Possible fix for RtI

How about usable only once per game, by any methusaleh? Makes putting a lot of them in and designing a deck around it kinda dumb. David Naseby

>How about usable only once per game, by any methusaleh? Makes putting a >lot of them in and designing a deck around it kinda dumb. It does have some points in its favor... It still leaves the card capable of ousting a prey with no warning from 15-20 pool, and I somehow get the impression that this would make the change more palatable to the people at WotC. It does make it somewhat silly to base a deck around it, though, which should be enough of a fix to keep it from really messing up game balance. And it kind of fits in with the other "you get to be cool because you have big vampires" cards, like ancient influence and whatever the similar one from Sabbat is. And it's probably the simplest and most elegant fix I've seen. One simple alteration. Nothing complicated or confusing. Also makes it seem more likely that it could actually get implemented. Kinda like the fame fix (unique) that actually happened.

On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, David Naseby wrote: > How about usable only once per game, by any methusaleh? Makes putting a > lot of them in and designing a deck around it kinda dumb. A decent fix, I think. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

I still think that the easiest fix for RTI is that no action modifiers can be played on the action. This takes care of the day ops/RTI combo and making RTI at +5 stealth. The action could still be deflected and then blocked fairly easy. Just me thoughts, Todd Banister Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote in article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980319080915.27420B-100000@amanda>... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3510CD36...@unsw.edu.au>, David Naseby <d.na...@unsw.edu.au> writes >How about usable only once per game, by any methusaleh? Makes putting a >lot of them in and designing a deck around it kinda dumb. > >David Naseby > But simply makes it a race to see who can discard their cards the quickest to reach it. I'm not entirely a fan of Only Usable Once Per Game cards. At least Ancient Influence works for everyone and Giant's Blood isn't that bad really. I mean a card that said "Oust a Methuselah of your choice. Only usable once per game by any Methuselah." would still be broken. And that wording isn't that from Return to Innocence really. -- James Coupe (change "nospam" to "obeah" to reply by e-mail) You were my strength when I was weak. You were my voice when I couldn't speak. You were my eyes when I couldn't see. You saw the best there was in me. Lifted me up when I couldn't reach. You gave me faith because you believed. I'm everything I am because you loved me.

David Naseby <d.na...@unsw.edu.au> wrote: >How about usable only once per game, by any methusaleh? Makes putting a >lot of them in and designing a deck around it kinda dumb. >David Naseby Very elegant... And would it limit it, even if the action were unsuccessful? (like a Sudden Reversaled Giant's Blood, or a failed Ancient Influence) I would hope so... Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver & V:EKN Prince of Boston

James Coupe wrote: > In article <3510CD36...@unsw.edu.au>, David Naseby > <d.na...@unsw.edu.au> writes > >How about usable only once per game, by any methusaleh? Makes putting > a > >lot of them in and designing a deck around it kinda dumb. > > > >David Naseby > > > > But simply makes it a race to see who can discard their cards the > quickest to reach it. > Why race? It is a makes RtI a good card to put into a deck that has high level vampires, but why discard to reach it? You would only indulge in such behaviour in a two player game. The ousting of your prey in a multiplayer game can occur only once as a result of this card if this fix is on, and its at the cost of one high level vampire, with at least 4 blood on them. Thats a useful weapon to blow.. only really useful as a last ditch offensive for a VP. You actually have to think before using it. If you equip with a soul gem in hopes of drawing the card, there is the possibility that someone else will play the card, and you waste your time and action. Also, the race theory is not favoured as not everyone will put one of these cards in their deck. It will now only be a nice accompaniment to a high level deck. > I'm not entirely a fan of Only Usable Once Per Game cards. At least > Ancient Influence works for everyone and Giant's Blood isn't that bad > really. > I think it is a logical step from unique cards to have transient cards played only once. Makes you think about deck design. Try to build a degenerate deck around RtI with this fix. Errr... you can actually, but the degeneracy will not come from RtI 8^) > I mean a card that said > > "Oust a Methuselah of your choice. Only usable once per game by any > Methuselah." > > would still be broken. And that wording isn't that from Return to > Innocence really. Yeah but at the cost of one of your vampires. Try rewording the card Oust a methuselah of your choice, if that methuselah doesn't choose to bounce the bleed, and if you have a day operation, and, by the way burn the vampire that plays the card, and they have to be of very high level. Only usable once per game by any methuselah. It was a good idea, James. David Naseby

