Hi everybody , my name is Fred , I m french and I play Vampire since
Dark sovereign , I play for the moment a Tzemice deck & I d like to know
when I can use My couple of reform Body ? During Combat ? If someone
diablerize my Dragos (I love this Guy ) , & the retainer who where on
him are they still on him after this ?
Thanxsssss...............
[ quoted text not captured ]
Reform Body (since it is a combat card *and* a reaction card) can only
be played when:
It is not your turn (reaction).
The playing vampire is not controlled by the controller of the acting
vampire (reaction).
The playing vampire is untapped (reaction) and in combat (combat) and being
burned (card text).
The Reformed vampire keeps all the cards and blood that were on him.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
: Charpentier Frederic wrote:
: >
: > Hi everybody , my name is Fred , I m french and I play Vampire since
: > Dark sovereign , I play for the moment a Tzemice deck & I d like to know
: > when I can use My couple of reform Body ? During Combat ? If someone
: > diablerize my Dragos (I love this Guy ) , & the retainer who where on
: > him are they still on him after this ?
: > Thanxsssss...............: Reform Body (since it is a combat card *and* a reaction card) can only
: be played when:: It is not your turn (reaction).
: The playing vampire is not controlled by the controller of the acting
: vampire (reaction).
: The playing vampire is untapped (reaction) and in combat (combat) and being
: burned (card text).
Hi LSJ,
Maybe I'm incorrect to be taking issue with this, but I had been under the
impression that cards that have 2 symbols on them are usable as both kinds
rather than as either kind. The initial precedent, Ritual of the Bitter
Rose, is action modifier/combat, and as far as I know has always been usable
whenever you diablerize a vampire either in combat or when acting.
The other Sabbat combat/X cards seem to work the same way - for example the
obfuscate stealth/maneuver card; it's stealth if you use one version of it,
and in that case usable only if you're acting, but as a maneuver it should
be usable even if it's not your turn.
Is that all wrong?
Josh
...and then I play ritual of the bitter rose on the rules team...
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
> : Reform Body (since it is a combat card *and* a reaction card) can only
> : be played when:
>
> : It is not your turn (reaction).
> : The playing vampire is not controlled by the controller of the acting
> : vampire (reaction).
> : The playing vampire is untapped (reaction) and in combat (combat) and being
> : burned (card text).
>> Maybe I'm incorrect to be taking issue with this, but I had been under the
Not at all, I had the same impression when I first saw the card.
> impression that cards that have 2 symbols on them are usable as both kinds
> rather than as either kind. The initial precedent, Ritual of the Bitter
> Rose, is action modifier/combat, and as far as I know has always been usable
> whenever you diablerize a vampire either in combat or when acting.
>
> The other Sabbat combat/X cards seem to work the same way - for example the
> obfuscate stealth/maneuver card; it's stealth if you use one version of it,
> and in that case usable only if you're acting, but as a maneuver it should
> be usable even if it's not your turn.
>
> Is that all wrong?
No. What these cards have that Reform Body doesn't is card text saying
that they can be used as one type *or* another. In the absence of
such card text (Reform Body), the card would be used as both types
(simultaneously).
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
[LSJ wrote, that Reform Body is only usable when:]
: > : It is not your turn (reaction).
: > : The playing vampire is not controlled by the controller of the acting
: > : vampire (reaction).
: > : The playing vampire is untapped (reaction) and in combat (combat) and being
: > : burned (card text).: >
[I asked why this didn't apply to the other combat/type X cards..]
: No. What these cards have that Reform Body doesn't is card text saying: that they can be used as one type *or* another. In the absence of
: such card text (Reform Body), the card would be used as both types
: (simultaneously).
Hmmmmm. Well, I see your point that Reform Body doesn't have the text that
some of the type X/type Y cards do - example: Rapid Change. Protean: 1
blood: This card can be played as an action modifier or a combat card.
inferior: +1 stealth superior: strike:combat ends. Reform Body, by contrast:
combat/reaction. Vicissitude: inferior: only usable when this reacting
vampire is burned; he or she is sent into torpor instead. superior: As above,
and the vampire gains 2 blood from the blood bank.
