rare though while Goth Band and Powerbase Chicago are uncommon. If you force players to rely on Palla Grande alone then that makes it a power rare. Tsk. Andrew

In message <217BDAB22F207B5B.A4A7223A...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >Palla Grande is a >rare though while Goth Band and Powerbase Chicago are uncommon. If >you force players to rely on Palla Grande alone then that makes it a >power rare. No-one is relying on it. It is clear, however, that it is a very useful card for Goth Band, potentially. [ quoted text not captured ]

> 'when the third counter is added' is totally different from 'when > there are three counters on this card'. > > Dreams says the former, not the latter. I agree that Dreams says the "third counter" which could mean "when 3 different counters are used", but see LSJ's point about not using history, too. Perhaps this suggestion can be a resolution: To use Dreams of the Sphinx properly, use your socks as counters. Use only your right sock when there is one counter on it. Use both socks when there are two counters. This way, if you add and remove your right sock numerous times, it is the same counter. It is always the "first counter" you used. If you mistake the socks for each other, you still have only added the "second counter", and Dreams is not burned. Does that work for you? There's no way to determine which players will reuse counters, so Dreams just assumes everyone does. And McDonalds--I never expected the millionth customer to be the millionth customer, I figured they'd counted some of them more than once.