How to get other decks than the cheesy ones

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > bobby_doc wrote: > > >>8. In each tournament round your prey may name three(less?more?) cards > the predator may not play. Each time the predator gets one of these > cards, he/she immediatly discards it and draws a new one.>> > > This one is just insane. It's kinda funny, sure, but really not a good idea. By > allowing somone to surgically remove certain cards from an opponents deck, they > can make their decks invulnerable ("Hmm. You are a Rush deck. You may not play > with Bum's Rush, Haven Uncovered, and Immortal Grapple." "Doh." or "Hmm. You > are an intercept deck. You may not play with Wake, Enhanced Senses, or Eagle's > Sight." "Doh".) However, as they also have cards surgically removed from their > decks, their decks become unworkable. In the end, you have a whole table of > people playing Werewolf Pack decks and getting nowhere. Funny idea, though :-) > Hehe. Jester's Caps for everyone! (M:tG Artifact: Remove up to three cards from your opponent's deck from the game) Maybe the next expansion will have an Auspex Card to do that. If the next expansion comes out while we're still alive, that is.

Joe C. wrote: > > In article <7q0g1b$i1d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > bobby_doc <bobb...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > Currently two of your ideas are already in place, in the DCI Standard > Floor Rules. > > > 1. Max deck size > > 2.1 Constructed Tournament Required Materials: > The library must contain a minimum of sixty (60) and a maximum of > ninety (90) cards; the crypt must contain a minimum of twelve (12) > cards. > > > 2. Restrict or ban specific cards > > 2.1.4 Banned Cards: > No cards from the Banned List are allowed in a tournament deck. > Violation of this rule will result in the player being subject to the > appropriate provisions of the DCI penalty guide. > > NOTE: The Banned and Restricted Lists are modified quarterly by the DCI > as follows: March 1, June 1, September 1, and December 1. > > The Banned List for Standard Constructed V:TES tournaments: > > - Cunctator Motion (V:TES) > - High Stakes (V:TES) > - Madness of the Bard (Dark Sovereigns) > - Monocle of Clarity (Jyhad) > - Playing for Keeps (Dark Sovereigns) > - The Return to Innocence (Ancient Hearts) > - Rowan Ring (Jyhad) > > Joe C. > tzim...@mindspring.com > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Why is Rowan Ring banned? Did people abuse it in a Paralize/Diablerize strategy? I guess that wouldn't be too hard to do. What about the Stake then? All you need are some potence strikes or a 2HD vamp to do the same thing.

Just make alternative tournaments with restricted decks. How should they be restricted? Here’s some suggestions (maybe you guys got other ideas), use one or more: 1. Max deck size 2. Restrict or ban specific cards 3. Card limit á la Magic (yack!) 4. Minimum crypt average 5. Maximum crypt size 6. Give decks with higher crypt average an advantage when comparing with decks with lower crypt average which have the same amount vp. 7. Make two lists(some chosen good cards on one list and some chosen bad cards on the other) – if a deck contains a certain amount of cards from the good list that deck gets penalties of some kind and vice versa. 8. In each tournament round your prey may name three(less?more?) cards the predator may not play. Each time the predator gets one of these cards, he/she immediatly discards it and draws a new one. I know. Some of these maybe aren't so good. But we have to discuss this, right? If some of this kind of tournaments gets popular, we'll get much "funnier" decks floating around. // Robert Doktorow Sorry for my english [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:20:33 GMT, bobby_doc <bobb...@my-deja.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Tournament decks are those decks which have the potential to Win, if you restrict cards then you remove the competitive edge of alot of decks, which was shown by the changes made to fame and return to innocence and also Tomb of Ram. I suggest leaving any kind of capping to in-house games and friendly games. After all tournaments are where many people get their ideas to build new "different" decks, (if that is still possible with the cards currently available). If you think differently then just let me know.