I agree that rti is a very powerfull card but archon investiagation lurks around every corner as well as deflection is it woth taking the chance in a large game some one almost inevitably will have an investgation and if not a deflection may just well take out yours preys prey i am sorry but if you make moves to modifiey that card you have to look at the other game ending cards like sensery deprivation used twice with day opertions with anyone that uses big vampires is a game ender , no i say leave it be if you must limit it like we have with majesty etc but the card is fine jonathan

In article <199803200130...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Couple of points. RtI is a game ender regardless of whether your opponent is using big or little vampires, and is _far_ more powerfull than Sensory Deprivation. Not even comparable. You're not likely to be risking your own vampires with a RtI deck -- they're going to be someone elses. Also, I'm not sure what you meant in reference to majesty. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

In article <6es0hg$a07$5...@camel18.mindspring.com>, Richard D. Zopf <guenh...@mindspring.com> wrote: >David Naseby <d.na...@unsw.edu.au> wrote: > >>How about usable only once per game, by any methusaleh? Makes putting a >>lot of them in and designing a deck around it kinda dumb. > >>David Naseby > >Very elegant... And would it limit it, even if the action were >unsuccessful? (like a Sudden Reversaled Giant's Blood, or a failed >Ancient Influence) I would hope so... Actually, I don't particularily like this. In part it's overkill, weakening RtI too much, but the worst part of it is the huge benefit to the random who gets it first (Giant's Blood and Ancient Influence aren't nearly as dramatic). I suspect any deck with moderate to sizeable vampires would include one copy. I simply don't like the threat of random ousting, once per game. >R. David Zopf [ quoted text not captured ]

To be honest I don't know why everyone is arguing so heatedly about RT1 It can be contested It can be burned Sudden reversal can be used on it I can think of no game that I have played where that card has arisen (and there have been many) where it has so greatly unbalanced the game that it would matter (it is one card) if you want it that bad put 10 of them in your deck and I bet you will get it. There is only one exception to this (ex. the first or second master phase card that is played is the tomb and this will allow an initial head start with a large vampire). There is still the limiting factor of the amount of transfers that you have to use per turn. David Naseby wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > > In article <3510CD36...@unsw.edu.au>, David Naseby > > <d.na...@unsw.edu.au> writes > > >How about usable only once per game, by any methusaleh? Makes putting > > a > > >lot of them in and designing a deck around it kinda dumb. > > > > > >David Naseby > > > > > [ quoted text not captured ]

>To be honest I don't know why everyone is arguing so heatedly about RT1 > >It can be contested >It can be burned >Sudden reversal can be used on it Wrong card... You're thinking of Tomb of Ramses III RTI = Return to Innocence

Jasper Phillips wrote: > <snip> > Actually, I don't particularily like this. In part it's overkill, > weakening RtI too much, but the worst part of it is the huge > benefit to the random who gets it first (Giant's Blood and Ancient > Influence aren't nearly as dramatic). I suspect any deck with moderate > > to sizeable vampires would include one copy. > > I simply don't like the threat of random ousting, once per game. > Its not a random ousting. You really have to consider whether your big vampire is better used to kill more methuselahs later or whether you can go for the one big shot and hope you can bring another out in time to win the game for you. You lose your big vampire, on the remote chance that your prey cannot block or bounce the bleed. The big vampire is still iseful, as it has at least 4 blood on it when it takes the action. It doesn't make the card useless, but it stops RtI being a game breaker. It evens out the cost and benefits of the card rather neatly, I think. David Naseby

phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: >Actually, I don't particularily like this. In part it's overkill, >weakening RtI too much, but the worst part of it is the huge >benefit to the random who gets it first (Giant's Blood and Ancient >Influence aren't nearly as dramatic). I suspect any deck with moderate >to sizeable vampires would include one copy. >I simply don't like the threat of random ousting, once per game. Are you, then, supporting an outright ban, or do you support radom oustings, but only when they happen _more_ than once per game ;-) Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver and V:EKN Prince of Boston