But Ritual of the Bitter Rose, the original card that could be used as two
types (as far as I know), reads (on the jyhad version, I don't have a VTES
copy): combat/action modifier:
All your ready vampires gain the amount of blood from the blood bank that is
on a vampire you are destroying by diablerie. Usable in combat if an enemy
is burned. Bloodhunt may only be called on the vampire who commited [sic]
the diablerie.
Maybe the VTES card is worded differently, but by the Reform Body argument,
this card is only usable by an acting vampire and only if the opposing
vampire is being diablerized (the "usable in combat if an enemy is burned"
text doesn't override the "vampire you are destroying by diablerie" text, it
only allows you to play the card in combat; therefore a punch for 1/wolf
claws/decapitate/ritual combo will not work). Also, the "bloodhunt may
only be called" part is unnecessary reminder text - you can never call a
bloodhunt on a vampire that's not committing diablerie, and Ritual doesn't
say anything about the other vampires being considered diabolists.
Reform Body is worded rather poorly, but I'd far rather see errata to it
to make it work well rather than rulings that make it completely useless -
if you have to be a reacting vampire in combat being burned, it will
basically only work if you are Bum's Rushed and don't block and end up
being burned. That's awfully narrow.
Josh
"the rules team diablerizes me? ha! I play reform body! what do you mean,
you can only use it if you're untapped??"
: --[ quoted text not captured ]
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> Hmmmmm. Well, I see your point that Reform Body doesn't have the text that
> some of the type X/type Y cards do - example: Rapid Change. Protean: 1
> blood: This card can be played as an action modifier or a combat card.
> inferior: +1 stealth superior: strike:combat ends. Reform Body, by contrast:
> combat/reaction. Vicissitude: inferior: only usable when this reacting
> vampire is burned; he or she is sent into torpor instead. superior: As above,
> and the vampire gains 2 blood from the blood bank.
>
> But Ritual of the Bitter Rose, the original card that could be used as two
> types (as far as I know), reads (on the jyhad version, I don't have a VTES
> copy): combat/action modifier:
>
> All your ready vampires gain the amount of blood from the blood bank that is
> on a vampire you are destroying by diablerie. Usable in combat if an enemy
> is burned. Bloodhunt may only be called on the vampire who commited [sic]
> the diablerie.
>
> Maybe the VTES card is worded differently,
It is. Now, Ritual of the Bitter Rose is also only usable as a
Combat card *and* an Action Modifier, and only usable when the
opposing vampire is diablerized (not merely burned) in combat:
Ritual of the Bitter Rose
Action modifier / Combat
This card is both an action modifier card and a combat card.
Only usable in combat if an opposing vampire is diablerized. Each ready vampire
you control gains an amount of blood from the blood bank equal to the amount of
blood on the burned vampire. Blood Hunt can only be called on the vampire who
committed the diablerie.
> but by the Reform Body argument,
> this card is only usable by an acting vampire and only if the opposing
> vampire is being diablerized (the "usable in combat if an enemy is burned"
> text doesn't override the "vampire you are destroying by diablerie" text, it
> only allows you to play the card in combat; therefore a punch for 1/wolf
> claws/decapitate/ritual combo will not work).
Correct.
> Also, the "bloodhunt may
> only be called" part is unnecessary reminder text - you can never call a
> bloodhunt on a vampire that's not committing diablerie, and Ritual doesn't
> say anything about the other vampires being considered diabolists.
Correct. But that's always been reminder text - no matter how you
fiddle with the mechanics of the card.
> Reform Body is worded rather poorly, but I'd far rather see errata to it
> to make it work well rather than rulings that make it completely useless -
> if you have to be a reacting vampire in combat being burned, it will
> basically only work if you are Bum's Rushed and don't block and end up
> being burned. That's awfully narrow.
Correct (or, you could use it if you didn't tap and/or untapped on the
block - with Cat's Guidance or Justine, etc. - or in conjunction with
Wakey).
Errata is not currently being issued to make "useless" cards useful.
This is intentional on the part of the RT.
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
: Joshua Duffin wrote:
: > Maybe the VTES card is worded differently,: It is. Now, Ritual of the Bitter Rose is also only usable as a
: Combat card *and* an Action Modifier, and only usable when the
: opposing vampire is diablerized (not merely burned) in combat:: Ritual of the Bitter Rose
: Action modifier / Combat
: This card is both an action modifier card and a combat card.