bobby_doc <bobb...@my-deja.com> wrote: > Just make alternative tournaments with restricted decks. > 1. Max deck size Isn't this already restricted? I don't know about DCI rules, but isn't 40 +10 for each methusaleh. > 2. Restrict or ban specific cards Restricting could be possible... Like 4 Misdirections allowed in a deck or something like that. That still allows a card that is pretty ok itself used but not abused. > 7. Make two lists(some chosen good cards on one list and some chosen > bad cards on the other) – if a deck contains a certain amount of cards > from the good list that deck gets penalties of some kind and vice versa. And how to choose which are good and which are bad cards? Are ineffective (but maybe interesting) cards better than effective (but more easily abused) cards? > 8. In each tournament round your prey may name three(less?more?) cards > the predator may not play. Each time the predator gets one of these > cards, he/she immediatly discards it and draws a new one. This sounds Evil(tm). If I played deck based on Strike: Combat Ends's, I could ban for example Immortal Grapple, Thoughts Betrayed and Dog Pack... I guess that would help me a lot... too much? I think so. > If some of this kind of tournaments gets popular, we'll get much > "funnier" decks floating around. Well, I still think that tournaments are for competitive decks and your friends for casual and more interesting decks, but it's not a bad idea of course to have tournaments with more relaxed atmosphere (like our "tournaments", it's always a miracle if we get even two tables... ;) -- msaari @jyu.fi

In article <7q0g1b$i1d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, bobby_doc <bobb...@my-deja.com> wrote: Currently two of your ideas are already in place, in the DCI Standard Floor Rules. > 1. Max deck size 2.1 Constructed Tournament Required Materials: The library must contain a minimum of sixty (60) and a maximum of ninety (90) cards; the crypt must contain a minimum of twelve (12) cards. > 2. Restrict or ban specific cards 2.1.4 Banned Cards: No cards from the Banned List are allowed in a tournament deck. Violation of this rule will result in the player being subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI penalty guide. NOTE: The Banned and Restricted Lists are modified quarterly by the DCI as follows: March 1, June 1, September 1, and December 1. The Banned List for Standard Constructed V:TES tournaments: - Cunctator Motion (V:TES) - High Stakes (V:TES) - Madness of the Bard (Dark Sovereigns) - Monocle of Clarity (Jyhad) - Playing for Keeps (Dark Sovereigns) - The Return to Innocence (Ancient Hearts) - Rowan Ring (Jyhad) Joe C. tzim...@mindspring.com [ quoted text not captured ]

bobby_doc wrote: >>1. Max deck size>> DCI rules already say minimum 60/maximum 90 with a minimum 12 card crypt. >>2. Restrict or ban specific cards>> There are some banned cards (mostly ante cards, but a few are banned for play balance reasons), and restricting cards goes against the very basis of the game. >>3. Card limit á la Magic (yack!)>> Nah. This one never works. It makes certain perfectly reasonable decks implayable (Rush decks, Eagle's Sight decks, Ani based intercept decks, etc), and other perfectly reasonable decks way too powerful (Malk S+B) due to decks that usually counter them being non playable. The end result is a different environment with different decks being too good, which isn't any better, just different. >>4. Minimum crypt average>> This one seems pretty reasonable for a variant tournament, but I really don't think that it will work all that well, and won't really stop a weenie deck. Assuming you wanted to enforce a average vampire size of 4, the weenie deck could compose a crypt of: 3x IC members (33) 2x 3 point vamps (6) 2x 2 point vamps (4) 5x 1 point vamps (5) Or some such variation, giving him 9 weenie vampires to work with and 3 IC members to never influence out. Between the countless Effective Managements and Info Highways, the 3 IC members included will have a negligible effect on their strategy. >>5. Maximum crypt size>> Not really an issue. 12 vampires is ussually sufficient for a given deck. >>6. Give decks with higher crypt average an advantage when comparing with decks with lower crypt average which have the same amount vp.>> Again, suffers from the averaging problem. What kind of advantage would you give them? >>7. Make two lists(some chosen good cards on one list and some chosen bad cards on the other) ˆ if a deck contains a certain amount of cards from the good list that deck gets penalties of some kind and vice versa.>> Hmm. A bit arbitrary, and makes it really easy to screw over your prey by scouting out their deck. >>8. In each tournament round your prey may name three(less?more?) cards the predator may not play. Each time the predator gets one of these cards, he/she immediatly discards it and draws a new one.>> This one is just insane. It's kinda funny, sure, but really not a good idea. By allowing somone to surgically remove certain cards from an opponents deck, they can make their decks invulnerable ("Hmm. You are a Rush deck. You may not play with Bum's Rush, Haven Uncovered, and Immortal Grapple." "Doh." or "Hmm. You are an intercept deck. You may not play with Wake, Enhanced Senses, or Eagle's Sight." "Doh".) However, as they also have cards surgically removed from their decks, their decks become unworkable. In the end, you have a whole table of people playing Werewolf Pack decks and getting nowhere. Funny idea, though :-) Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "He sees the things he knows are his He sees the bright and hollow sky" -Iggy Pop

