[Card ruling] Rotschreck

What is the current rulling on Rotschreck ? I know this issue has been intensively discussed, but the only ruling I have seen states that it is the vampire dealing aggravated damage that goes to torpor and : - because of the reference by the name to the RPG, - because of the drawing, - because of the text, - for the sake of game balance and logic, I really think the card was designed to send the vampire about to receive aggravated damages to torpor, before she can strike, and that it should be played as such. == Hervé Guillemet guil...@enst.fr Intuisys, INSERM U66

In article <4af0gm$h...@vishnu.jussieu.fr>, guilleme@marsouin (Herve Guillemet) writes: >- because of the reference by the name to the RPG, >- because of the drawing, >- because of the text, >- for the sake of game balance and logic, >I really think the card was designed to send the vampire about to >receive aggravated damages to torpor, before she can strike, and that it >should be played as such. I agree with you completely, and had this argument with Tom about a month ago. Most of the people out there just accept the ruling and ignore the logic, I personally can't see anyway of interpreting the card to read that someone using aggravated damage would get hosed. WotC just choses to ignore the card (it was dropped from V:TES) leaving behind a poor ruling that everyone now supports and it makes it very difficult to make house rules against it when people are set on what the RT or DT says. To make the card comply with V:TM even more I would restrict the aggravated damage to fire and Sun, and have it be able to stop a Day Op., but I would be happy if someone would just acknowledge that the card should be ruled as it is written.

In article <4af0gm$h...@vishnu.jussieu.fr>, guilleme@marsouin (Herve Guillemet) writes: >- because of the reference by the name to the RPG, >- because of the drawing, >- because of the text, >- for the sake of game balance and logic, >I really think the card was designed to send the vampire about to >receive aggravated damages to torpor, before she can strike, and that it >should be played as such. Hmmm. This is very interesting, because it is my opinion that: - because of the reference by the name to the RPG, - for the sake of game balance and logic, that the card should remain as ruled by the DTR. I will concede that the text of the card does does read in favor of your opinion, but the drawing is ambiguous, as there is no aggressor in the piccture to indicate dealing aggravated damage, merely the presence of potential aggravated damage. For all we know the vampire in the picture opened the shades on himself (Burst of Sunlight). However, I refuse to listen to this game definition of Rotchreck as justification for overruling the DTR's decision. Rotchreck applies to any vampire ENCOUNTERING aggrivated damage, not ATTACKED WITH aggravated damage. If you look in the Sabbat Player's Guide, you'll notice that it says vampires have to be pretty insane to use a flamethrower. This is because a vampire who isn't already insane will be so after experiencing continuous jets of flame within an arm's length of himself. So, basically, Vampire: the Masquerade does not lend sympathy to your argument, particularly because the vampires who aren't attempting to use aggravated damage are free to move away from it in a rational manner. This leaves play balance. As you read the card, it lends nothing to play balance. There is no effective counter for aggravated damage, and it becomes even more impossible to avoid. Already a vampire has to be able to dodge or prevent damage in order to avoid going to torpor, and now you want to take away those options as well. Why do you want to do this? Is your deck a Gangrel deck that can't cope with people building decks that can do something other than Wolf Claws, something like Dodge, maybe. Because we know dodge is too powerful a card. What we need is a dodge hoser (because Immortal Grapple doesn't do that already)! Yes, dodge is unbalanced, we need to restrict it even maybe. Is that what you think? Because by your ruling that is basically what Rotchreck does. It serves no other purpose than to cover up the inadiquacies of your combat deck. As the DTR ruled it on the other hand, it becomes a useful deterrent to aggravated damage cards that can torpor/burn vampires with little or no effort. It is still very restricted in that it can't be used on the player's turn, so it is only usable during a block (or Madness Network). Do you seriously think that a card that can only be used while blocking, can only be used against a minion dealing aggravated damage, and costs a master phase action is unbalanced? Do you seriously think it is better to have a card that bolsters the power of aggravated damage, which can already torpor or burn any vampire without dodges or fortitude? If you do, then I think you have serious problems with the concept of play balance. Oh, by the way, if you find a group that agrees to your ruling, I want to come over and play a Gangrel intercept deck :)