: Only usable in combat if an opposing vampire is diablerized. Each ready vampire
: you control gains an amount of blood from the blood bank equal to the amount of
: blood on the burned vampire. Blood Hunt can only be called on the vampire who
: committed the diablerie.
So this wording indicates that Ritual is usable (1) if you're diablerizing
as an action, and also (2) if you're diablerizing in combat while you were
an acting minion? Or only (2)? It's certainly a rewording though.
: > Reform Body is worded rather poorly, but I'd far rather see errata to it: > to make it work well rather than rulings that make it completely useless -
: > if you have to be a reacting vampire in combat being burned, it will
: > basically only work if you are Bum's Rushed and don't block and end up
: > being burned. That's awfully narrow.: Correct (or, you could use it if you didn't tap and/or untapped on the
: block - with Cat's Guidance or Justine, etc. - or in conjunction with
: Wakey).: Errata is not currently being issued to make "useless" cards useful.
: This is intentional on the part of the RT.
Well, the thing is, I'm inclined to see this less as making useless cards
useful (eg Arcanum Investigator) as it is errataing a card to work as it was
intended (eg Hidden Lurker). A naive reading of Reform Body is liable to
yield the conclusion that it can be played any time the Reforming vampire is
burned by any cause, and the less discerning players might also forget that
it can't be played from torpor or while tapped as a reaction card. But it
certainly looks to me like the card was meant to at least be usable in the
same ways that the Sabbat action mod/combat cards are usable.
Not to be offensive, but it surprises me that a Rules Team even exists for
VTES any more. Wizards doesn't seem interested in producing any more
expansions for the game in the foreseeable future; they don't cover it in
The Duelist; there's not even much in the way of updates on their web page.
Yet they pay people to meet at least once a week to make rulings on the game?
Rulings that seem completely unresponsive to what the players on the net
want? Who exactly is meant to be served by this Rules Team? I don't know
how anyone *not* on the net could be getting current RT rulings, so I can't
understand why they would be trying to cater to those (evidently presumed
less sophisticated) players over those on the net. But clearly they're not
trying to respond to what we newsgroup players are looking for. Maybe I'm
just getting disillusioned by what seem to be progressively deteriorating
rulings emanating from the Team, I don't know. Or maybe it's just that none
of the expansions (not even the VTES release of the game) have been as well
balanced as the original Jyhad set, and it's finally gotten to me. Well
anyway, sorry to spout off like this at you, LSJ; it's not you that I'm
upset with.
Josh
...considering the possibility of staging a coup and instating some actual
Jyhad players as the new Rules Team...
: --[ quoted text not captured ]
Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
> : Joshua Duffin wrote:
> : > Maybe the VTES card is worded differently,
>
> : It is. Now, Ritual of the Bitter Rose is also only usable as a
> : Combat card *and* an Action Modifier, and only usable when the
> : opposing vampire is diablerized (not merely burned) in combat:
>
> : Ritual of the Bitter Rose
> : Action modifier / Combat
> : This card is both an action modifier card and a combat card.
> : Only usable in combat if an opposing vampire is diablerized. Each ready vampire
> : you control gains an amount of blood from the blood bank equal to the amount of
> : blood on the burned vampire. Blood Hunt can only be called on the vampire who
> : committed the diablerie.
>
> So this wording indicates that Ritual is usable (1) if you're diablerizing
> as an action, and also (2) if you're diablerizing in combat while you were
> an acting minion? Or only (2)? It's certainly a rewording though.
It looks like the intention was (1) or (2) or (3): in combat when you
are not the acting minion, but that the wording in lteral form (with
the ruling on Reform Body) yields only (2).
And, since intentions are not considered any more when issuing errata,
just (2) is what it shall remain.
> : Errata is not currently being issued to make "useless" cards useful.
> : This is intentional on the part of the RT.
>
> Well, the thing is, I'm inclined to see this less as making useless cards
> useful (eg Arcanum Investigator) as it is errataing a card to work as it was
> intended (eg Hidden Lurker).