Nate Williams wrote: > Why is Rowan Ring banned? Because it uses the obsolete "Paralyze" effect. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

In article <19990825123425...@ng-cs1.aol.com>, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: [snippage[ > >>8. In each tournament round your prey may name three(less?more?) cards > the predator may not play. Each time the predator gets one of these > cards, he/she immediatly discards it and draws a new one.>> > > This one is just insane. It's kinda funny, sure, but really not a good idea. By > allowing somone to surgically remove certain cards from an opponents deck, they > can make their decks invulnerable ("Hmm. You are a Rush deck. You may not play > with Bum's Rush, Haven Uncovered, and Immortal Grapple." "Doh." or "Hmm. You > are an intercept deck. You may not play with Wake, Enhanced Senses, or Eagle's > Sight." "Doh".) However, as they also have cards surgically removed from their > decks, their decks become unworkable. In the end, you have a whole table of > people playing Werewolf Pack decks and getting nowhere. Funny idea, though :-) > > Peter D Bakija > PD...@aol.com I would always start with: Minion Tap and Blood Doll. For the third, I'd pick the cards that would oppose my deck: Misdirection, Delaying Tactics, Immortal Grapple, S:CE, etc. Just my thoughts.... Best regards, Merlisk V:EKN Prince of Dallas [ quoted text not captured ]

>Hehe. Jester's Caps for everyone! (M:tG Artifact: Remove up to three >cards from your opponent's deck from the game) Maybe the next expansion >will have an Auspex Card to do that. If the next expansion comes out >while we're still alive, that is. Actually, Jester's Cap removes 3 cards and no more. Depending on the composition of the deck, A LOT more cards can be removed. I'd say it would be something more along the lines of three Null Chamber (Enchant World where each player named a card that could not be played -- they're not stackable but we'll pretend they are). Add in the effect where one can discard and draw again and you'd have the embodiment of the suggested rule. Halcyan 2

>Nate Williams wrote: >> Why is Rowan Ring banned? > >Because it uses the obsolete "Paralyze" effect. But just as how the Stake was modified to make it playable, couldn't the same thing be done with the Ring? BTW: What was ever up with the Concealed Weapon thing? Someone told me it was NOT supposed to be Obfuscate -- that it was supposed to be usable by anyone since it is otherwise vastable inferior to Disguised Weapon. Is this true? Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> wrote: > BTW: What was ever up with the Concealed Weapon thing? Someone told me it > was NOT supposed to be Obfuscate -- that it was supposed to be usable by > anyone since it is otherwise vastable inferior to Disguised Weapon. Is > this true? Well, at least I've played it like that... Wouldn't make really much sense if it required Obfuscate. Go check the official card errata, clarifications and rulings, it helps a lot because most cards seem to function unlike their card text says <grin>. -- msaari @jyu.fi

