At a recent tournament where I was judge something interesting came up. A
player asked me "a card always over-rules the rules, right?" I said,
generally, yes, unless the card had been errated. (Whats the bloody word for
that anyway?)
He then shows me his Legal Manipulations, where the PRE and pre effects have
been reversed. Card text as follows:
PRE: Bleed with +2 bleed.
pre: As above, and gain 1 pool if the action is successful.
I judged that the fat text, in this case the 'pre' effect, was indeed the
superior effect. It didn't quite matter since all his vamps had PRE at the
time, but it was a funny instance and could've slipped through my fingers if
he hadn't shown me the card.
- Andrew
"Andrew Rowanbranch" <rowan...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:Lsum8.295$tI1...@nntpserver.swip.net...
> At a recent tournament where I was judge something interesting came up. A
> player asked me "a card always over-rules the rules, right?" I said,
> generally, yes, unless the card had been errated.
Or misprinted.
> (Whats the bloody word for that anyway?)
From the rulebook:
1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards
Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence.
As a side note for LSJ: when a person states something like "[1.4]." how should
a person indicate whether they mean the rulebook numbers or the "Tournament
rules" numbers? As I did, above? i.e. the default is the "Tournament Rules"?
> He then shows me his Legal Manipulations, where the PRE and pre effects have
> been reversed. Card text as follows:
>
> PRE: Bleed with +2 bleed.
> pre: As above, and gain 1 pool if the action is successful.
>
> I judged that the fat text, in this case the 'pre' effect, was indeed the
> superior effect. It didn't quite matter since all his vamps had PRE at the
> time, but it was a funny instance and could've slipped through my fingers if
> he hadn't shown me the card.
That card might have some value to collectors, as there *are* people who try to
collect every misprint known in order to have the *most* complete set. Aaron
from Michigan, i.e. Nosferatustuff, i.e. roans...@yahoo.com, is one of those
people IIRC, and he may have some interest. I'm sure there are others. I'm
interested, if he wants to get a bunch of commons/uncommons for it.
>
> - Andrew
Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
> 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards
> Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence.
So I should've allowed him to use the basic power as if it was the superior
version... ;-)
> That card might have some value to collectors, as there *are* people who
try to
> collect every misprint known in order to have the *most* complete set.
Aaron
> from Michigan, i.e. Nosferatustuff, i.e. roans...@yahoo.com, is one of
those
> people IIRC, and he may have some interest. I'm sure there are others.
I'm
> interested, if he wants to get a bunch of commons/uncommons for it.
You've gotta be kidding me? I thought this was a "whole set misprint" ie.
all the Legal Manipulations were misprinted like this from that particular
set...
I'll think about contacting some... interested person... if he/she is
interested in the LM misprints, although I doubt it. :-)
- Andrew
Andrew Rowanbranch wrote:
> You've gotta be kidding me? I thought this was a "whole set misprint" ie.
> all the Legal Manipulations were misprinted like this from that particular
> set...
Which set?
--
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/
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C9AB91A...@white-wolf.com...
> Andrew Rowanbranch wrote:
> > You've gotta be kidding me? I thought this was a "whole set misprint"
ie.
> > all the Legal Manipulations were misprinted like this from that
particular
> > set...
>
> Which set?
I have several of them from Sabbat War misprinted. The interesting thing
is, some SW LM's have just a (D) symbol for both text, and bold text for the
sup. Others have <*>(D) / [*](D) for both text, and bold text for the sup.
--Dax
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Andrew Rowanbranch" <rowan...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<Lsum8.295$tI1...@nntpserver.swip.net>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'd be interested in acquiring it, if its avalible for trade
i can offer a rare or so for it
please contact me privately if you're interested
"Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEcharter.net> wrote in message
news:u9kuuql...@corp.supernews.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I believe I have all cards known to man. Even both copies of shock troops!
<evil grin>
Is that the sabbat war varient of Legal manipulations?
Either way how does that conflict the rules? When something is refered to
as conflicting the rules I usually assume that card text alters game play.
IE Elder Library over rides the "you have 7 cards in hand" rule from the
rule book.
Since symbols are merely reminders a misprinted symbol means nothing. The
top most normal text is always inferior, and the bottom most bold text is
always superior.
--
Aaron
The Nosferatu Stuff