i just wanted to remind people of the above quote from William of
Occam, because i think it's relevant to some recent discussion here
about a deck [Rehlow's combo] and a card [Meddling of Semsith]. i've
played with and extensively-tweaked the Combo, and Michael has played
with Meddling of Semsith, and we really don't see what the evidence is
for either the deck or the card being a Threat To VTES As We Know It.
If and when combo decks or Meddling decks start to make things really
boring for everyone we can think about knee-capping them. But i don't
think this will be necessary - counter-strategies will evolve [some
already exist]. In the absence of any evidence that these things are
too powerful IN REAL PLAY, there CERTAINLY isn't an argument for
banning/neutering them NOW.
"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:22fea992.02020...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I“ve been thinking the exact same thing for quite a while as far as I see it
it MoS hampers some decks but not at all to the point of not being able to
play at all as many poeple here seem to think.
How many of your decks routinely use more than 7 cards during your turn?
Those that do will suffer from MoS and might consider some defense against
it but this is Jyhad where every deck will have some weakness.
That being said I“ll look forward to trying the combo MoS, Elder Kindred
Network & Kindred Koercion =)
/The Emperor
In message <22fea992.02020...@posting.google.com>, legbiter
<legb...@mailandnews.com> writes:
<Meddling of Semsith>
>In the absence of any evidence that these things are
>too powerful IN REAL PLAY, there CERTAINLY isn't an argument for
>banning/neutering them NOW.
It also has the potential for lots of cross-table support.
I (A) play Meddling on my prey. My prey (B) can turn to my grand-prey
(C) and say "Erm, hello, he's just going to walk right through me.
Little help?"
To my grand-predator (D) he can say "But now I can't get through C at
all, or even put any real pressure on him! With no cards, he'll just
come and kick you hard whilst A is killing me, then he'll wall up like a
usual deck."
And to my predator (E), it's "But I can't defend against him, so all
your hard work will go when he ousts me quick-sharpish and gets 6 pool
and a VP!"
If it works like it's supposed to, it's a lose-lose situation for almost
everyone on the table, destabilising everything for them. You'd just
better hope you've got vote-lock - and on the vote to burn it, too.
--
James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c.
PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:RWwQOW9g...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <22fea992.02020...@posting.google.com>, legbiter
> <legb...@mailandnews.com> writes:
> <Meddling of Semsith>
> >In the absence of any evidence that these things are
> >too powerful IN REAL PLAY, there CERTAINLY isn't an argument for
> >banning/neutering them NOW.
>
> It also has the potential for lots of cross-table support.
but some people just have a low "charisma" and won't be able to defend their
piece of meat. Some are too proud and will try to cope without whining.
They will just end rotting.
reyda
In message <a3okp2$as3$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes:
>but some people just have a low "charisma" and won't be able to defend their
>piece of meat. Some are too proud and will try to cope without whining.
>They will just end rotting.
Sure. So they die. Jyhad isn't a game played with cards in isolation
booths.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:a3okp2$as3$1...@neon.noos.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Whining is an essential skill in Jyhad =)
/The Emperor
legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.02020...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm starting to agree with this point more and more.
And I've always liked Occam's Feeding Razor (as he's known locally).
Tobias
Deventer
"The Emperor" <theem...@chello.se> wrote in message
news:MWP78.4$g7.1...@news01.chello.se...
>
> How many of your decks routinely use more than 7 cards during your turn?
> Those that do will suffer from MoS and might consider some defense against
> it but this is Jyhad where every deck will have some weakness.
>
A more appropriate question is: How many of your decks routinely use at
least one card during your turn that you drew during that turn. And the
answer for me (and most people I've played against) is nearly all of them.
On top of that: How many of your decks routinely use at least one card
during an opponent's turn that you drew during that turn? The answer to
that is, generally, all of the ones that don't answer yes to the first
question.
MoS is wrong because it is obviously more destructive than any other vote
card. It has an extremely unbalanced cost/effect ratio, similar to the
pre-reprint Banishment. Pre-reprint Banishment would effectively make one
minion useless for each time it was played, until you paid enough pool to
re-influence him. MoS will effectively make all minions but one useless
until you can get rid of it (which, face it, you can't).
legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.02020...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Oh my God, I LOVE YOU!
It's the most clever argument i've seen on this forum ont this two
subjects (i think you can add soul gem...).
You justify your fame, Mr Legbiter, by asking the good question.
Greatly impressed...(is it the english term for : "grandement
impressionné ?"
Kamel SENNI (a player and a tournament organizer you have seen at the
EC 2001...).
legbiter wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, I for one don't need to see what effect it has on actual play to
know that it has an effect which is inappropriate for the game, and thus
should never have been printed. Just like the old Thoughts Betrayed,
which was a little too expensive to be a real game winner, the point is
not wether it is balanced, it is that it's power should not be included
in the game, at any cost or under any circumstances.
A vtes hand is not like a hand in any other ccg. It was never intended
to be a limited resource as in magic or other slow-draw card advantage
games. The rules could have you draw up to hand size once per turn, a la
shadowfist, but they don't. Because the game is designed so that you
have a full hand at all times. Even the cards which can force an
opponent to discard allow redrawing.
