Until now, I can't recall a card ever being errata'd/ruled
on/clarified
on the basis of making sense in the game world. ie Sengir Dagger
with Torn Signpost, being able to prevent the damage from Rutor's
Hand (how do you prevent the damage from cutting out your eye and
your hand off anyway? :)
However, some of the new rulings from LSJ seem to indicate that a move
towards making cards make sense in the game world has been made.
Immortal Grapple sticks out as a prime example:
> > I fail to see why it was needed to remove this specific
> > exception. Why is this necessary?
>
> To make the card function as it originally should have (IMHO),
An aside:
So are all cards going to be changed back to Jyhad wording? I'd
love to see Archon changed back. However, I would rather not.
Even though Jyhad backed cards are available with abundancy on the
net, they aren't everywhere else. Is the general rule that newer
card text takes precedence over old card text being thrown out the
window or just in IG's case? Btw, did my long post on the IG ruling/
errata go through? I didn't see a reply from LSJ.....
> and
> to make it make sense (how can I continue to grapple you if you move
> to long range?)
Think of it as this. The other vampire isn't actually maneuvering
to long range, but is fighting against your grip well enough that
you can't get a hit in; you're spending all your energy just trying
to hold on. When you have superior potence, they have no chance of
breaking your grip. :)
This reason for errataing the card makes it appear that there is a
new basis for making rulings and errata: making sense in the game
world. So is Torn Signpost going to be changed to be a one-combat
melee weapon that sets your base hand damage? That certainly makes
sense in the game world (I'm not trying to sound facetious[sp?]).
If one ruling is made based on "making a card make sense" is that
going to open a whole can of worms that the game really needs to go
into? The Golconda and RtI rulings appear to make it seem so
(although
I think those are great errata, IMHO, I don't think they were
absolutely necessary. *)
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm of the opinion that
cards should only be changed on an individual basis if there is a
weird situation that can occur that makes the card work in unexpected
ways.
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP mboh...@pdnt.com
Internet Strategy and Development Consultant
Mike Bohlmann wrote:
>
> Until now, I can't recall a card ever being errata'd/ruled
> on/clarified
> on the basis of making sense in the game world. ie Sengir Dagger
> with Torn Signpost, being able to prevent the damage from Rutor's
> Hand (how do you prevent the damage from cutting out your eye and
> your hand off anyway? :)
>
> However, some of the new rulings from LSJ seem to indicate that a move
> towards making cards make sense in the game world has been made.
> Immortal Grapple sticks out as a prime example:
Good points, and a good concern.
Game-world sensibility is not being used to make errata.
Just because a card/combo/rule doesn't make sense from a
game world perspective *doesn't* mean the new RT is going
to errata it to make sense.
But, when a change (back to intended meaning, to fix problems, to
lessen confusion) is made, and it happens to make more sense
from a "game world" point of view, that's usually an indication
that the change is on the right track.
The errata on the VTES/Sabbat versions of IGrapple is made to
return the card to function as it was originally designed -
that is, to undo the previous ruling on the default duration of
combat cards' effects that got added (as errata to the Jyhad
version) in the VTES/Sabbat printings of the card.
That the change makes more sense in the game world is an
added bonus.
> Btw, did my long post on the IG ruling/
> errata go through? I didn't see a reply from LSJ.....
It's out there, somewhere.
Message-ID: <6mqpub$4gc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
It was posted from Dejanews, so it might take longer to get to you
than my normal (non-Dejanews) posts.
[Re: IGrapple at long range]
> Think of it as this. The other vampire isn't actually maneuvering
> to long range, but is fighting against your grip well enough that
> you can't get a hit in; you're spending all your energy just trying
> to hold on. When you have superior potence, they have no chance of
> breaking your grip. :)
:) - but why would IR goggles enable them to fight more against
your grip? And why can your Wolf companion not bite them when
they fight against your grip?
:), I know. Just pointing out how hard it is to really justify this
phenomenon from a game world perspective.
Not that that perspective matters. :-)
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
> The errata on the VTES/Sabbat versions of IGrapple is made to
> return the card to function as it was originally designed -
> that is, to undo the previous ruling on the default duration of
> combat cards' effects that got added (as errata to the Jyhad
> version) in the VTES/Sabbat printings of the card.
Ok, what I don't understand is if Immortal Grapple was changed
from the text of lasting the entire combat, then why not change
the other card that specifies lasting the entire combat: Torn
Signpost?