Hi all! Think I need to make some clarifications. I wasn't SO serious about my suggestions, just wanted to start a discussion. > 1. Max deck size Yeah, I know there are DCI rules, but I'm talking about alternative tournaments. What happens if your forced to play with half the deck size your supposed to do? > 2. Restrict or ban specific cards See 1. For example: restrict a deck to include max one of these: misdirection, information highway (maybe others?) > 3. Card limit á la Magic (yack!) Personally I don't like this. But I know others do. > 4. Minimum crypt average You can go around this restriction by include 1-2 IC vamps and still play your weenie deck, but still you can get unlucky and get one of those. Little affect on deck design I guess. > 5. Maximum crypt size See 1. What happens if Max deck size is (for example) 8? > 6. Give decks with higher crypt average an advantage when comparing >with decks with lower crypt average which have the same amount vp. Guess this one wouldn't affect the decks so much.... > 7. Make two lists(some chosen good cards on one list and some chosen > bad cards on the other) – if a deck contains a certain amount of cards > from the good list that deck gets penalties of some kind and vice >versa. Maybe to much work for the tournamentorganizers. But the lists could be short, they don't have too include ALL cards. For example if your deck have 10% of the cards from the "bad" list you'll get 1 vp (or so...). The cards on the "bad" list don't have to be BAD just unusual, like Vampiric Disease, Tainted Vitae, Bloodhunt, Restoration, ..... > 8. In each tournament round your prey may name three(less?more?) cards > the predator may not play. Each time the predator gets one of these > cards, he/she immediatly discards it and draws a new one. Yeah, I know this will kill decks that depends on a few specific cards. That's the point. It will force the players to design more allround decks. Horrible, isn't it ;-) You can restict this a little, you can name any three cards EXCEPT blooddoll and wake (others?) // Robert Doktorow Sorry for my english [ quoted text not captured ]

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >Nate Williams wrote: > >> Why is Rowan Ring banned? > > > >Because it uses the obsolete "Paralyze" effect. > > But just as how the Stake was modified to make it playable, couldn't the same > thing be done with the Ring? The Stake was renames and reprinted as The Wooden Stake. It was printed with card text that doesn't use the paralyze effect. > BTW: What was ever up with the Concealed Weapon thing? Someone told me it was > NOT supposed to be Obfuscate -- that it was supposed to be usable by anyone > since it is otherwise vastable inferior to Disguised Weapon. Is this true? That's the general agreement (among the designers as well as the players), but no errata has been issued, so it officially still requires obfuscate. [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Doktorow wrote: >>Yeah, I know this will kill decks that depends on a few specific cards. That's the point. It will force the players to design more allround decks. Horrible, isn't it ;-) You can restict this a little, you can name any three cards EXCEPT blooddoll and wake (others?)>> This runs into the same problems as a blanket card limit--it completely hobbles decks that rely on cards that don't have much in the way of redundancy, yet hardly affects decks that use cards of which there are countless variations. For instance, take a plain, brown, old fashion Malk Stealth and Bleed deck. Just looking at Obf cards that provide stealth, we have: Lost in Crowds Faceless Night Cloak the Gathering Mask of 1000K Scouting Mission Swallowed by Night Elder Impersonation Looking at Dom bleed cards, we have: Bonding Threats Conditioning Forshadowing Destruction Command the Beast Govern the Unaligned Scouting Mission Dominate Kine I'm sure there are others that I'm forgetting. Anyway, as a result of there being so many "duplicate" cards, that while all subtley different, all pretty much do the same thing. If, given the idea of being able to remove 2 or 3 of a particular card from your prey's deck, how does this harm such a Malk S+B deck? It won't at all. If he uses 3 of each of 8 cards, rather than 24 of 1 card, his deck will still work more or less the same, and will be completely unaffected by the variant rule. On the other hand, you have decks that revolve around one particular card that there is no duplication of in the set--Rush decks that use Immortal Grapple; Intercept decks that use Eagle's Sight; Celerity decks that use Alacrity. In such a situation, where specific cards are removed (or restricted to 4 of each), these decks cease to function, where simillarly focused decks that use cards that have a great deal of redundancy (like S+B decks) are completely unaffected. What this would result in is a different environment where different decks are too good--most people who play 4CL call Malk S+B decks "cheesy", because they are too good in that environment (which they are). Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Isn't it strange, G'Kar? When we first met, I had no power and all the choices I could ever want. Now I have all the power I could ever want, and no choice at all." -Londo