And yes, there are defenses. Delaying Tactics is an excellent card in
general, for example. But does the existance of Delaying Tactics mean
that it is ok to print a card which says "Political Action. All
kindred. Worth 1 vote. Your prey is ousted"?
-Steve Wampler
legbiter wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I believe half of the arguments for hamstringing Soul Gem are not based
on the assumption that it's broken. We've not seen it abused succesfully
enough times in order to know.
Several of us did point out NRA as an argument though. NRA isn't even an
official rule (official as in part of the game). It's an extra add-on
for tournaments that actually overrules the 'when a card breaks the
rules...', and it seems obvious that this extra rule is there in order
to prevent 'broken games'. NRA as an argument would actually have been
weaker if it had been part of the standard set of rules.
As for the meddling - it'll be most interesting to see it in action. I
actually have a feeling that it will backfire more often than give a
benefit to the one playing it as the entire table will rather cretainly
start, sorry for the pun, meddling.
By the way, I did try a go at the ally deck. Memories of Mortality,
*cough*, backfired badly. Why would anyone consider five in play a
threat?
Sten During
>Well, I for one don't need to see what effect it has on actual play to
>know that it has an effect which is inappropriate for the game, and thus
>should never have been printed. Just like the old Thoughts Betrayed,
>which was a little too expensive to be a real game winner, the point is
>not wether it is balanced, it is that it's power should not be included
>in the game, at any cost or under any circumstances.
>A vtes hand is not like a hand in any other ccg. It was never intended
>to be a limited resource as in magic or other slow-draw card advantage
>games. The rules could have you draw up to hand size once per turn, a la
>shadowfist, but they don't. Because the game is designed so that you
>have a full hand at all times. Even the cards which can force an
>opponent to discard allow redrawing.
>And yes, there are defenses. Delaying Tactics is an excellent card in
>general, for example. But does the existance of Delaying Tactics mean
>that it is ok to print a card which says "Political Action. All
>kindred. Worth 1 vote. Your prey is ousted"?
I think what WW is trying to do is change the game, probably to keep it from
getting stale. Sure, this is conceptually bad if you keep playing the same
decks. But, is it bad in the long run if people start building decks
differently? Won't know for quite a while.
"The Emperor" <theem...@chello.se> wrote in message
news:MWP78.4$g7.1...@news01.chello.se...
>> "legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:22fea992.02020...@posting.google.com...
> > i just wanted to remind people of the above quote from William of
> > Occam, because i think it's relevant to some recent discussion here
> > about a deck [Rehlow's combo] and a card [Meddling of Semsith]. i've
> > played with and extensively-tweaked the Combo, and Michael has played
> > with Meddling of Semsith, and we really don't see what the evidence is
> > for either the deck or the card being a Threat To VTES As We Know It.
> > If and when combo decks or Meddling decks start to make things really
> > boring for everyone we can think about knee-capping them. But i don't
> > think this will be necessary - counter-strategies will evolve [some
> > already exist]. In the absence of any evidence that these things are
> > too powerful IN REAL PLAY, there CERTAINLY isn't an argument for
> > banning/neutering them NOW.
>> I扉e been thinking the exact same thing for quite a while as far as I see
it
> it MoS hampers some decks but not at all to the point of not being able to
> play at all as many poeple here seem to think.
>
I have to agree about MoS. It will definately slow a deck down. The
biggest targets are of course, card-intensive combat decks. I had MoS
played on my Brujah-Anti vote deck this past weekend, and saw little to no
change in how my deck played. I had to rethink about the cards in my hand
(played a forced awakening on my grandprey's turn, and discarded a master or
two I would've rather kept). If anything, MoS will promote the use of
permanents like weapons or intercept locations, since once they're out, they
don't require a card in hand to use.
Yes, the card is powerful, at this point I don't think its broken. I would
still rather have a MoS played on me than 3+ Agressive tactics or 7 raptors.
Hell, I'd rather MoS than have a Camarilla Threat in play. At least MoS
doesn't cost you pool to attempt to cycle.
-Brian
On 05 Feb 2002 19:07:13 GMT, cur...@aol.com (Curevei) wrote:
>I think what WW is trying to do is change the game, probably to keep it from
>getting stale. Sure, this is conceptually bad if you keep playing the same
>decks. But, is it bad in the long run if people start building decks
>differently? Won't know for quite a while
I so agree... It's time to get into other types of decks. With
Bloodlines WW tries to get people to evolve to other kinds of
strategies and other types of deck construction... basicly Bloodlines
forces a lot of deck concepts to change and this card again show the
same.
I think, that with the new Camarilla set coming up we will see a lot
of new strategies, and I think a boost in political games (hopefully
with lower cap titled vampires).
The thing I miss a bit at this moment (I have been playing since Jyhad
arrived in the Netherlands) is contesting and all the backstabbing
intrigue you needed around the table with the limited resources you
had... Basicly getting back to the intrigue in the RPG. With all these
cards WW is getting back to the need to negotiate around table to get
anything done, and I think that is a good thing... the flip side is
that games will take longer, and since most tournies have a 2hour
limit per round this can lead to some frustration... but well.. what's
wrong with the old "night long game of Jyhad"??