In article <6evpds$b...@camel20.mindspring.com>, R. David Zopf <guenh...@mindspring.com> wrote: >phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > >>Actually, I don't particularily like this. In part it's overkill, >>weakening RtI too much, but the worst part of it is the huge >>benefit to the random who gets it first (Giant's Blood and Ancient >>Influence aren't nearly as dramatic). I suspect any deck with moderate >>to sizeable vampires would include one copy. > >>I simply don't like the threat of random ousting, once per game. > >Are you, then, supporting an outright ban, or do you support radom >oustings, but only when they happen _more_ than once per game ;-) I simply want a different fix. As I've said before, if you made RtI so that it were always blockable as if at 0 stealth, it would be fine. This is balanced, and also makes more sense in my mind, since a vampire that wants to go out with a bang shouldn't be able to sneak around doing it. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Naseby <d.na...@unsw.edu.au> writes: >Its not a random ousting. You really have to consider whether your big >vampire is better used to kill more methuselahs later or whether you can >go for the one big shot and hope you can bring another out in time to >win the game for you. You lose your big vampire, on the remote chance >that your prey cannot block or bounce the bleed. The big vampire is >still iseful, as it has at least 4 blood on it when it takes the action. >It doesn't make the card useless, but it stops RtI being a game breaker. >It evens out the cost and benefits of the card rather neatly, I think. /* Note: posting from my civilian account - take * whatever I say as if I'm just some random * lurker - these are just my ramblings */ Someone (James Coupe?) pointed out that RTI is a lot like Golconda's older brother. That got me thinking (thanks for nothing, James :-). The effects are similar (assuming you use Golconda on your own vampire): You lose a vampire and the pool difference between you and your prey increases by the capacity of that vampire. The differences: Golconda is a Master card RTI is an action with no cost that costs 4 blood* with no counter except SR and can be blocked/redirected/AI'ed that only targets 8+ cap and requires a 4+ cap * The blood cost only serves to restrict the capacity and current strength of the acting vampire - all blood is burned on successful RTI / Golconda anyway. The main effects: Prey(or redirect) loses X / you gain X - while bearing an obvious symmetry, are not the same. Losing large amounts of pool unexpectedly is far worse than gaining large amounts of pool when you plan to. Compare to Golconda used as a threat (against you Prey, e.g.): Now, used a surprise, you prey loses a vampire and gains X ... or pays two pool to cancel the effect entirely. (You still have played a Master Card, of course). Why is that last part in there? Because such a boon (X pool) with a unplanned cost (X-cap vampire) can be detrimental enough to unbalance the game. How much more unbalancing is the unexpected loss of X pool (even when your Predator loses - a planned loss - a vampire)? The planned vs. unplanned loss of a vampire is important, of course, for things like Soul Gem. Other "balances" are not satisfactory: "Block" - RTI is not a game breaker except for all the ways to make actions unblockable running around. "Redirect" - turns the game into roulette. "AI" - corner case. So anyway - am I going to get to a point any time soon? Sure: How about adding a sentence to RTI (borrowing from Golconda): "The target of the bleed can pay two pool to caue the action to fail." (the action fails - no cost is paid and the acting vampire is not burned.) -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | You are in a maze http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | of UUCP connections, Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | all alike.

