I think in my previous post that I distracted people from the point
that I was/am asking a question.
A quick definition: the 'old' Rotschreck interpretation is that from
the card clarified (redundantly *I* think) in issue #4 of Duelist, that
the effects apply to the attempted target. The FAQ ruling is that the
effects apply to the Vamp attempting to inflict the aggravated damage.
Was there discussion, here or elsewhere, about the old
interpretation causing problems, or even breaking the game? If so, what
were the problems?
As I explained in my first post, in the absence of such a problem I
view the FAQ ruling as very poor. I would like to see this corrected in
time for the V:TES edit. Otherwise we may be stuck with official cards
that *I* believe are wrongly written. Apotential problem far outweighing
the card back issue.
Doug
P.S. Someone asked for impressions on the Combat Ends discussion. I
and my group of players have always interpreted Combat Ends to be
instantaneous and to potentially deprive a blocker of the ability to play
a card for a "strike". We've never noticed any problem with that either.
hdbl...@efn.org (Douglass Bloomer) writes:
> P.S. Someone asked for impressions on the Combat Ends discussion. I
>and my group of players have always interpreted Combat Ends to be
>instantaneous and to potentially deprive a blocker of the ability to play
>a card for a "strike". We've never noticed any problem with that either.
And what problem did you notice when playing it as a strike, as per the
rulebook, rather than an announce-strike effect?
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) | These opinions are mine and
Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. | are subject to card text.
In article <3orf2v$2...@haus.efn.org>,
Douglass Bloomer <hdbl...@efn.org> wrote:
> Was there discussion, here or elsewhere, about the old
>interpretation causing problems, or even breaking the game? If so, what
>were the problems?
No, there was no discussion about Rotschreck breaking the game.
It's not a lynchpin of the game, and either ruling has its benefits and
drawbacks. The main annoyance was the vacillation between rulings that
WotC has made.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"There. That should do nicely. After all, we don't want the locals to
see grannies clipped to trash bins by their teeth, do we?" -- The MAXX
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>In article <3orf2v$2...@haus.efn.org>,
>Douglass Bloomer <hdbl...@efn.org> wrote:>> Was there discussion, here or elsewhere, about the old
>>interpretation causing problems, or even breaking the game? If so, what>>were the problems?> No, there was no discussion about Rotschreck breaking the game.
>It's not a lynchpin of the game, and either ruling has its benefits and
>drawbacks. The main annoyance was the vacillation between rulings that
>WotC has made.
Personally, I was (and am) annoyed at a ruling so obviously contrary to
both the name and the phrasing on the card. The vacillation simply
compounded things.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)