Remeber that the game is about fun and creativity... My opinion is
that WW is trying to get that back into the game.
Greetz,
Pepijn Kok
Prince of Amsterdam
Pepijn Kok wrote:
> I so agree... It's time to get into other types of decks. With
> Bloodlines WW tries to get people to evolve to other kinds of
> strategies and other types of deck construction... basicly Bloodlines
> forces a lot of deck concepts to change and this card again show the
> same.
>
I disagree. Perhaps the *intent* of bloodlines was to get people to change the
way they construct decks or play the game, but if so then this was a failure.
With the exception of the Blood Brothers, the bloodlines set did very little to
advance the meta-game. The reason for this, quite simply, is that the cards
weren't especially powerful, at least not in deck changing ways. The small
number of vampires with each of the new disciplines and the lack of skill cards
made it not particularly worthwhile to add bloodlines cards to existing deck
concepts nor to play the bloodlines as standalone (which they were never
intended to do). Hence, no effect on the metagame.
>
> I think, that with the new Camarilla set coming up we will see a lot
> of new strategies, and I think a boost in political games (hopefully
> with lower cap titled vampires).
>
> The thing I miss a bit at this moment (I have been playing since Jyhad
> arrived in the Netherlands) is contesting and all the backstabbing
> intrigue you needed around the table with the limited resources you
> had... Basicly getting back to the intrigue in the RPG. With all these
> cards WW is getting back to the need to negotiate around table to get
> anything done, and I think that is a good thing... the flip side is
> that games will take longer, and since most tournies have a 2hour
> limit per round this can lead to some frustration... but well.. what's
> wrong with the old "night long game of Jyhad"??
>
> Remeber that the game is about fun and creativity... My opinion is
> that WW is trying to get that back into the game.
I more get the impression that WW is trying to make it more like the RPG,
ignoring the fact that it is a different game in its own right, and that things
that work in the RPG don't work well in VTES.
For example, the samed in the RPG are pretty badass. So if there was a group of
nosferatu running around whupping up on people, and a samedi joined them, they
would be even more scary. This is because in the RPG each character has a set
of powers which are internal to that character. However, in the card game
vampiric disciplines only do things when combined with library cards. This
means that simply adding a samedi vampire to a crypt will do nothing to help
it-- than cards must also be added to the library. This will in turn mean that
there will be times when the player will have than cards in hand and no samedi,
or samedi in play and no cards they can play. Thus, adding the samedi reduces
the effectiveness of the deck. This is simply an effect of how the game works.
-Steve Wampler
In message <3C6047C7...@nyu.edu>, Steve Wampler <sjw...@nyu.edu>
writes:
>With the exception of the Blood Brothers, the bloodlines set did very little to
>advance the meta-game.
Erm, excuse me? Precisely how long has it been out?
And you're deciding what impact it's had already. Right.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Steve Wampler" <sjw...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:3C6047C7...@nyu.edu...
> Pepijn Kok wrote:
>
> > I so agree... It's time to get into other types of decks. With
> > Bloodlines WW tries to get people to evolve to other kinds of
> > strategies and other types of deck construction... basicly Bloodlines
> > forces a lot of deck concepts to change and this card again show the
> > same.
> >
>
> I disagree. Perhaps the *intent* of bloodlines was to get people to
change the
> way they construct decks or play the game, but if so then this was a
failure.
> With the exception of the Blood Brothers, the bloodlines set did very
little to
> advance the meta-game. The reason for this, quite simply, is that the
cards
> weren't especially powerful, at least not in deck changing ways. The
small
> number of vampires with each of the new disciplines and the lack of skill
cards
> made it not particularly worthwhile to add bloodlines cards to existing
deck
> concepts nor to play the bloodlines as standalone (which they were never
> intended to do). Hence, no effect on the metagame.
Hey Wamplero!
I think it's a little premature to say that Bloodlines
hasn't had (isn't going to have) any effect on the
game. It's a big set, you know, and I don't think its
potential tourney impact is anything like fully explored
yet.
The Daughters definitely seem tourney-worthy in a presence-
type vote deck, for example. And the Kiasyd fit well with
the Lasombra, esp. for stealth bleed, and their MYT cards
even contribute something good to the deck. Likewise the
Baali w/Setites or on their own. Granted, stealth-bleed
isn't exactly a new thing in the metagame, but the vampires,
and some of the cards that go into their decks, are new...
The !Salubri might have some effect with their melee-
weapon shtick, or they might not, I'm not sure yet.
Likewise the Samedi with their equip-untap and other
combat-type stuff. The Ahrimanes definitely seem good
at the intercept-combat archetype.
And again, it's hard to tell what tourney effects we
might see in the future, when so few tourney decks have
been constructed so far around Bloodlines cards...
Josh
when you hang your flowers up to dry
Curevei wrote:
>>I think what WW is trying to do is change the game, probably to keep it from
getting stale.>>
This card does not change thegame and keep it from getting stale. It gives
already viable vote decks an *incredibly* overpowered weapon in their already
perfectly acceptable arsenal. How does this card change strategy? Oh, wait--now
*every* deck in the game needs to pack 10 Delaying Tactics in it. I forget,
that is *always* good for a game that every deck needs to contain the same
cards to defend against an overpowered strategy.