guilleme@marsouin (Herve Guillemet) wrote: >What is the current rulling on Rotschreck ? > >I know this issue has been intensively discussed, but the only ruling >I have seen states that it is the vampire dealing aggravated damage >that goes to torpor and : evactly that is what it does... what it says it does on the card, and what it should do for all your reasons... >- because of the reference by the name to the RPG, in the RPG you must make checks to light a cigerette... yea it gives it as an example in the book I can get page numbers if ya want... certainly lighting a FLAMETHROWER is equally scarry... Wolf claws and such is a streach tho, but I assure you that it is a card game afterall and cant neccisarily anticipate every situation, if WotC say decideds to add "doesnt work on vamps using wolfclaws" to the card text I wouldnt complain. >- because of the drawing, Oh that has to be the most inept thing Ive ever read... the drawing, the drawing really is amasingly enuff "JUST A PRETTY PICTURE TO LOOK AT" NOT AN EXACT AND DETAILED DEPICTION OF THE EFFECT I'm sure that if the picture was the proper thing to go by in card games that rotscheck wouldnt work ever at all because "those 2 vamps arent in the game... wich ones are they huh? they dont bear any resemblance to any vamp Ive seen... >- because of the text, Read it again, over and over untill you get it right, remember improper nouns & punctuation... >- for the sake of game balance and logic, I dunno what your logic is, but as far as game balance... well so its fine that you can send a vamp to torpor/destroy it and it cant fight back, et all? not only that but if you dont destroy it, it goes to torpor, for not one but 2 turns possibly longer but at least 2 turns... wha? this is balanced... no... personly I think the card would be worthless if this was the case... after all you cold then only play it as an offensive action if you were bloking (a deffencive action) because it IS an out of turn master and you cant play it ON YOU TURN... >I really think the card was designed to send the vampire about to >receive aggravated damages to torpor, before she can strike, and that it >should be played as such. no. ~Mage Bob

I (guil...@imed.jussieu.fr) wrote: >- because of the reference by the name to the RPG, >- because of the drawing, >- because of the text, >- for the sake of game balance and logic, >I really think the card was designed to send the vampire about to >receive aggravated damages to torpor, before she can strike, and that it >should be played as such. In fact, there are 2 issues: - What the card was originally meant to do ? and: - What the card should do, to be the most in favor of the Almighty Game Balance ? The 2 issues could very well have 2 distinct answers and I agree that the answer to the second one should prevail and determine the ruling. However, if the answer to the second is not clear, the first one should prevail. What the card was meant to do ? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - The reference: Rotschek is the innate fright of vampires for the few sources of damage that can really kill them. Particularly Fire and Sun. One can think of it as an unintentional reaction of their organism to avoid contact with those source and/or to avoid pain due to this contact. Just like people faint just at the idea of something able to knock them down. Thus it seems reasonable that Rotschek causes a vampire that knows she will suffer AD to lose will and "faint" before she can strike himself and actually suffers the AD. MalKAViaN(naz...@wam.umd.edu) and Mage Bob (Denni...@crpl.cedar-rapids.lib.ia.us) wrote that this phenomenon could very well affect the vampire using AD. This is acceptable as long as the AD are fire or sun but not claws, bow, dagger or pulled fang. - The drawing: only confirms that the card deals with the fear of AD - The text: it says, as David Gausebeck(gaus...@uiuc.edu) pointed it out: Usable when a MINION inflicts aggravated damage to a VAMPIRE. That VAMPIRE goes to torpor... So it's usable when a non-vampire minion, say a vampire hunter wielding a flame thrower, fights a vampire. I can't see why, and how, the vampire hunter will go to torpor. IMO the text is clear, despite what Mage Bob(Denni...@crpl.cedar-rapids.lib.ia.us) wrote. => The card was meant to affect the vampire about to receive the damages. What the card should do -=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= In other words, is it better to hose the aggravated damages or to reinforce them ? I don't think aggravated damages are too powerfull to need a hoser, nor that the reinforcement this card allows is critical. In most cases, the victim vampire will anyway go to torpor and the Rotscheck only works as a damage prevention card as the victim will not do her damage. And you know that a master card is a higher cost that a combat card. In some case, where the victim could have avoided the damage, the advantage Rotscheck grants IS critical. But this happens when: - the aggressor has in hand or control a card that inflicts AD - the aggressor has Rotscheck in hand - the victim has a dodge or a damage prevention card So an efficacious Rotschek occurs at a frequency similar to a 3-card combo, that is, seldom. MalKAViaN and Mage Bob wrote this is a way to send vampire to torpor you can do nothing against. They're right when the above opportunity occurs, but you still can Sudden Reversal, as well as you can Sudden Reversal a Golconda or a Hostile Takeover. Besides, as the Rotschek necessarily happens during the victim turn, the vampire can usually leave the dangerous torpor during the same turn. There also the "can't untap at the next untap" effect, I admit this one is probably too much. A last, and not the least, reason I'll give, is that Rotschek, played the other way, is a deck hoser. I hate deck hosers. It's always irritating to play against a deck designed to counter your very deck. It incites side-boards. And I think the possibility to build decks that works more or less against some kinds of decks is the greater and the common flaw of all trading-card games. In our play group, we banned clan hosers. Rotschek, the way I suggest to play it, just integrates into a deck strategy, and is not thrown into any kind of deck to counter a particular strategy. I think this way to design deck is better for the "feeling" of the game, even if it's not clearly better for its "balance". [ quoted text not captured ]