Also, what was ambiguous or confusing about the default duration
of combat cards in general and IG in particular
Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
>
> > The errata on the VTES/Sabbat versions of IGrapple is made to
> > return the card to function as it was originally designed -
> > that is, to undo the previous ruling on the default duration of
> > combat cards' effects that got added (as errata to the Jyhad
> > version) in the VTES/Sabbat printings of the card.
>
> Ok, what I don't understand is if Immortal Grapple was changed
> from the text of lasting the entire combat, then why not change
> the other card that specifies lasting the entire combat: Torn
> Signpost?
> Also, what was ambiguous or confusing about the default duration
> of combat cards in general and IG in particular
>
You're not listening. Torn Signpost says that it lasts all combat.
Therfore it does. The original version of Immortal Grapple did not say
how long it lasted. For some reason, the rules team made a ruling and
said that it would last all combat. This was contrary to the intent of
the card, but they didn't care. To reflect this ruling, new versions of
Immortal Grapple were made with reminder text that said they lasted all
combat. Just recently there was a clear ruling made that said if combat
cards don't say how long they last, then they're only good for the
round. Applying this to Immortal Grapple makes the reminder text
*wrong.* Therefore, the reminder text has been errata'd out so that the
card works according to the new ruling and as it was originally
intended.
-Chris
>> Ok, what I don't understand is if Immortal Grapple was changed
>> from the text of lasting the entire combat, then why not change
>> the other card that specifies lasting the entire combat: Torn
>> Signpost?
>> Also, what was ambiguous or confusing about the default duration
>> of combat cards in general and IG in particular> You're not listening.
No, I am listening.
>Torn Signpost says that it lasts all combat. Therfore it does.
So does the V:tes and Sabbat version of IG.
>The original version of Immortal Grapple did not say how long it lasted.
Damn, I must have misread the rule that said that new versions of a
card's text override previous versions.
> said that it would last all combat. This was contrary to the intent of
> the card, but they didn't care. To reflect this ruling, new versions of
> Immortal Grapple were made with reminder text that said they lasted all
> combat.
It doesn't *look* like reminder text on the card. As someone pointed out
in a previous post, reminder text is generally in parenthesis.
>Just recently there was a clear ruling made that said if combat
> cards don't say how long they last, then they're only good for the
> round.
But it clearly says, on both the V:tes and Sabbat versions of the card,
how long the effect lasts. There is no ambiguity there.
> Applying this to Immortal Grapple makes the reminder text
> *wrong.*
Again, how do you see it as reminder text? It's not even worded
to imply it's reminding you of anything...
> Therefore, the reminder text has been errata'd out so that the
> card works according to the new ruling and as it was originally
> intended.
You know, there were alot of things that were changed from Jyhad
to V:tes. If you are saying that what was in the Jyhad text of
any particular card was the original intent, then why not go back
to the Jyhad text for *all* the cards?
[ quoted text not captured ]
cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> >The original version of Immortal Grapple did not say how long it lasted.
>> I must have misread the rule that said that new versions of a
> card's text override previous versions.
So you advocate playing Obedience such that it doesn't cancel the
combat (Sabbat Text)?
You advocate playing Asylum Hunting Ground to cost zero pool?
These cards (and Immortal Grapple, now) have errata saying that they
are to be played as originally intended.
New card text does override old card text. That's why when new card
text introduces an error, errata (not a ruling) must be issued to
correct the problem.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
>
> > I must have misread the rule that said that new versions of a
> > card's text override previous versions.
>
> So you advocate playing Obedience such that it doesn't cancel the
> combat (Sabbat Text)?
>
> You advocate playing Asylum Hunting Ground to cost zero pool?
There's a difference and you know it. These were tantamount to
_typos_. When the new Immortal Grapples came out, they were correct in
every way with respect to the rules at the time.
> These cards (and Immortal Grapple, now) have errata saying that they
> are to be played as originally intended.
Of course, that this is the original intention of the card is (as you
have said yourself) your opinion. An opinion not shared by everyone on
this group, and I would think shared by few people who have ever played
a deck which relies on potence combat without celerity. The extra
rounds of Grapple-ness are crucial to those decks' ability to conduct a
successful combat.
Even if this is how the card was originally intended to be played, why
change it back? It has worked fine for so long without problems. The
only thing I can imagine is that you feel that the game should return to
some sort of "pristine" state of every working as originally intended.
If that's the case, why pull a totally new wording for Rutor's Hand out
of left field. _Your_ wording certainly isn't how that card was
intended to work.
> New card text does override old card text. That's why when new card
> text introduces an error, errata (not a ruling) must be issued to
> correct the problem.