>>Sure, this is conceptually bad if you keep playing the same decks.>>
It is bad for every deck ever. The very basis of the game system is the
constant renewal of your expendable resources (your hand). This card takes that
away from a single player selectively, for very little cost. There is *no* deck
that will not suffer horrendously at the hands of this card.
>>But, is it bad in the long run if people start building decks differently?
Won't know for quite a while.>>
How are you going to build a deck differently to work under the treat of this
card? Include 10 Delaying Tactics in every deck you build? Build every deck to
have constant vote lock? Yes, that is good that we have introduced a card that
will *reduce* the number of viable strategies, rather than increase them.
Madness. Madness, I say.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"These streets are filled with danger and madness! MADNESS!"
-Zim.
Joshua Duffin wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I never meant to say that it would have *no* effect on the game, that's a
little harsh. However, it did not "force a lot of deck concepts to change" as
Pepijn Kok claimed. Daughter pre-vote, Kiasyd s+b, ahrimane intercept, are
all very very similar to existing decks. With the exception of the
slaughterhouse, all the new cards fit into an existing architype, and the
"millstone" deck isn't particularly viable(see Peter's comments on some other
thread). Sure, the !Salubri have some spiffy cards, but their still non-IG
combat. Not a one of my old decks needed to be changed really in any way to
remain viable post BL, which was the point I was trying to make in the first
place.
-Steve Wampler
>How are you going to build a deck differently to work under the treat of this
>card? Include 10 Delaying Tactics in every deck you build? Build every deck
>to
>have constant vote lock? Yes, that is good that we have introduced a card
>that
>will *reduce* the number of viable strategies, rather than increase them.
People have already brought up playing with more permanents. Note that playing
more permanents also "defeats" milling strategies.
Alternatively, any way of deck building that reduces a dependency on playing a
large number of cards becomes relatively better. For instance, I see no point
in Read the Winds existence. All it does, essentially, is roll two cards into
one and cost a blood for balance, which isn't useless just redundant. With
cards like Semsmith around, it becomes more useful to play cards like RtW.
There's also playing more vote in your deck to vote it out of existence. If
everyone has more votes, the chances of a multiplayer effort to get rid of it
increases.
One feature of V:TES I decry at times (though not here) is how much a lot of
good decks completely ignore some of the arenas in the game. For instance,
quite a few decks have no votes. WW's long term plan may be to try and move
decks towards toolboxing.
I've seen sets spoiled a small number of cards at a time before. People often
think that some card is God's gift to creation when it gets spoiled only to
realize later that the set as a whole changes the game such that it isn't a big
deal. Now, this is a bit of an orphan card, so it's a slightly different
situation. But, it's theoretically possible that players can adapt now and/or,
by the time it comes out in its set, the game will be played differently enough
that the card isn't unbalanced.
The fact of the matter is, until people show that the card is broken in actual
play, I don't expect WW to do anything about it nor should they.
"Curevei" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020205183202...@mb-fg.aol.com...
>
> One feature of V:TES I decry at times (though not here) is how much a lot
of
> good decks completely ignore some of the arenas in the game. For
instance,
> quite a few decks have no votes. WW's long term plan may be to try and
move
> decks towards toolboxing.
>
If all decks must toolbox extensively, then all decks become the same. You
need vote defense, and combat defense, and bleed defense. Then you need to
have stealth, and intercept, and untap. Next, you need to be able to pass
votes to take stuff out, and you need to have permanents. So, everybody
ends up playing Malks again, with all the same permanents and 10 Wakes.
Yippee.
I've already gotten sick of seeing every single deck packing Wakes. I'd
love to see Sleeping Mind (superior) errata'd back to hosing them over. If
*every* deck has to pack everything, it's just not going to be interesting
to play anymore. "What're you playing?" "Lasombra toolbox. You?" "Malkav
toolbox.... My friend here is playing !Malk toolbox." "Ooh... haven't seen
one of those in a while!"
Curevei wrote:
>>People have already brought up playing with more permanents. Note that
playing
more permanents also "defeats" milling strategies.>>
Playing with permanents simply does not make this card less damaging. What are
you going to do with those permanents without transient resources to back them
up? Bleed for 2 with a laptop at zero stealth? Shoot someone for 1 with a .38?
Get Immortally Grappled at close range with your flame thrower 'cause you
couldn't draw a manuver?
Permanents are handy in the face of this card, sure, but will they make you
actually survive being the ass end of this card? No--you are still going to
die, 'cause you still can only take one viable action per turn, permanents or
no.
>>There's also playing more vote in your deck to vote it out of existence. If
everyone has more votes, the chances of a multiplayer effort to get rid of it
increases.>>
Yes--this pushes a currently very varied game environment in a direction where
all decks look the same. All decks must have a lot of votes. All decks must
have mutliple Delaying Tactics. Intercept isn't neccessary, however--this card
is powerful enough that it will always be worth getting torporized to play it.