>>- because of the reference by the name to the RPG, > >in the RPG you must make checks to light a cigerette... yea it gives it >as an example in the book I can get page numbers if ya want... certainly >lighting a FLAMETHROWER is equally scarry... Wolf claws and such is a >streach tho, but I assure you that it is a card game afterall and cant >neccisarily anticipate every situation, if WotC say decideds to add >"doesnt work on vamps using wolfclaws" to the card text I wouldnt >complain. There are others where it doesn't make sense for Rotschrek to affect the aggressor, too. Claws of the Dead, obviously. Or Dragon Breath Rounds (at least until after strike resolution) or Ivory Bow. Better yet, Basilia: "It's... It's... MY HANDS!!! AAAAAAH!" Pulled Fangs. And more, I'm sure. In any case, there are way too many to add to the card text. And in every case it would be reasonable for Rotschrek to be inspired in the victim. I think that logically it's much more reasonable for the victim to be affected. >>- because of the text, > >Read it again, over and over untill you get it right, remember improper >nouns & punctuation... I have read the text carefully, and I think the text is also (although not overwhelmingly) in favor of the victim going to torpor (_minion_ attempts against _vampire_, _vampire_ is put in torpor). > >>- for the sake of game balance and logic, That's the problem. For game balance, Rotschrek should definitely affect the minion attempting aggravated damage. The card seems fairly clearly to affect the victim, but would be a much more reasonable card if it affected the aggressor. I think they should stick with the current interpretation but call it errata rather than a ruling. -Dave Gausebeck

guil...@marsouin.imed.jussieu.fr (Herve Guillemet) wrote: >In fact, there are 2 issues: >- What the card was originally meant to do ? >and: >- What the card should do, to be the most in favor of the >Almighty Game Balance ? > >The 2 issues could very well have 2 distinct answers and I agree that >the answer to the second one should prevail and determine the ruling. >However, if the answer to the second is not clear, the first one should >prevail. > Bla bla bla.... ect... ok, heres my real 2 cents... I dont use the card and I dont use ag... so who cares, not me... truely if they had wished to capture the essence of the RPG the card should effect "either vampire in a combat involving ag. but not the agressor of the ag. if it is his own fist, a bow... etc..." and it shouldnt send the vamp it affects to torpor, mabey it should "cause the vampire to drop all equipment, retainers, etc... and run tear ass outta combat (combat ends)" this would a)be more friendly (ie: not horrendously change the game balance) b)make it possible to screw anyone with it c)compleatly free me from the fear of the fear as I dont use equipment or retainers or anything like that anyway... but of course the current ruleing is fine too... ~mage bob

In article <4ak40s$s...@vishnu.jussieu.fr> guil...@marsouin.imed.jussieu.fr (Herve Guillemet) writes: >A last, and not the least, reason I'll give, is that Rotschek, played the >other way, is a deck hoser. I hate deck hosers. It's always irritating to >play against a deck designed to counter your very deck. It incites >side-boards. And I think the possibility to build decks that works more or >less against some kinds of decks is the greater and the common flaw >of all trading-card games. In our play group, we banned clan hosers. >Rotschek, the way I suggest to play it, just integrates into a deck >strategy, and is not thrown into any kind of deck to counter a particular >strategy. I think this way to design deck is better for the "feeling" >of the game, even if it's not clearly better for its "balance". When there are hosers, you can't just play the `optimal' deck that you like. Mathematically speaking, your optimal deck-building strategy has to be a mixed strategy. In practical terms, you have to build entirely distinct decks (not just making slight modifications) and pull one out somehow randomly to play. In a CCG, this has the obvious disadvantage of handicapping players who don't have a $$$ large collection, and who don't have cards to field multiple decks. Clan Hosers and strategy hosers hose newbies above anybody else. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <4af0gm$h...@vishnu.jussieu.fr>, guilleme@marsouin (Herve Guillemet) writes: > What is the current rulling on Rotschreck ? > > I know this issue has been intensively discussed, but the only ruling > I have seen states that it is the vampire dealing aggravated damage > that goes to torpor and : > - because of the reference by the name to the RPG, > - because of the drawing, > - because of the text, > - for the sake of game balance and logic, > I really think the card was designed to send the vampire about to > receive aggravated damages to torpor, before she can strike, and that it > should be played as such. > But you forget, OOT Masters cannot be used on your own turn. Thus, they made the ruling based upon the (mistaken) idea that it would be useless. However, since they have made official eratta that all the `minion' and `vampire' switch places, this card is now extremely useless. In short, it is only aplicable when you are blocking an action and someone uses agg damage on you. I suggest that people simply don't pack it. Boycot stupid, confusing, and unnecescary rulings. :) > == Hervé Guillemet > guil...@enst.fr > Intuisys, INSERM U66 Ritaxis --

Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >When there are hosers, you can't just play the `optimal' deck that >you like. Mathematically speaking, your optimal deck-building >strategy has to be a mixed strategy. In practical terms, you >have to build entirely distinct decks (not just making slight >modifications) and pull one out somehow randomly to play. > >In a CCG, this has the obvious disadvantage of handicapping >players who don't have a $$$ large collection, and who don't >have cards to field multiple decks. Clan Hosers and strategy >hosers hose newbies above anybody else. If someone has just started playing, and yet people are ruining their fun by hosing the best decks they can put together, then that person can simply trade for another set of cards. Hosers are there to keep people on their toes, and so that people won't simply zoom in on the optimal strategy and focus on it. They are not there to address issues that a new player is likely to be concerned with. For example, its much more likely that an experienced player is going to be shut down by a clan hoser like Cultivated Blood Shortage, if only because they're more likely to be playing a monoclan deck. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.