How come it wasn't an error until now? I don't think I've ever seen
anyone complaining about the way Immortal Grapple works.
LSJ, I do get the impression that you're being really stubborn on this
issue, so I have no hope whatsoever that you will change your mind and
change IG back to normal. However, are you even considering some of the
alternative (and not as sucky) changes to the card, or are you going to
brush those off with glib indifference as well?
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > These cards (and Immortal Grapple, now) have errata saying that they
> > are to be played as originally intended.
>
> Of course, that this is the original intention of the card is (as you
> have said yourself) your opinion. An opinion not shared by everyone on
> this group, and I would think shared by few people who have ever played
> a deck which relies on potence combat without celerity.
I don't share the opinion, and I've used Potence combat decks, thank you.
The fact that IG (pre RTR) was almost a poor man's Thoughts Betrayed for
Potence didn't lead me to believe that hand-strikes-for-the-remainder-combat
was the card's original intent or that it made any sense.
> How come it wasn't an error until now? I don't think I've ever seen
> anyone complaining about the way Immortal Grapple works.
I didn't bother to complain about it because I knew the no-errata-at-any-cost
policy of the Rules Team. Up until now.
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)
Chris Berger wrote:
>
> > >The original version of Immortal Grapple did not say how long it
> > >lasted.
> >> > Damn, I must have misread the rule that said that new versions of a> > card's text override previous versions.
>> As LSJ said, that's why errata is necessary to change it back to the
> correct way.
And yet, that still doesn't explain why it was a good change to make. I
understand that LSJ now has all the authority in the world to do what he
did, and the manner in which he did it was correct. I just don't agree
(and despite what you may believe _many_ other people share this
sentiment) that this was a good change to make.
I would like some sort of reason other than "this is the way it was
originally intented" which can never be anything other than opinion, and
"it makes sense in the game world" which has never before been a reason
for changing anything.
> > It doesn't *look* like reminder text on the card. As someone pointed out
> > in a previous post, reminder text is generally in parenthesis.
>> Not always. Many (D) bleed cards in Sabbat say "(D) Bleed any
> methuselah..." That's not in parentheses, but it is still reminder
> text. If some ruling were to be made that said (D) bleeds could only be
> made against your prey, this reminder text would be incorrect and would
> need to be errata'd out.
But if the ruling were to say "(D) bleeds can only be made against your
prey except where the card says otherwise", these card would not be
eratta'd unless there was some other reason.
The new rule _should_ apply to Blood of Acid, which doesn't say that it
lasts the entire combat. But Immortal Grapple, which was printed in the
same set, _does_ say that it lasts the entire combat. It seems to me
that at the time these cards were printed, Immortal Grapple was intended
to last the entire combat. But LSJ doesn't like that so he changed it.
Fine.
> Distraction(inf) says "Replace this card, then
> draw 5 cards and discard down to your maximum hand size." All it needs
> to say is "Draw 5 cards." You replace the card as soon as it leaves
> your hand (well before the action resolves and the card tells you to
> replace). And after drawing, you must always go back to your maximum
> hand size unless it says that it increases your hand size (like Dreams
> of the Sphinx). Therefore, everything besides "draw 5 cards" is
> reminder text. Do you see parentheses?
No, that text is not reminder text. If the card said just "draw 5
cards", you would have to draw the cards one at a time, discarding after
you drew each one. "Draw 5 cards and discard to your maximum hand size"
is a different effect, and the extra text is needed in that case.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Eric Pettersen wrote:
>
> James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Of course, that this is the original intention of the card is (as you
> > have said yourself) your opinion. An opinion not shared by everyone on
> > this group, and I would think shared by few people who have ever played
> > a deck which relies on potence combat without celerity.
>
> I don't share the opinion, and I've used Potence combat decks, thank you.
I think what you meant to say was that you _do_ share the opinion, i.e.,
that not lasting the entire combat was the original intention of IG.
> The fact that IG (pre RTR) was almost a poor man's Thoughts Betrayed for
> Potence didn't lead me to believe that hand-strikes-for-the-remainder-combat
> was the card's original intent or that it made any sense.
This is a huge exaggeration. A more accurate (but not very accurate)
statement would be that Strike: Combat Ends is a poor man's Thoughts
Betrayed. Why doesn't the effect make any sense? Because of the
picture? Or because cards which are useful make no sense to you?
Immortal Grapple is by no means an unbeatable card. A simple maneuver
makes it unplayable. Face it, Immortal Grapple was not changed because
it was too powerful.