>>One feature of V:TES I decry at times (though not here) is how much a lot of
good decks completely ignore some of the arenas in the game.>>
Why is that a problem that needs fixing? Every deck that ignores a certain
arena of the game suffers from built in weakness. Not having votes in your
deck, for instance, leaves you vulnerable to vote decks, which up till now was
enough of a penalty. Why do they need to be further punished?
>>For instance, quite a few decks have no votes. WW's long term plan may be to
try and move decks towards toolboxing.>>
Why? So all decks look the same? Every deck has votes, intercept, bleed,
combat, whatever? How is this good? How is it a good idea to take an
environment where countless different strategies are currently viable and
forceably mash them into a mold so that all decks look the same?
>>I've seen sets spoiled a small number of cards at a time before. People
often
think that some card is God's gift to creation when it gets spoiled only to
realize later that the set as a whole changes the game such that it isn't a big
deal. Now, this is a bit of an orphan card, so it's a slightly different
situation. But, it's theoretically possible that players can adapt now and/or,
by the time it comes out in its set, the game will be played differently enough
that the card isn't unbalanced.>>
There is no way for this card to not be unbalanced. The effect (removing from
your prey the ability to redraw cards during their turn, the major engine of
game play, effectively limiting them to 1 effective action per turn) is in no
way justified by the cost (passing a vote and losing one card slot from your
hand). It has nothing to do with adaptation or game play.
This card is in every significant way comperable to Return to Innocence--a card
that had too little of a cost for its massive destabilizing effect. Return to
Innocence was banned from tournament play. Sure, you could defend against
RtI--play with lots of deflections, use Archon Investigation, whatever, but it
was still deemed inappropriate from competetive play, and thus banned.
Yet here we are again, in a very similar situation. How was it that this card
was introduced in the first place?
>>The fact of the matter is, until people show that the card is broken in
actual
play, I don't expect WW to do anything about it nor should they.>>
All you have to do to show that it is broken in play is simply to call it and
pass it. You prey becomes incapable of playing the game, due to one, incredibly
undercosted card.
That WW let this card come into existance (as a *promo* none the less--don't
you remember the madness back when Precidence released Secrets of Success?) is
an absolute travesty.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I've already gotten sick of seeing every single deck packing Wakes.
I'd
> love to see Sleeping Mind (superior) errata'd back to hosing them over. If
> *every* deck has to pack everything, it's just not going to be interesting
> to play anymore. "What're you playing?" "Lasombra toolbox. You?" "Malkav
> toolbox.... My friend here is playing !Malk toolbox." "Ooh... haven't seen
> one of those in a while!"
I'm fairly new to the tournament scene and I was unaware that wakes
worked when sleeping mind was used. I went to WWs site and looked for
official errata on this. I could find no mention of it under either
sleeping mind or wake with evenings freshness. I looked under V:TES
Official Clarifications, Rulings, and Errata on the V:Tes section of
the website. If I missed this ruling could someone tell me where it
is?
thanks.
DOH - Ignore my post. I used the search function like a good boy and
found the appropriate ruling. That said as I understand this ruling
helps bouncers but not anyone who actually wants to block the bleed,
so sleeping mind is still quite viable as far as I'm concerned:
<quote>
The original ruling was:
Subject: Re: More Questions [LSJ]
From: "L. Scott Johnson" <vte...@regency.wizards.com>
Date: 1997/06/03
Message-Id: <33946F...@regency.wizards.com>
[...]
Sleeping Mind does not restrict Wake. It only restricts actual
untapping
(like Guard Dogs/2nd Tradition) and it prevents tapped minions from
blocking (so the Wakes cannot be used to block,
[....]
"swcrusader" <swcru...@crownambassador.com> wrote in message
news:95cd23dc.02020...@posting.google.com...
> DOH - Ignore my post. I used the search function like a good boy and
> found the appropriate ruling. That said as I understand this ruling
> helps bouncers but not anyone who actually wants to block the bleed,
> so sleeping mind is still quite viable as far as I'm concerned:> <quote>
> The original ruling was:> Subject: Re: More Questions [LSJ]
> From: "L. Scott Johnson" <vte...@regency.wizards.com>
> Date: 1997/06/03
> Message-Id: <33946F...@regency.wizards.com>> Sleeping Mind does not restrict Wake. It only restricts actual
> untapping (like Guard Dogs/2nd Tradition) and it prevents tapped
> minions from blocking (so the Wakes cannot be used to block,
Which was deliberately overturned in the 7/7/98 Rules Team Rulings,
quoted here:
"Sleeping Mind:
Cards played after Sleeping Mind are still free to break these rules,
as
always. So while you are provented from untapping (with Rat's
Warning),
for instance, you are not prevented from playing Wake to block - since
Wake allows you to attempt to block "as if untapped", and untapped
vampires can still block the action as normal."
and documented in its entirety here:
http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR7-7.htm
See also the Sabbat War (most recent) card text:
The Sleeping Mind [Sabbat, SW]
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Dominate
Only usable when the acting vampire's action is announced.
[dom] Choose a tapped vampire. The chosen vampire cannot
attempt to block this action.