In article <6f5nfb$2...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> wrote: >David Naseby <d.na...@unsw.edu.au> writes: > >Someone (James Coupe?) pointed out that RTI is a lot like Golconda's >older brother. That got me thinking (thanks for nothing, James :-). In card concept, as well as effect. [snip] >Golconda is a Master card RTI is an action >with no cost that costs 4 blood* >with no counter except SR and can be blocked/redirected/AI'ed >that only targets 8+ cap and requires a 4+ cap One itsy bitsy addition. RtI will generally gain you 6 pool, and a victory point. [good, although lengthy, argument snipped] >How much more unbalancing is the unexpected loss of X pool (even >when your Predator loses - a planned loss - a vampire)? > >The planned vs. unplanned loss of a vampire is important, of course, >for things like Soul Gem. Not to mention Mind Rape. >Other "balances" are not satisfactory: > "Block" - RTI is not a game breaker except for all the ways to > make actions unblockable running around. > "Redirect" - turns the game into roulette. > "AI" - corner case. > >So anyway - am I going to get to a point any time soon? >Sure: > >How about adding a sentence to RTI (borrowing from Golconda): "The >target of the bleed can pay two pool to caue the action to fail." >(the action fails - no cost is paid and the acting vampire is not >burned.) This would stop the card from being unbalanced, but IMHO goes so far as to make the card wallpaper, since your victem will almost always choose to lose 2 pool, effectively leaving you with an undirectable Computer Hacking, that needs at least a capacity 4 vampire to play. May as well just ban the card. Now, as you point out, RtI isn't a game breaker except for all the ways to make actions unblockable. Why not add card text to deal with that explicitly? My favorite is still "Can always be blocked as if at 0 stealth", although "No action modifiers may be played" is simpler and has a similar effect. >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | You are in a maze -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6f5nfb$2...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > David Naseby <d.na...@unsw.edu.au> writes: > >Its not a random ousting. You really have to consider whether your big > >vampire is better used to kill more methuselahs later or whether you can > >go for the one big shot and hope you can bring another out in time to > >win the game for you. You lose your big vampire, on the remote chance > >that your prey cannot block or bounce the bleed. The big vampire is > >still iseful, as it has at least 4 blood on it when it takes the action. > >It doesn't make the card useless, but it stops RtI being a game breaker. > >It evens out the cost and benefits of the card rather neatly, I think. > > /* Note: posting from my civilian account - take > * whatever I say as if I'm just some random > * lurker - these are just my ramblings > */ > > Someone (James Coupe?) pointed out that RTI is a lot like Golconda's > older brother. That got me thinking (thanks for nothing, James :-). Nah, it was me, the other James. The Madder one. > > The effects are similar (assuming you use Golconda on your own vampire): > You lose a vampire and the pool difference between you and your prey > increases by the capacity of that vampire. > > The differences: > > Golconda is a Master card RTI is an action > with no cost that costs 4 blood* > with no counter except SR and can be blocked/redirected/AI'ed > that only targets 8+ cap and requires a 4+ cap > > * The blood cost only serves to restrict the capacity and current > strength of the acting vampire - all blood is burned on successful > RTI / Golconda anyway. > > The main effects: Prey(or redirect) loses X / you gain X - while bearing > an obvious symmetry, are not the same. Losing large amounts of pool > unexpectedly is far worse than gaining large amounts of pool when you > plan to. > > Compare to Golconda used as a threat (against you Prey, e.g.): > Now, used a surprise, you prey loses a vampire and gains X ... > or pays two pool to cancel the effect entirely. (You still have > played a Master Card, of course). > > Why is that last part in there? Because such a boon (X pool) with > a unplanned cost (X-cap vampire) can be detrimental enough to > unbalance the game. > > How much more unbalancing is the unexpected loss of X pool (even > when your Predator loses - a planned loss - a vampire)? > > The planned vs. unplanned loss of a vampire is important, of course, > for things like Soul Gem. > > Other "balances" are not satisfactory: > "Block" - RTI is not a game breaker except for all the ways to > make actions unblockable running around. > "Redirect" - turns the game into roulette. > "AI" - corner case. What about Protected Resources? Seems a good counter to me ..... > > So anyway - am I going to get to a point any time soon? > Sure: > > How about adding a sentence to RTI (borrowing from Golconda): "The > target of the bleed can pay two pool to caue the action to fail." > (the action fails - no cost is paid and the acting vampire is not > burned.) > -- Hmmmm, neat, and the best suggestion I've seen, from the point of view of role-playing. As I've argued elsewhere, I think people are missing the good effects of this card, in terms of putting the big vamps back into the game. This fix would have the merit of keeping that. But it has the demerit of creating a new rule unsupportable by card text, and that is a territory we are regrettably far into already!

phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) writes: >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> wrote: >>David Naseby <d.na...@unsw.edu.au> writes: >> >>Someone (James Coupe?) pointed out that RTI is a lot like Golconda's >>older brother. That got me thinking (thanks for nothing, James :-). >In card concept, as well as effect. >[snip] >>Golconda is a Master card RTI is an action >>with no cost that costs 4 blood* >>with no counter except SR and can be blocked/redirected/AI'ed >>that only targets 8+ cap and requires a 4+ cap >One itsy bitsy addition. RtI will generally gain you 6 pool, and a >victory point. This is a part of the main effect: that your prey loses X pool (which is part of your "[snip]" above). Which is why I asserted that your Prey losing X is not equivalent to you gaining X. >>How about adding a sentence to RTI (borrowing from Golconda): "The >>target of the bleed can pay two pool to caue the action to fail." >>(the action fails - no cost is paid and the acting vampire is not >>burned.) >This would stop the card from being unbalanced, but IMHO goes so >far as to make the card wallpaper, since your victem will almost >always choose to lose 2 pool, effectively leaving you with an undirectable >Computer Hacking, that needs at least a capacity 4 vampire to play. >May as well just ban the card. Heh. Almost. Except that Telepathic Counter is sufficient for Computer Hacking. Not for the modified R2I. Not much of a reason to use it, I agree. >Now, as you point out, RtI isn't a game breaker except for all the ways >to make actions unblockable. Why not add card text to deal with that >explicitly? My favorite is still "Can always be blocked as if at >0 stealth", although "No action modifiers may be played" is simpler >and has a similar effect. Because that change (either one) doesn't feel right. It's a patch-fix, which may not cover all corner-cases (like Concoction of Vitality [optionally with Sacre Cour Cathedral, France if the meta game favors allies] for the latter or Misdirection + Sleeping Mind for the former). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | You can't get ahead http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | while you're getting even. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -- Dick Armey

not.av...@your.security.clearance (Legbiter) writes: >In article <6f5nfb$2...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott >Johnson) wrote: >> Other "balances" are not satisfactory: >> "Block" - RTI is not a game breaker except for all the ways to >> make actions unblockable running around. >> "Redirect" - turns the game into roulette. >> "AI" - corner case. >What about Protected Resources? Seems a good counter to me ..... Also a corner case. PR is useless unless (1) you don't bleed and (2) your predator is a heavy +bleeder. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6f5nfb$2...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> writes >Someone (James Coupe?) pointed out that RTI is a lot like Golconda's >older brother. That got me thinking (thanks for nothing, James :-). Nope, not me. Good points tho. -- James Coupe (Prince of England) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <6f6jf5$d...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] Hmmm, all the changes proposed for RtI seem like patch-fixes to me. You make good points about the weaknesses though (I still haven't played with Sabbat, and am still largely oblivious to the existance of cards like Concoction of Vitality, or Sleeping Mind. :-( ). However, if you put the emphasis on _always_ in "Can always be blocked as if at 0 stealth" so as to override cards like Sleeping Mind of Concoction of Vitality (The existance of both of which I'm not happy to find out about), it would work well. My impression is that this would leave the card still effective, but not dominate, and in general I'm in favor of incremental fixes. Still, I would much rather see your fix than no fix, even if it's just a fancy way of banning the card. >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | You can't get ahead -- [ quoted text not captured ]