Hidden Lurker errata came when the rules for issuing errata were
looser. "Work as intended" is no longer a consideration, as shown
by the lack of errata on Code of Milan Suspended.
> Not to be offensive, but it surprises me that a Rules Team even exists for> VTES any more. [...] Maybe I'm> just getting disillusioned by what seem to be progressively deteriorating
> rulings emanating from the Team, I don't know. Or maybe it's just that none
> of the expansions (not even the VTES release of the game) have been as well
> balanced as the original Jyhad set, and it's finally gotten to me. Well
> anyway, sorry to spout off like this at you, LSJ; it's not you that I'm
> upset with.
No problem. It's always nice to hear from players who are concerned for
the game. But, and not to accuse, merely observing that there is a problem
is not very useful, from a WotC point of view. But solutions which are
feasible from a business standpoint are hard to come by, I know.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Joshua Duffin wrote:
<big snip>
> Yet they pay people to meet at least once a week to make rulings on the game?
Once a week? generous...
> Rulings that seem completely unresponsive to what the players on the net
> want? Who exactly is meant to be served by this Rules Team? I don't know
> how anyone *not* on the net could be getting current RT rulings, so I can't
> understand why they would be trying to cater to those (evidently presumed
> less sophisticated) players over those on the net. But clearly they're not> trying to respond to what we newsgroup players are looking for. Maybe I'm> just getting disillusioned by what seem to be progressively deteriorating
> rulings emanating from the Team, I don't know. Or maybe it's just that none
> of the expansions (not even the VTES release of the game) have been as well
> balanced as the original Jyhad set, and it's finally gotten to me. Well
> anyway, sorry to spout off like this at you, LSJ; it's not you that I'm
> upset with.
>> Josh
>
> ...considering the possibility of staging a coup and instating some actual
> Jyhad players as the new Rules Team...
While I think you are becoming disillusioned, its perfectly reasonable.
Your points are right on the money, through LSJ we have good contact
with the latest 'state' of the errata and rulings, and people without
access to this mailing list and email simply have no access, as I didnt
up until a month ago.
If the rules team aren't here to repond to us then what are they doing?
Some kind of bizzarre Richard Garfield worship ceremonies? Whose vision
of how the game works are they following? Should we have a say in it?
(Rules Team member shouts 'This isnt a democracy son!') Do WoTC actually
give a rats-butt about their customers? Or do they have their heads
*expletive deleted*? We should all vent some steam, its healthy.
Its getting to the stage where Im just simply not going to use the
latest errata verbatim. I will go through and decide for myself what to
use and what not to use. Sad.
Kind of on this point, I went to the WoTC page and got the DCI rules
for jyhad, these dont mention the NRA rule. I went to The Corrupters
page and got the SPTR (sensible players tournament rules), which
features the 2 golden tennants of jyhad. I then went to his deck archive
and noticed that mailing list notables like Peter Bajika, James Hamblin,
Robert Goudie use these golden tennants, what do you use at tournaments?
Now I have been convinced of the extreme good taste of the SPTR, but I
was wondering what the official take was on tournament rules?
Of course, given what I said above, it really isnt that big an issue,
you just decide for yourself.
James B.
Josh equips with a bomb and takes a D action at the rules team, waiting
till they were tapped so they couldnt play reform body. (??????????)
"L. Scott Johnson" <vte...@regency.wizards.com> wrote:
> Hidden Lurker errata came when the rules for issuing errata were
> looser. "Work as intended" is no longer a consideration, as shown
> by the lack of errata on Code of Milan Suspended.
How dispiriting. I realize that you probably argue vehemently for sensible
RT rulings, but I have to express my aggravation. As I understand it,
the rationale for the RT's "errata only for overpowered cards" is to
"minimize the amount of errata that regular players have to know". I
imagine that the reasoning is that less errata makes the game more playable
and thereby more popular. Has the RT considered that making scores of
cards wallpaper is likely to piss off the average gamer? And disgust them?
Hardly likely to boost the game's popularity.
I could perhaps sympathize if we were talking about radical errata to a
card -- we're not. We're talking trivial errata for cards such as Code
of Milan Suspended (Meth who has edge when vote is _called_) and Reform
Body (two type symbols defaults to _"or"_ if no overriding card text).