[DOM] Only usable when the acting vampire's action is
announced. Minions cannot untap during this action.
which is online, here:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Cardlist.html
It should also have been in the Card Migration text, but it is not.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
"swcrusader" <swcru...@crownambassador.com> wrote in message
news:95cd23dc.02020...@posting.google.com...
> I've already gotten sick of seeing every single deck packing Wakes.> I'd
> > love to see Sleeping Mind (superior) errata'd back to hosing them over. If
> > *every* deck has to pack everything, it's just not going to be interesting
> > to play anymore. "What're you playing?" "Lasombra toolbox. You?" "Malkav
> > toolbox.... My friend here is playing !Malk toolbox." "Ooh... haven't seen
> > one of those in a while!"
>
> I'm fairly new to the tournament scene and I was unaware that wakes
> worked when sleeping mind was used. I went to WWs site and looked for
> official errata on this.
That is because the card has been reprinted.
All V:TES cards are to be played by their most recent
card printings (unless errors were made, in which case
they will have errata, or unless they haven't been
reprinted, in which case they will still have errata).
> I could find no mention of it under either
> sleeping mind or wake with evenings freshness. I looked under V:TES
> Official Clarifications, Rulings, and Errata on the V:Tes section of
> the website. If I missed this ruling could someone tell me where it
> is?
In the card text section.
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Cardlist.html
You could also simply look at a copy from Sabbat War.
Current Official Printed Card Text:
The Sleeping Mind [Sabbat, SW]
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Dominate
Only usable when the acting vampire's action is announced.
[dom] Choose a tapped vampire. The chosen vampire cannot attempt
to block this action.
[DOM] Only usable when the acting vampire's action is announced.
Minions cannot untap during this action.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com/rules.htm[ quoted text not captured ]
ka...@xs4all.nl (Pepijn Kok) wrote in message news:<3c6032a8....@newszilla.xs4all.nl>...
> On 05 Feb 2002 19:07:13 GMT, cur...@aol.com (Curevei) wrote:
>
> >I think what WW is trying to do is change the game, probably to keep it from
> >getting stale. Sure, this is conceptually bad if you keep playing the same
> >decks. But, is it bad in the long run if people start building decks
> >differently? Won't know for quite a while
>
>
> I so agree... It's time to get into other types of decks. With
> Bloodlines WW tries to get people to evolve to other kinds of
> strategies and other types of deck construction... basicly Bloodlines
> forces a lot of deck concepts to change and this card again show the
> same.
Is it time to get into other decks?
I agree with the proposition that the game is 'evolving' with
bloodlines. The metagame has surely changed, the introduction of
advanced resource denial (eficient or not), and several game mechanics
(sterile, slave, scarce, infernal), and 'bloodlines' in and of itself
is a change. Fresh blood is wonderful.
But a 'need' for change I cannot really see. Are people still happy
with what they are playing? Are things getting stale? Should new
players be forced to buy into new strategies heavily?
> I think, that with the new Camarilla set coming up we will see a lot
> of new strategies, and I think a boost in political games (hopefully
> with lower cap titled vampires).
>
> The thing I miss a bit at this moment (I have been playing since Jyhad
> arrived in the Netherlands) is contesting and all the backstabbing
> intrigue you needed around the table with the limited resources you
> had... Basicly getting back to the intrigue in the RPG. With all these
> cards WW is getting back to the need to negotiate around table to get
> anything done, and I think that is a good thing... the flip side is
> that games will take longer, and since most tournies have a 2hour
> limit per round this can lead to some frustration... but well.. what's
> wrong with the old "night long game of Jyhad"??
I also miss contesting. Sounds strange, maybe, but when the first set
was out, it was a hell of a lot more likely that you would be
contesting, which made it a game mechanic you HAD to be aware of. Now,
with several 100 vampires, it's much less an issue.
On a tangent: I am still highly curious if the set after Camarilla
will be a 'time of thin blood'. Caitiff and Pander galore. 'Sterile'
already exists as a rule, so....
Tobias
Deventer
The Lasombra wrote:
> The Sleeping Mind [Sabbat, SW]> It should also have been in the Card Migration text, but it is not.
... since the card text change is merely cosmetic - not functional.
--
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/
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C612916...@white-wolf.com...
> The Lasombra wrote:
> > The Sleeping Mind [Sabbat, SW]
> > It should also have been in the Card Migration text, but it is not.
>
> ... since the card text change is merely cosmetic - not functional.
>
But the card text change removes a phrase which is only useless due to a
counter-intuitive ruling. I'm not saying the ruling is wrong, but it's not
what the average person would think if they compared the two cards.
Therefore, with neither Card Migration nor ruling text, some people are left
out in the cold.
Chris Berger wrote:
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3C612916...@white-wolf.com...
> > The Lasombra wrote:
> > > The Sleeping Mind [Sabbat, SW]
> > > It should also have been in the Card Migration text, but it is not.
> >
> > ... since the card text change is merely cosmetic - not functional.
> >
> But the card text change removes a phrase which is only useless due to a
> counter-intuitive ruling.
A clarification, you mean.
Counter-intuitive only in that you expect card text to do something other
than remind you of a standard rule. See the recent thread on Distraction.