> >This would stop the card from being unbalanced, but IMHO goes so > >far as to make the card wallpaper, since your victem will almost > >always choose to lose 2 pool, effectively leaving you with an undirectable > >Computer Hacking, that needs at least a capacity 4 vampire to play. > >May as well just ban the card. > > Heh. Almost. Except that Telepathic Counter is sufficient for Computer > Hacking. Not for the modified R2I. Not much of a reason to use it, > I agree. > > >Now, as you point out, RtI isn't a game breaker except for all the ways > >to make actions unblockable. Why not add card text to deal with that > >explicitly? My favorite is still "Can always be blocked as if at > >0 stealth", although "No action modifiers may be played" is simpler > >and has a similar effect. > > Because that change (either one) doesn't feel right. It's a patch-fix, > which may not cover all corner-cases (like Concoction of Vitality > [optionally with Sacre Cour Cathedral, France if the meta game favors > allies] for the latter or Misdirection + Sleeping Mind for the former). > Well, after seeing all fixes, my preferred fix for both RtI and the Tomb involves matches. Someone said something about, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," or something to that effect. Well, I have played on JOL and in my own playgroup where RtI and Tomb (and TB) are banned. And I have played in tournaments where these cards are not banned. The tournaments were by far less interesting and more annoying. The one game of the tournaments where I had fun was in a second round, playing with a bunch of people who either a) didn't have the money for the big cards or b) wouldn't stoop below their principles even to win a tournament. To most people, it is obvious that RtI and the Tomb make the game less interesting. And to answer another criticism while I'm at it... Consider the contestation of the Tomb. One player plays a Tomb and uses his 4 transfers. He's now gained 1 pool and 4 transfers due to a master card with no requirements whatsoever. This is a far better turn-around than any other card in the game. Govern the Unaligned can give you 3 pool and 3 transfers for an action, requiring a vampire with superior dominate, an older vampire, and an action which can be blocked. That's the closest thing, and it has *no* potential for further gain, whereas the Tomb could potentially give you pool for the rest of the game. So... suppose that another player contests the Tomb. IMO, this is a fairly stupid thing to do, as this person has spent 3 pool for a card that is useless at the moment. If player 1 wants to punish them, it's relatively cheap to do so, or player 1 can yield the Tomb, since he's already gotten his advantage out of it. So, in any case, player 1 wins. Any player who is first to get out the Tomb gets an amazing advantage, and if they yield it or let the vamp with it come into play, the next person to play it gets a huge advantage. If you don't have a Tomb, you lose out big time. Not only this, but this uniqueness applies to other cards as well. Hell, Art Museum is unique. But, you say, "since Art Museum requires a clan, it's harder to be contested." That's not a valid criticism either. Would making Art Museum clanless make it a worse card? Of course not. If all Hunting Grounds were clanless would they be useless? No, they'd be much easier to use, and so Tomb is easier to use because it's clanless. Any argument so far made in favour of the Tomb applies at least as strongly to weaker cards. Nearly the same is true for RtI. Any bleed can be deflected or blocked. That doesn't justify a clanless, disciplineless, +10 bleed card. And I *do* feel violated when Arika (with her Soul Gem) bleeds me for 18 with Day Op. Who'd like to join me in burning all Tombs and RtIs, and who has the gasoline? -Chris -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

In article <6f7o97$b51$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: > >And I *do* feel violated when Arika (with her Soul Gem) bleeds me for 18 with >Day Op. Who'd like to join me in burning all Tombs and RtIs, and who has the >gasoline? Especially if Arika was your vampire up to the point she was Mind Raped. Amen. [ quoted text not captured ]

Personally, I think that adding fixes will only make the game more complex and difficult to teach newbies. It doesn't make the game very easy to learn (and will probably alienate new players), when they play a card and are then told that that's not how it works. I've run into that when a newbie who was obviously self-taught tried to play a Jyhad version of Blood Fury (or Rage... can't remember which it is) that was misprinted as a Fortitude card instead of a Thamauturgy card. They were quite upset because they had built their entire Gangrel deck around this misprinted card. Now just imagine when you tell some newbie that the card text isn't wrong, it was just changed. What would be better is to either leave the card as is or to ban it. Explaining a banned card is much easier than explaining why it was changed. Plus, the banned concept is easy to grasp. I'm not saying that RtI, TB, etc., should be banned. I'm just saying that I don't think we should change any card's text unless it is an errata or clarification. Personally, I think the game would be better off without a card like RtI because when successful, it is nearly impossible to recover from. TB and ToRIII give advantages, but not the kind that ordinarily cause one person's game to suddenly be over if they can't do anything about it. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann "Information wants to be free." mboh...@pdnt.com Internet Strategy and Development Consultant