jihad"paralyze" ..? what is?

reading the ELDB i found an old equip, the rowan ring, that "paralyzes" enemyes.....what does it mean that ? thnks! bye

NaNu Gurthu wrote: > > reading the ELDB i found an old equip, the rowan ring, that "paralyzes" > enemyes.....what does it mean that ? The term has no meaning in the current rules set (and the card is therefore banned from official play). Back in 1994, before being discarded in 1995, it used to mean: Send the victim tapped to torpor. The victim doesn't untap as normal while he remains in torpor. Rescuing the victim costs no blood. -- 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/

> > reading the ELDB i found an old equip, the rowan ring, that "paralyzes" > > enemyes.....what does it mean that ? > The term has no meaning in the current rules set (and the card is > therefore banned from official play). In unofficial play, how should it be handled? We've just used it to mean that it was a "go to torpor" strike (a la entombment). Is that right? Or should it still be used as the old paralyze meaning? Sorrow --- "Happiness sucks" -me

[ quoted text not captured ] It "should" be handled however the players like in unofficial play, since it is no longer under official jurisdiction. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > In unofficial play, how should it be handled? We've just used it to mean that > > it was a "go to torpor" strike (a la entombment). Is that right? Or should it > > still be used as the old paralyze meaning? > It "should" be handled however the players like in unofficial play, since it is > no longer under official jurisdiction. Fair enough. We just used it that way because paralyze was no longer part of the rules and seemed like the most logical way of handling it. Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:22:03 +0200, NaNu Gurthu wrote: >reading the ELDB i found an old equip, the rowan ring, that "paralyzes" >enemyes.....what does it mean that ? The text for the card in the White Wolf web site says: "Rowan Ring [Jyhad] Cardtype: Equipment Cost: 1 pool Unique melee weapon. Paralyzes <(defined in the original Jyhad rulebook)> as a strike. When used successfully, the ring is given to the victim." The original Jyhad rulebook says, "Paralyze: This sends a vampire to torpor, tapped. The vampire cannot be untapped during the untap phase. Any vampire who encounters a vampire in torpor may rescue it at no cost. A paralyzed vampire may be diablerized as usual. Mark the vampire to show it has been paralyzed." The concept is simple enough to be stated directly on the card and this is exactly what was done with the similar Jyhad card Stake (which also paralyzes). It's bizarre that Rowan Ring is banned rather than being MRPed in a similar way. The excuse given is that it was too complex. But when you look at a newer rule like the Prisci Block or Cold Iron vulnerability, this just isn't credible. Andrew

>The original Jyhad rulebook says, "Paralyze: This sends a vampire to >torpor, tapped. The vampire cannot be untapped during the untap >phase. Any vampire who encounters a vampire in torpor may rescue it >at no cost. A paralyzed vampire may be diablerized as usual. Mark >the vampire to show it has been paralyzed." > >The concept is simple enough to be stated directly on the card and >this is exactly what was done with the similar Jyhad card Stake (which >also paralyzes). It's bizarre that Rowan Ring is banned rather than >being MRPed in a similar way. The excuse given is that it was too >complex. But when you look at a newer rule like the Prisci Block or >Cold Iron vulnerability, this just isn't credible. Yeah, I'd like to see Rowan Ring reprinted in the new base set with new card text mimicking the Stake change. The banned list is already short (for a CCG). Why not make it another card shorter? =) Halcyan 2

On 10 Apr 2002 23:44:49 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote: >Yeah, I'd like to see Rowan Ring reprinted in the new base set with new card >text mimicking the Stake change. The banned list is already short (for a CCG). >Why not make it another card shorter? =) VTES's list is long not short. Magic is the exception rather than the rule. The other CCGs that I play have the following banned lists: Shadowfist - no cards Doomtown - no cards Buffy - no cards Lord of the Rings - no cards Firestorm - no cards I've been opening some original Rage boosters recently but haven't tried playing it yet. Does that have any banned cards? Andrew

Andrew writes: >VTES's list is long not short. Magic is the exception rather than the >rule. The other CCGs that I play have the following banned lists: >Shadowfist - no cards >Doomtown - no cards >Buffy - no cards >Lord of the Rings - no cards >Firestorm - no cards Buffy and LotR are too new. Do the others have serious tournament organizations? Anyway, the V:tES list is short, in the literal sense. >I've been opening some original Rage boosters recently but haven't >tried playing it yet. Does that have any banned cards? The whole set, I'd say. :-P What an abortion. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > The concept is simple enough to be stated directly on the card and > this is exactly what was done with the similar Jyhad card Stake (which > also paralyzes). It's bizarre that Rowan Ring is banned rather than > being MRPed in a similar way. The excuse given is that it was too > complex. The MRP is the Jyhad printing. No "excuse" has been given for not reprinting it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 11 Apr 2002 00:58:33 GMT, CurtAdams wrote: >Buffy and LotR are too new. Do the others have serious tournament >organizations? Buffy and Firestorm don't have much in the way of serious tournaments but the rest are all mature enough. They are just my personal examples but you can look at other big CCGs - Pokemon, B5, Star Wars, L5R. The general rule is that CCGs do not ban cards. Why would they need to when they can just errata/MRP them instead? >Anyway, the V:tES list is short, in the literal sense. Granted. But it's symbolic. If the game's tournament organisation says that Rowan Ring has to be banned because it's too complicated, then I'm inclined to say that they cannot be "serious". Other adjectives come to mind. Andrew

The mad editor strike again. "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > The concept is simple enough to be stated directly on the card and > this is exactly what was done with the similar Jyhad card Stake (which > also paralyzes). It's bizarre that Rowan Ring is banned rather than > being MRPed in a similar way. The excuse given is that it was too > complex. But when you look at a newer rule like the Prisci Block or > Cold Iron vulnerability, this just isn't credible. any longer.

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > Granted. But it's symbolic. If the game's tournament organisation > says that Rowan Ring has to be banned because it's too complicated, > then I'm inclined to say that they cannot be "serious". Other > adjectives come to mind. Fortunately, it does not. Rowan Ring is banned because it uses non-existent rules. See also: ante cards (ante is non-existent in VEKN tournaments as well). [ quoted text not captured ]