Wakey overcomes the standard rule -> it overcomes the restatement of
the standard rule (since restating it doesn't change anything).
> I'm not saying the ruling is wrong, but it's not
> what the average person would think if they compared the two cards.
> Therefore, with neither Card Migration nor ruling text, some people are left
> out in the cold.
OK.
Without internet, some people are "left out in the cold" anyhow (except
for the reprints and access to local princes).
Those with internet have the online card text and google to add to
those resources.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > > > The Sleeping Mind [Sabbat, SW]
> > > > It should also have been in the Card Migration text, but it is not.
> > >
> > > ... since the card text change is merely cosmetic - not functional.
> > >
> > But the card text change removes a phrase which is only useless due to a
> > counter-intuitive ruling.
>
> A clarification, you mean.
> Counter-intuitive only in that you expect card text to do something other
> than remind you of a standard rule. See the recent thread on Distraction.
weeeellll - you know I've been a lurker on the board for a while and I
respect LSJs rulings very highly (he has to put up with a load of
rubbish from some of the more anal posters here) but I have to
disagree with this. Everything about the original text of the card
said to everyone I knew that you couldn't play any sort of wake card
after it had been played. I mostly see this ruling coming as a
realization that this is a powerful card for a discipline that was
already fairly grim.
> Wakey overcomes the standard rule -> it overcomes the restatement of
> the standard rule (since restating it doesn't change anything).
>
Yes, but so does the sleeping mind - since both cards break the rule
how come the wake has precedence over sleeping mind?
> > I'm not saying the ruling is wrong, but it's not
> > what the average person would think if they compared the two cards.
> > Therefore, with neither Card Migration nor ruling text, some people are left
> > out in the cold.
>
> OK.
>
> Without internet, some people are "left out in the cold" anyhow (except
> for the reprints and access to local princes).
>
> Those with internet have the online card text and google to add to
> those resources.
And thats a fair enough observation from both of you. I must say that
the errata does seriously make me wonder why make this card in the
first place. Maybe it should've been part of a different discipline?
swcrusader wrote:
>
> > > > > The Sleeping Mind [Sabbat, SW]
> > > > > It should also have been in the Card Migration text, but it is not.
> > > >
> > > > ... since the card text change is merely cosmetic - not functional.
> > > >
> > > But the card text change removes a phrase which is only useless due to a
> > > counter-intuitive ruling.
> >
> > A clarification, you mean.
> > Counter-intuitive only in that you expect card text to do something other
> > than remind you of a standard rule. See the recent thread on Distraction.
>
> weeeellll - you know I've been a lurker on the board for a while and I
> respect LSJs rulings very highly (he has to put up with a load of
> rubbish from some of the more anal posters here) but I have to
> disagree with this. Everything about the original text of the card
> said to everyone I knew that you couldn't play any sort of wake card
> after it had been played. I mostly see this ruling coming as a
> realization that this is a powerful card for a discipline that was
> already fairly grim.
Actual rule: only untapped minions can block.
Sleeping Mind: tapped minions cannot block.
Wakey: this vampire can block as if untapped.
Result: Wakey "beats" Sleeping Mind.
The counter-intuitiveness only comes from the fact that Sleeping Mind
restated the existsing rule with players expecting card text to add to
the existing ruleset.
Solution: reprint Sleeping Mind so that the portion that merely
restates the existing rule is omitted to avoid such confusion.
Now, this is not to say that the designer(s) of the card didn't
intend for Sleeping Mind to beat Wake. It only says that the execution
of the card (text) failed to do so. The (presumed) intent would
(probably) have been restored if doing so wouldn't (possibly)
unbalance the card. So no errata was issued to achieve "designer
intent".
> > Wakey overcomes the standard rule -> it overcomes the restatement of
> > the standard rule (since restating it doesn't change anything).
> >
> Yes, but so does the sleeping mind - since both cards break the rule
> how come the wake has precedence over sleeping mind?
Card text. The woken vampire is able to block as if untapped.
Sleeping Mind doesn't prevent the vampire from blocking if he were
untapped, so allows Wake to function (just like Wake is allowed to
function in general despite the requirement that the vampire be
untapped to block as stated in the rules).
[ quoted text not captured ]
swcrusader wrote:
> > Wakey overcomes the standard rule -> it overcomes the restatement of
> > the standard rule (since restating it doesn't change anything).
> >
> Yes, but so does the sleeping mind - since both cards break the rule
> how come the wake has precedence over sleeping mind?
Sorry - missed this in my previous response.
The "so does the Sleeping Mind" statement above is in error.
With respect to tapped vampires not being able to block:
Sleeping Mind (Sabbat Printing) restates an existing rule - it doesn't
overcome any rules. It doesn't break any rules.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Steve Wampler" <sjw...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:3C606731...@nyu.edu...
