rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

"Stake: X"?

11 messages from 7 participants · 13 February 2001 – 15 February 2001
original thread on Google Groups

Jozxyqk

Like I said... VERY productive day at work :) I'm reading through the official rulings page -- ACK, lots of changes -- But here's one.. Stake - Equipment * X [RTR] X??!! X??????!!!!! And for all this time, I've been Y'ing instead. Sigh... heh :)

jeroen rombouts

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:VVei6.161$8I.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net... [ quoted text not captured ] The X means: cannot be played with under the current rules because 'strike: paralyse' doesn't exist anymore. The Wooden Stake does the same thing but doesn't use the word 'paralyse'.

LSJ

jeroen rombouts wrote: > "Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message > > Stake - Equipment > > > > * X [RTR] > > > > X??!! X??????!!!!! > > And for all this time, I've been Y'ing instead. > The X means: cannot be played with under the current rules because 'strike: > paralyse' doesn't exist anymore. The Wooden Stake does the same thing but > doesn't use the word 'paralyse'. Thanks :-), But that's an actual error, caused by a badly formatted entry in my erratabase. It's an old, useless entry, so it can be safely ignored. I'll fix that in the next update of the rulings list. -- 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/

Eric Freeman

jeroen rombouts wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I never understood why it was removed. Must have been part of the dumbing down of the rules that accompanied the Jyhad / Vampire name change. Sure makes me sad to see that my Malk vote give muddles the Rowan ring and diablerize at stealth deck isn't legal. (not particularly powerful but it sure is fun to play) Eric

Jozxyqk

> I never understood why it was removed. Must have been part of the dumbing down > of the rules that accompanied the Jyhad / Vampire name change. Sure makes me > sad to see that my Malk vote give muddles the Rowan ring and diablerize at > stealth deck isn't legal. (not particularly powerful but it sure is fun to > play) Defining a word for the benefit of a single card is kind of silly, especially when it only takes a sentence to explain, and you can print smaller on the card anyway. I mean, take a look at what Magic's doing these days. They have all these nice little words to define effects, and then THEY EXPLAIN IT IN ITALICS RIGHT AFTERWARDS?! Why bother abbreviating? Geesh.

Halcyan 2

>I mean, take a look at what Magic's doing these days. They have all these >nice little >words to define effects, and then THEY EXPLAIN IT IN ITALICS RIGHT >AFTERWARDS?! >Why bother abbreviating? I agree that the italics are silly and redundant. (I hate Magic myself) But on the bright side, they have streamlined the game by creating terms for what was always typed out before. For years, there were creatures that couldn't attack unless the opponent had a type of land and got buried if the controller didn't control it. Now, they simply call it "Islandhome" or "Mountainhome," etc. And "Haste" suddenly began to describe all the "can tap or attack the turn it is controlled" sort of thing. Halcyan 2

Jozxyqk

> For years, there were creatures that couldn't attack unless the opponent had a > type of land and got buried if the controller didn't control it. Now, they > simply call it "Islandhome" or "Mountainhome," etc. And "Haste" suddenly began > to describe all the "can tap or attack the turn it is controlled" sort of > thing. Actually (I used to be a magic addict), Islandhome was in the original design, but since the sea serpent was the only affected creature, they decided to spell it out instead. But there's no reason for them to print on the card: "Haste. (Creature can tap or attack the turn it comes out)." Either have an abbreviation, or don't. And look it up in the rulebook if you don't know what it means! This rant is _way_ off topic now :)

Ian Lee

>But there's no reason for them to print on the card: >"Haste. (Creature can tap or attack the turn it comes out)." There is a reason. The shortcut terms, don't remember what the proper word for them is, help solidify the rules. One term will always mean the same thing in every situation. When you refer to that term, you always mean the same thing everyone else does because it has become part of the rules rather than individual card text. Because it always means precisely the same thing, you don't get into situations where two cards are almost exactly written the same way but aren't, which leads them to being played differently in obscure situations. When they first started doing it, I thought it was annoying and redundant too. But, I read an article where someone talked about these shortcut terms. I don't recall much from it, but I believe it convinced me not to be bothered by the explanatory text. I don't play much, so you would think I'd be less used to it and notice it more than players who see it every day. But, I hardly notice it.

Jozxyqk

Ian Lee <cur...@aol.com> wrote: >>But there's no reason for them to print on the card: >>"Haste. (Creature can tap or attack the turn it comes out)." > There is a reason. The shortcut terms, don't remember what the proper word for > them is, help solidify the rules. One term will always mean the same thing in > every situation. When you refer to that term, you always mean the same thing > everyone else does because it has become part of the rules rather than > individual card text. Because it always means precisely the same thing, you > don't get into situations where two cards are almost exactly written the same > way but aren't, which leads them to being played differently in obscure > situations. Right. But couldnt they just print: "Haste." ? If you don't know what it means, look it up. It never really caused a problem "back in the day", when there were just basically Landwalk, Banding, Flying, Protection, Regenerate and Trample as special words... Heck, I haven't seen a new card with Banding (I have friends who still play, every now and then I take a look at their cards), but if they put the italic text after that, they'd need to print awfully small, or have a fold-out page :)

Frederick Scott

Jozxyqk wrote: > > Ian Lee <cur...@aol.com> wrote: > >>But there's no reason for them to print on the card: > >>"Haste. (Creature can tap or attack the turn it comes out)." > > > There is a reason. The shortcut terms, don't remember what the proper word for > > them is, help solidify the rules. One term will always mean the same thing in > > every situation. When you refer to that term, you always mean the same thing > > everyone else does because it has become part of the rules rather than > > individual card text. Because it always means precisely the same thing, you > > don't get into situations where two cards are almost exactly written the same > > way but aren't, which leads them to being played differently in obscure > > situations. > > Right. But couldnt they just print: > "Haste." > ? > > If you don't know what it means, look it up. It never really caused a problem > "back in the day", when there were just basically Landwalk, Banding, Flying, > Protection, Regenerate and Trample as special words... I think the answer, given what Ian is saying is, "No, they can't." You're missing the point. It's a matter of personal perception, of course, but WotC apparently *did* believe it really caused a problem in the past - to beginners trying to learn the game who would find all of these new terms they're unfamiliar with difficult to memorize. Getting people into a complex strategy game (and yes, in the context of the general population, Magic is a complex strategy game) is a matter of making it as easy for them as possible. You may see it as "dumbing down" but WotC sees it as more new customers and a few slightly-irritated-but-still-buying-the-game older customers. Add it up any way you please, it means more bucks to them. Ian is just stating why, given the fact that they're going to insist on printing the specifics of the rules on every card, they bothered to give those reused templates names at all. > Heck, I haven't seen a new card with Banding (I have friends who still play, > every now and then I take a look at their cards), but if they put the italic text > after that, they'd need to print awfully small, or have a fold-out page :) I believe they discarded Banding as card mechanic, based on something like too much complexity for its entertainment value. If so, I agree. It really wasn't worth using. Fred

Ian Lee

>Ian is just stating why, given the fact that they're going to insist on >printing the >specifics of the rules on every card, they bothered to give those reused >templates names >at all. I think I'll try another go at why they use both the game term and the explanatory text. The shortcut term isn't on the individual cards to make those cards easier to understand or play. The shortcut terms are to make the game easier to understand and play on a more general level ... while the explanatory text describes more fully what the individual card does. Constantly repeated concepts/phrases can be summed up in gamespeak with one word on a rules level, design level, conversational level. That we speak of "haste" instead of "can attack and use tap effects the turn it comes into play" is useful whatever the cards say, for example.