On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:14:10 GMT, bobby_doc <bobb...@my-deja.com> wrote: >Hi all! >Think I need to make some clarifications. >I wasn't SO serious about my suggestions, just wanted to start >a discussion. > >> 1. Max deck size >Yeah, I know there are DCI rules, but I'm talking about >alternative tournaments. What happens if your forced to play >with half the deck size your supposed to do? You make a focused 45-card monster and win faster. >> 2. Restrict or ban specific cards >See 1. For example: restrict a deck to include max one of these: >misdirection, information highway (maybe others?) Silly. See "card limits" - except you're just pointing at specific cards. And if I can only have one Info Highway I likely won't bother including it at all - it just won't get drawn up in time consistently. >> 3. Card limit á la Magic (yack!) >Personally I don't like this. But I know others do. > >> 4. Minimum crypt average >You can go around this restriction by include 1-2 IC vamps >and still play your weenie deck, but still you can get unlucky >and get one of those. Little affect on deck design I guess. Or get extremely unlucky and get both, and not slow down the weenie deck much at all, really - just annoy it. >> 5. Maximum crypt size >See 1. What happens if Max deck size is (for example) 8? 8 weenies are sufficient. (This also increases the power of breed-n-bleed Embrace decks.) >> 6. Give decks with higher crypt average an advantage when comparing >>with decks with lower crypt average which have the same amount vp. >Guess this one wouldn't affect the decks so much.... Time to break out the Anneke 40-2nd-tradition deck. Gets only 2 VPs a round, but its crypt average is TEN! Should win handily. >> 7. Make two lists(some chosen good cards on one list and some chosen >> bad cards on the other) – if a deck contains a certain amount of cards >> from the good list that deck gets penalties of some kind and vice >>versa. >Maybe to much work for the tournamentorganizers. But the lists could be >short, they don't have too include ALL cards. For example if your deck >have 10% of the cards from the "bad" list you'll get 1 vp (or so...). >The cards on the "bad" list don't have to be BAD just unusual, like >Vampiric Disease, Tainted Vitae, Bloodhunt, Restoration, ..... Also requires people going through everyone's deck before play. And you should probably be more specific - what KIND of penalties? >> 8. In each tournament round your prey may name three(less?more?) cards >> the predator may not play. Each time the predator gets one of these >> cards, he/she immediatly discards it and draws a new one. >Yeah, I know this will kill decks that depends on a few specific cards. >That's the point. It will force the players to design more allround >decks. Horrible, isn't it ;-) No, it forces players to basically randomly toss in a bunch of cards, removing any sort of chance of making a focused deck. Much less, say, a Cryptic Mission deck ("You can't use Cryptic Mission or Society of Leopold"). >You can restict this a little, you can name any three cards EXCEPT >blooddoll and wake (others?) This suggestion is just plain bad, seriously. Wandering down the path of speculation will not improve it. :) -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes: >Halcyan 2 wrote: >> >> >Nate Williams wrote: >> >> Why is Rowan Ring banned? >> > >> >Because it uses the obsolete "Paralyze" effect. >> >> But just as how the Stake was modified to make it playable, couldn't the >> same thing be done with the Ring? > >The Stake was renames and reprinted as The Wooden Stake. It was printed with >card text that doesn't use the paralyze effect. I notice that there's no mention of this anywhere in DCI tournament rules anywhere. For instance, no errata for "Stake" is given on the rules Webside. (There is for Wooden Stake but not Stake.) For the record then, is one supposed to play Jyhad's Stake as DCI's (errataed) Wooden Stake? And if so, how about putting that in the record, somewhere? (Or if I'm mistaken, where is it?) Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > > (TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) > > ne...@doughty-engineering.co.uk writes: > > >On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:20:33 GMT, bobby_doc <bobb...@my-deja.com> > >wrote: > > > >>Just make alternative tournaments with restricted decks. > >> > >>How should they be restricted? > >>Here’s some suggestions (maybe you guys got other ideas), use one or > >>more: > .... > >>I know. Some of these maybe aren't so good. > >>But we have to discuss this, right? > >> > >>If some of this kind of tournaments gets popular, we'll get much > >>"funnier" decks floating around. > > > >Tournament decks are those decks which have the potential to Win, if > >you restrict cards then you remove the competitive edge of alot of > >decks, which was shown by the changes made to fame and return to > >innocence and also Tomb of Ram. I suggest leaving any kind of capping > >to in-house games and friendly games. After all tournaments are where > >many people get their ideas to build new "different" decks, (if that > >is still possible with the cards currently available). If you think > >differently then just let me know. > > I think you may be somewhat "unclear on the concept", as one of our > popular US comic characters likes to say. > > The point of changing deck construction rules, in this case, is exactly > to "remove the competitive edge of a lot of decks". First of all, there's > always debate about whether the types of decks people were arguing about > (weeny bleed decks) were actually a competive problem or not. That's > certainly debatable. But if they _are_ a problem, the previous poster was > just floating some trial balloons for solving the problem. > > Assuming the so-called "cheese decks" are too easy to build and win with, > the motivation for changing the deck construction rules is to expand the > number of deck types that have some reasonable chance of winning a game > in practice. Your point that this will change the whole environment is > absolutely correct - but that's not as bad a thing as living in an > environment where it's hard to win with anything but a relatively few > tried-and-true deck ideas, if indeed that is the case (and I'm not saying > it is or it isn't). > > Fred Alas, we wait for another expansion, and with it perhaps new viable deck archetypes. Until then, for variety's sake, unrestrict Political Stranglehold and Ancient Influence and crack out those fat Inner Circle decks: Crypt IC/Justicar/Cardinal x12 Other in varying amounts: Ancient Influence Polit. Stranglehold Tradition Upheld The Fifth Minion Tap Info. Highway Masquerade Enforced and so on Hehe. NaTe (rhymes with I can't think _straight_ because it's getting _late_.)