> > How come it wasn't an error until now? I don't think I've ever seen
> > anyone complaining about the way Immortal Grapple works.
>
> I didn't bother to complain about it because I knew the
> no-errata-at-any-cost policy of the Rules Team. Up until now.
You seriously believe that Immortal Grapple is a broken card, but that
S:CE cards are not?
[ quoted text not captured ]
>
> No, I am listening.
>
> >Torn Signpost says that it lasts all combat. Therfore it does.
>
> So does the V:tes and Sabbat version of IG.
>
So, only losers play with V:TES and Sabbat. pbbt....
(Sorry, that was immature, wasn't it?) 8)
> >The original version of Immortal Grapple did not say how long it
> >lasted.
>
> Damn, I must have misread the rule that said that new versions of a
> card's text override previous versions.
>
As LSJ said, that's why errata is necessary to change it back to the
correct way.
> > said that it would last all combat. This was contrary to the intent of> > the card, but they didn't care. To reflect this ruling, new versions of
> > Immortal Grapple were made with reminder text that said they lasted all
> > combat.
>> It doesn't *look* like reminder text on the card. As someone pointed out
> in a previous post, reminder text is generally in parenthesis.
>
Not always. Many (D) bleed cards in Sabbat say "(D) Bleed any
methuselah..." That's not in parentheses, but it is still reminder
text. If some ruling were to be made that said (D) bleeds could only be
made against your prey, this reminder text would be incorrect and would
need to be errata'd out. Distraction(inf) says "Replace this card, then
draw 5 cards and discard down to your maximum hand size." All it needs
to say is "Draw 5 cards." You replace the card as soon as it leaves
your hand (well before the action resolves and the card tells you to
replace). And after drawing, you must always go back to your maximum
hand size unless it says that it increases your hand size (like Dreams
of the Sphinx). Therefore, everything besides "draw 5 cards" is
reminder text. Do you see parentheses?
"Until the end of the combat" is reminder text similar to "until the end
of the turn" text on Magic cards (sorry to reference the demon-game).
Elimination of the rule which cause the reminder text calls for
elimination of the reminder text.
>
> You know, there were alot of things that were changed from Jyhad
> to V:tes. If you are saying that what was in the Jyhad text of
> any particular card was the original intent, then why not go back
> to the Jyhad text for *all* the cards?
>
To tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind (except in the case of stupid
typos). In general, Jyhad has fewer mistakes and cleaner wording than
anything that followed it.
-Chris
>
> No, that text is not reminder text. If the card said just "draw 5
> cards", you would have to draw the cards one at a time, discarding after
> you drew each one. "Draw 5 cards and discard to your maximum hand size"
> is a different effect, and the extra text is needed in that case.
>
Actually, if it said "Draw 5 cards," you would draw all 5 at once. It
wouldn't say to pause in between them. It's all one instruction and
actually, to follow the letter of the law, you'd have to take all 5 off
of your deck at one time and put them in your hand. No looking at cards
between drawing card 2 and card 3. If it said "Draw a card. Draw
another card. Draw a third card. Now draw another card. Finally draw
one more card." Then, I assume that you'd have to discard between draws
(but there'd be some confusion about that). So, discarding is indeed
reminder text.
(Not sure why I'm arguing this, as the point here only applies in a
peripheral way to the argument at hand, and the wording of this mythical
card doesn't really matter. Oh well, maybe I just like arguing...) 8)
-Chris
James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
> LSJ, I do get the impression that you're being really stubborn on this
> issue, so I have no hope whatsoever that you will change your mind and
> change IG back to normal. However, are you even considering some of the
> alternative (and not as sucky) changes to the card, or are you going to
> brush those off with glib indifference as well?
I get the impression that a lot of people are being stubborn - that's
the nature of things. Until I hear a reasonable argument for change,
change is unlikely.
Alternatives for IG that meet any of the criteria for change:
1) fix broken card/errata
2) restore original intent
3) make the game simpler
will be considered. So far I haven't seen any.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:> > > I must have misread the rule that said that new versions of a
> > > card's text override previous versions.
> >> > So you advocate playing Obedience such that it doesn't cancel the
> > combat (Sabbat Text)?
> >
> > You advocate playing Asylum Hunting Ground to cost zero pool?
>
> There's a difference and you know it. These were tantamount to
> _typos_. When the new Immortal Grapples came out, they were correct in
> every way with respect to the rules at the time.
OK, then try this: Hidden Lurker.
When it (the VTES version) came out, it had had its text rewritten to match
"in every respect the rules at the time."
