Nystulc#
While organizing my cards, I came accross "Cardinal Sin: Failure of Mission",
one each of Sabbat and Sabbat War. I noticed to my surprise that the Sabbat
War text had been rather drastically changed.
There are some common sense changes and clarifications about the enter-combat
function being a directed action, etc. But the major change, and the one that
surprised me, is that which takes place in the first sentence.
I checked out the rulings and searched for discussions about the card on
Deja-News. I found that the changes had been in effect (via rulings and
errata) since October of last year. However the alteration had provoked no
comment of discussion. I guess no-one cared because the card is considered
wallpaper in either version. Before I make my own comments on the change, here
is the relevant card-text from both cards:
Sabbat version:
-------------
2 Blood. Requires a ready Cardinal or Archbishop.
Only usable when a Sabbat vampire without a title has been blocked. Put this
card on that vampire. Any Sabbat vampire may enter combat with the vampire
with this card. This card can be burned by any Sabbat vampire as a (D) action.
Sabbat War version:
-------------
2 Blood. Requires a ready Archbishop or Cardinal.
Only usable when this vampire blocks a Sabbat vampire without a title, before
combat begins. Put this card on the acting vampire. You still control this
card. Any Sabbat vampire controlled by another Methuselah may enter combat
with the vampire with this card as a (D) action. Any Sabbat vampire can burn
this card as a (D) action.
The difference, of course, is that the original could be played whenever a
non-titled Sabbat was blocked. The vampire playing the CS:FoM did not need to
be the one doing the blocking. Thematically, the idea was that the Cardinal or
Archbishop was calling down punishment on a Sabbat vampire for having "failed
in his mission", (that is, allowed one of his actions to be blocked).
Technically, one could play the card even if it was yourself that blocked,
though this makes somewhat less sense thematically. It seems injust, even by
Sabbat standards, to punish someone for Failure of Mission, when it is you
yourself that prevented him from completing it.
However, there is little chance that the card would be used in this way. Why
would you burn 2 blood immediately before combat, only to give yourself the
power to enter combat? Surely, in such circumstances, you would be better off
with a combat card.
But then comes the errata, which says that this is the ONLY way you can use the
card. Why was this changed? Surely the original card was not considered
overpowered. Or was this just assumed to be the intend of a badly worded,
badly designed card?
-- John Whelan