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes: > > >The latest printing of Gangrel De-evolution is Gangrel Atavism. So > > >Gangrel De-evoilution is to be played as if it read the same way as > > >Gangrel Atavism. > > > > > >Similarly, the latest printing of Stake is Wooden Stake, so it is > > >to be played the same as Wooden Stake. > > > > > >Etc. > > > > I guess I knew about the rule that has people playing with the latest > > wordings of all cards. But how would one know that "Wooden Stake" and > > "Stake" are the same cards? In the case of Gangrel Atavism/De-evolution, > > Spirit's Touch (with definate article or without), and which way the words > > are ordered in Kine Dominance, it doesn't matter since no earth-shattering > > errata has been issue for any of these cards (keeping in mind Gangrel > > De-evolution didn't have the misprinted Gangrel symbol). Is there an > > "official" list of name changes somewhere? > > The changes were listed in an article in the Duelist #7. You can tell > that they are the same card by the artwork (which remained the same > through the renaming process). They are: > > Stake bacame Wooden Stake (and was rewritten). > Gangrel De-Evolution became Gangel Atavism (and was reworded). > Kine Dominance became Dominate Kine (and was reworded).> > > The other changes (not listed in that article) are obvious. > > For instance, you couldn't play an Eco Terrorists and an > Ecoterrorists without contesting them - they are obviously the same > card. And a single vampire couldn't play both Spirit's Touch and The > Spirit's Touch on the same action. Etc. > > -- > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp And the reasons behind the changes? I guess people might read Kine Dominance as though the humans (kine) were the ones doing the dominating. I know Gangrel Atavism was because de-evolution isn't a real word (although devolution is). But was the Stake changed just because its use changed? And what WAS wrong with paralyze anyway? Just not common enough?