Then the RT issued errata was issued to make it behave as originally
intended (as an action modifier) - not because it was broken as an
action, but because that wasn't the way it had been designed to work
in the first place.
Do you advocate playing Hidden Lurker as an Action?
It's the same thing.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> 2) restore original intent
Hmm, original intent.
How about changing vampires like Zack North back
to the jyhad wording (obviosuly your base for
"original intent") to have a base 2 hand damage
instead of having +1 HD?
Sorrow
-Prince of New Orleans
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
[ quoted text not captured ]
cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> > 2) restore original intent
>
> Hmm, original intent.
> How about changing vampires like Zack North back
> to the jyhad wording (obviosuly your base for
> "original intent") to have a base 2 hand damage
> instead of having +1 HD?
Because the reason behing that change was a sound one,
and didn't change the original intent anyhow (I recognize
a distinction from original intent and jyhad wording -
see Hidden Lurker). More probably, it reflected the
original "intent" better than the jyhad text.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
[ quoted text not captured ]
Chris Berger wrote:
> cbo...@apdi.net wrote:
> >
> > > The errata on the VTES/Sabbat versions of IGrapple is made to
> > > return the card to function as it was originally designed -
> > > that is, to undo the previous ruling on the default duration of
> > > combat cards' effects that got added (as errata to the Jyhad
> > > version) in the VTES/Sabbat printings of the card.
> >> > Ok, what I don't understand is if Immortal Grapple was changed
> > from the text of lasting the entire combat, then why not change
> > the other card that specifies lasting the entire combat: Torn
> > Signpost?
> > Also, what was ambiguous or confusing about the default duration
> > of combat cards in general and IG in particular
> >> You're not listening. Torn Signpost says that it lasts all combat.> Therfore it does. The original version of Immortal Grapple did not say
> how long it lasted. For some reason, the rules team made a ruling and> said that it would last all combat. This was contrary to the intent of
> the card, but they didn't care. To reflect this ruling, new versions of
> Immortal Grapple were made with reminder text that said they lasted all> combat. Just recently there was a clear ruling made that said if combat> cards don't say how long they last, then they're only good for the> round. Applying this to Immortal Grapple makes the reminder text
> *wrong.* Therefore, the reminder text has been errata'd out so that the> card works according to the new ruling and as it was originally
> intended.
>> -Chris
Very well summarized.
James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Eric Pettersen wrote:
> >
> > James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course, that this is the original intention of the card is (as you
> > > have said yourself) your opinion. An opinion not shared by everyone on
> > > this group, and I would think shared by few people who have ever played
> > > a deck which relies on potence combat without celerity.
> >
> > I don't share the opinion, and I've used Potence combat decks, thank you.
>
> I think what you meant to say was that you _do_ share the opinion, i.e.,
> that not lasting the entire combat was the original intention of IG.
Hmmm, yes. Thank you.
>
> > The fact that IG (pre RTR) was almost a poor man's Thoughts Betrayed for
> > Potence didn't lead me to believe that hand-strikes-for-the-remainder-combat
> > was the card's original intent or that it made any sense.
>
> This is a huge exaggeration. A more accurate (but not very accurate)
> statement would be that Strike: Combat Ends is a poor man's Thoughts
> Betrayed.
Now, I'm not going to argue that IG is as bad as TB (it's definitely not).
But it does have some of the same effect -- namely any short-range combat
strategy not based on hand strikes suddenly is completely ineffectual
(melee weapons and short-range Thaumaturgy come to mind). It is, of
course, considerably cheaper than TB.
> Why doesn't the effect make any sense?
Because of the restriction to hand strikes even if combat later goes to
long range.
> Because of the picture?
Oh yeah, that's reason. Sorry I forgot to mention it. Could someone
please explain Nosferatu Performance Art to me? :-)
>Or because cards which are useful make no sense to you?
Damn, forgot to mention this one too. Blood Puppy's the only card I can
understand in the entire set!
> Immortal Grapple is by no means an unbeatable card. A simple maneuver
> makes it unplayable. Face it, Immortal Grapple was not changed because
> it was too powerful.
No it was changed because a mis-ruling of the original Jyhad text made
the card considerably stronger than the printed text allowed. The mis-ruling
also led to non-sensical combat situations. That mis-ruling has been
reversed.
> You seriously believe that Immortal Grapple is a broken card, but that
> S:CE cards are not?
IG is essential as a anti-S:CE card. It's sufficiently good as originally
printed. If your decks can't do enough damage with Potence combat in the
initial round, you need to change your deck to add IGs or Increased
Strengths.
[ quoted text not captured ]