> I never meant to say that it would have *no* effect on the game, that's a
> little harsh. However, it did not "force a lot of deck concepts to
change" as
> Pepijn Kok claimed. Daughter pre-vote, Kiasyd s+b, ahrimane intercept,
are
> all very very similar to existing decks. With the exception of the
> slaughterhouse, all the new cards fit into an existing architype, and the
> "millstone" deck isn't particularly viable(see Peter's comments on some
other
> thread). Sure, the !Salubri have some spiffy cards, but their still
non-IG
> combat. Not a one of my old decks needed to be changed really in any way
to
> remain viable post BL, which was the point I was trying to make in the
first
> place.
OK, that I do agree with. Yeah, so far, Bloodlines hasn't
done anything game-changing enough that tournaments have
had to adapt to new strategies. (Which isn't to say that
this will never happen. It hasn't been that long since
Bloodlines was released...)
And then, tournaments *do* I think had to adapt to new/
different prevalences of particular decktypes due to
Bloodlines. That is, there's an effect not from the
bloodlines clans doing anything substantially new, but
just from the fact that people can make decks out of
them - so now in addition to the "old" combat, bleed,
vote decks people now need to also expect the "new"
ones, and the new/different cards they have to draw on.
It's not a basic-strategy shift but I do think it'll
have (and has had) an effect on the tournament
metagame.
Josh
fouling blood all around
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:20020205190527...@mb-fd.aol.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Or everyone will be contesting the Rack, the Barrens, Elder library, Dreams
of the Sphinx, Kanimana Belghazi, Cassandra, Visit From the Capuchin, ... .
On the upside, Aura reading will be much more useful. And of course, a
well-placed Distraction (say when you only have 2 other cards in your hand)
or Infernal Pursuit can help you out. Everybody start making your aus/cel
decks now!
Still, i have a bad feeling about this one. Ah, well just another reason to
include DI in almost every deck ;-)
Jeroen
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C61413B...@white-wolf.com...
> Chris Berger wrote:
> >
> > But the card text change removes a phrase which is only useless due to a
> > counter-intuitive ruling.
>
> A clarification, you mean.
> Counter-intuitive only in that you expect card text to do something other
> than remind you of a standard rule. See the recent thread on Distraction.
>
When a clarification actually changes the way a card is played (and Sleeping
Mind *did* override Wake before the "clarification" was made, as the intent
of the card was obvious and few people examined it closely enough to see
that *technically* it might not work that way if you read the card just
right), I find it hard to not call it errata, or at least a ruling.
> Without internet, some people are "left out in the cold" anyhow (except
> for the reprints and access to local princes).
>
> Those with internet have the online card text and google to add to
> those resources.
>
Then why have rulings list and Card Migrations list at all? People can just
read every single card's text and search google for rulings on every single
card, whether a question comes up on it or not.
The rulings and migrations lists are resources for finding out what's
changed. It's even reasonable to print them out and have them as a resource
for those without internet access (haven't met a VTES player yet who doesn't
but I'm sure there are a number of them out there). It's not reasonable to
print out USENET. At some point, there was a clarification in the rulings
list that said that Sleeping Mind (sup) did not prevent a minion from Waking
and blocking. Then, the text was changed to reflect this, and the
clarification was removed. For some reason, the text change was not added
to the Card Migrations. Sure, the effect is the same as it used to be, but
now all trace of that effect has vanished, for anyone who doesn't have a new
copy of the card (there would not normally be any reason to search google
for rulings on the card... if there hasn't been any change to card text or
any ruling on a card, then it must play as written, right?).
Wouldn't it make things more clear if there were either:
a) Card Migration text that said something like "extra line removed, as it
was ruled to have no effect"., OR
b) a "ruling" that said something like "tapped minions who are allowed to
block "as though untapped" are not prevented from blocking by the superior
line. The most recent printing reflects this."
Chris Berger wrote:
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3C61413B...@white-wolf.com...
> > Chris Berger wrote:
> > >
> > > But the card text change removes a phrase which is only useless due to a
> > > counter-intuitive ruling.
> >
> > A clarification, you mean.
> > Counter-intuitive only in that you expect card text to do something other
> > than remind you of a standard rule. See the recent thread on Distraction.
> >
> When a clarification actually changes the way a card is played (and Sleeping
> Mind *did* override Wake before the "clarification" was made, as the intent
> of the card was obvious and few people examined it closely enough to see
> that *technically* it might not work that way if you read the card just
> right), I find it hard to not call it errata, or at least a ruling.
If people play the card incorrectly, that doesn't mean correcting them (not
the card) is errata. Clarifying card text (without changing the actual effect
of card text) is clarification, plain and simple.
[ quoted text not captured ]
The Emperor wrote:
> I´ve been thinking the exact same thing for quite a while as far as I see it> it MoS hampers some decks but not at all to the point of not being able to
> play at all as many poeple here seem to think.
>> How many of your decks routinely use more than 7 cards during your turn?
None, usually.
However, just about every stealth-bleed deck relies on *redrawing* more stealth
and/or bleed during its turn, just about every intercept-combat deck relies on
*redrawing* more intercept and/or combat during someone else's turn, just about
every rush-combat deck relies on *redrawing* extra rush actions and/or combat
cards during its own turn...
Mmh, that's three deck archetypes that suddenly have to worry about a new
"political action: loose the ability to play the game" card, and only one of
them clearly should be able to stop it from getting played under its own power.
Thomas