Frederick Scott wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes: > >The Stake was [renamed] and reprinted as The Wooden Stake. It was printed with > >card text that doesn't use the paralyze effect. > > I notice that there's no mention of this anywhere in DCI tournament rules > anywhere. For instance, no errata for "Stake" is given on the rules > Webside. (There is for Wooden Stake but not Stake.) For the record then, > is one supposed to play Jyhad's Stake as DCI's (errataed) Wooden Stake? > > And if so, how about putting that in the record, somewhere? (Or if I'm > mistaken, where is it?) All cards are to be played according to their latest printings [DCI 2.1.1] (with errata, of course). The latest printing of Gangrel De-evolution is Gangrel Atavism. So Gangrel De-evoilution is to be played as if it read the same way as Gangrel Atavism. Similarly, the latest printing of Stake is Wooden Stake, so it is to be played the same as Wooden Stake. Etc. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes: >Frederick Scott wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> writes: >> >The Stake was [renamed] and reprinted as The Wooden Stake. It was printed >> >with card text that doesn't use the paralyze effect. >> >> I notice that there's no mention of this anywhere in DCI tournament rules >> anywhere. For instance, no errata for "Stake" is given on the rules >> Webside. (There is for Wooden Stake but not Stake.) For the record then, >> is one supposed to play Jyhad's Stake as DCI's (errataed) Wooden Stake? >> >> And if so, how about putting that in the record, somewhere? (Or if I'm >> mistaken, where is it?) > >All cards are to be played according to their latest printings [DCI 2.1.1] >(with errata, of course). > >The latest printing of Gangrel De-evolution is Gangrel Atavism. So >Gangrel De-evoilution is to be played as if it read the same way as >Gangrel Atavism. > >Similarly, the latest printing of Stake is Wooden Stake, so it is >to be played the same as Wooden Stake. > >Etc. I guess I knew about the rule that has people playing with the latest wordings of all cards. But how would one know that "Wooden Stake" and "Stake" are the same cards? In the case of Gangrel Atavism/De-evolution, Spirit's Touch (with definate article or without), and which way the words are ordered in Kine Dominance, it doesn't matter since no earth-shattering errata has been issue for any of these cards (keeping in mind Gangrel De-evolution didn't have the misprinted Gangrel symbol). Is there an "official" list of name changes somewhere? Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] The changes were listed in an article in the Duelist #7. You can tell that they are the same card by the artwork (which remained the same through the renaming process). They are: Stake bacame Wooden Stake (and was rewritten). Gangrel De-Evolution became Gangel Atavism (and was reworded). Kine Dominance became Dominate Kine (and was reworded).> The other changes (not listed in that article) are obvious. For instance, you couldn't play an Eco Terrorists and an Ecoterrorists without contesting them - they are obviously the same card. And a single vampire couldn't play both Spirit's Touch and The Spirit's Touch on the same action. Etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

Nate Williams wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > The changes were listed in an article in the Duelist #7. You can tell > > that they are the same card by the artwork (which remained the same > > through the renaming process). They are: > > > > Stake bacame Wooden Stake (and was rewritten). > > Gangrel De-Evolution became Gangel Atavism (and was reworded). > > Kine Dominance became Dominate Kine (and was reworded).> > > > > The other changes (not listed in that article) are obvious. > > > > For instance, you couldn't play an Eco Terrorists and an > > Ecoterrorists without contesting them - they are obviously the same > > card. And a single vampire couldn't play both Spirit's Touch and The > > Spirit's Touch on the same action. Etc. > > And the reasons behind the changes? I guess people might read Kine > Dominance as though the humans (kine) were the ones doing the > dominating. I know Gangrel Atavism was because de-evolution isn't a > real word (although devolution is). But was the Stake changed just > because its use changed? And what WAS wrong with paralyze anyway? Just > not common enough? The reasons for the changes are unknown to me. The reasons for the changes in general (to card text, name of the game, card names, etc.) has been given as "clarity". Paralyze was removed because it was too complicated of a rule to include for the few (two) cards that used it. [ quoted text not captured ]

kor...@my-deja.com wrote: > > In article <37C52F59...@wizards.com>, > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > > BTW: What was ever up with the Concealed Weapon thing? Someone > told me it was > > > NOT supposed to be Obfuscate -- that it was supposed to be usable > by anyone > > > since it is otherwise vastable inferior to Disguised Weapon. Is > this true? > > > > That's the general agreement (among the designers as well as the > players), but > > no errata has been issued, so it officially still requires obfuscate. > > > > -- > > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. > > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > > http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp > > > > If the popular consensus is such among both players and designers, why > has errata not been issued? As it is now, Concealed Weapon is nothing > but scrap paper. > Nah. You know it's fun to say "Everybody stand clear as Virgil whips out his concealed weapon!" NaTe "VIRGIL IS A TRAITORUS WHORE" Williams

In article <37C52F59...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > BTW: What was ever up with the Concealed Weapon thing? Someone told me it was > > NOT supposed to be Obfuscate -- that it was supposed to be usable by anyone > > since it is otherwise vastable inferior to Disguised Weapon. Is this true? > > That's the general agreement (among the designers as well as the players), but > no errata has been issued, so it officially still requires obfuscate. > > -- > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp > If the popular consensus is such among both players and designers, why has errata not been issued? As it is now, Concealed Weapon is nothing but scrap paper. Kor...@hotmail.com [ quoted text not captured ]