Do the people on the RT even play VTES as their primary game? Or is it
"yeah I played a game back in December"? How could you make their recent
ruling on stealth for unblocked actions if you care about the game at all?
Sorry Scott, I know you care.
---
Eric Pettersen
pe...@diderot.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
: Joshua Duffin wrote:
: >: > Not to be offensive, but it surprises me that a Rules Team even exists for
: > VTES any more. [...] Maybe I'm: > just getting disillusioned by what seem to be progressively deteriorating
: > rulings emanating from the Team, I don't know. Or maybe it's just that none
: > of the expansions (not even the VTES release of the game) have been as well
: > balanced as the original Jyhad set, and it's finally gotten to me. Well
: > anyway, sorry to spout off like this at you, LSJ; it's not you that I'm
: > upset with.: No problem. It's always nice to hear from players who are concerned for: the game. But, and not to accuse, merely observing that there is a problem
: is not very useful, from a WotC point of view. But solutions which are
: feasible from a business standpoint are hard to come by, I know.
Well, I can certainly understand that. But what solutions *are* feasible
from a business standpoint? I don't feel that I have any information on
what Wizards considers feasible - do you? Does anyone? (serious request -
if we knew what's feasible, maybe we can try to come up with some real
solutions.)
But admitting that there's a problem is a good first step, don't you think?
Josh
...oh, de agony of denial...
James B. Floate (jfl...@tpgi.com.au) wrote:
: Kind of on this point, I went to the WoTC page and got the DCI rules: for jyhad, these dont mention the NRA rule. I went to The Corrupters
: page and got the SPTR (sensible players tournament rules), which
: features the 2 golden tennants of jyhad. I then went to his deck archive
: and noticed that mailing list notables like Peter Bajika, James Hamblin,
: Robert Goudie use these golden tennants, what do you use at tournaments?
: Now I have been convinced of the extreme good taste of the SPTR, but I
: was wondering what the official take was on tournament rules?
: Of course, given what I said above, it really isnt that big an issue,
: you just decide for yourself.
Well, I'm sure Peter and James are flattered to be "mailing list notables"
(both are in my play group). Yeah, we use the so-called Golden Tenets here;
we have for something like a year now, ever since we gave up our four-card-
limit ways.
I don't know if what you found was the most current DCI rules or not - it's
my understanding that the current DCI is basically no card limits, no repeat
actions, and a vote-push fix that involves not replacing political-action-
cards burned for votes until the end of the current (turn or minion phase, I
forget which), with a banned list that includes Monocle of Clarity, the ante
cards, and the paralyze cards. That was what we used at the UBCon tournament
(University of Buffalo) a few weeks ago; it's not what we use locally. Our
banned list is a little different (and probably more extensive) and we also
have errata-ed a number of cards that we consider broken. But we aren't
exactly playing tournaments.
Josh
...hell with the bomb, I think a nice femur of toomler would be more
appropriate...
James B. Floate wrote:
[Many comments to which it is not my place to offer opinion]
> Kind of on this point, I went to the WoTC page and got the DCI rules
> for jyhad, these dont mention the NRA rule.http://www.wizards.com/Leagues_and_Tournaments/DCI/VTES_Rules.html
includes the NRA rule (under section IV:SPECIAL FLOOR RULES)
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> James B. Floate wrote:
>
> [Many comments to which it is not my place to offer opinion]
:) Very diplomatic LSJ.
> http://www.wizards.com/Leagues_and_Tournaments/DCI/VTES_Rules.html
>
> includes the NRA rule (under section IV:SPECIAL FLOOR RULES)
>
Thanks. Always read the fine print.
La la la,
James B.
James B. Floate wrote:
> James B.
>
> Josh equips with a bomb and takes a D action at the rules team, waiting
> till they were tapped so they couldnt play reform body. (??????????)
can a tapped vampire in combat being burned during someone else's turn
play a wakey and then a reform body?
watch out, the rules team might try that one.....
salem christ.....
salem christ.... wrote:
> James B. Floate wrote:> > Josh equips with a bomb and takes a D action at the rules team, waiting
> > till they were tapped so they couldnt play reform body. (??????????)
>
> can a tapped vampire in combat being burned during someone else's turn
> play a wakey and then a reform body?
>
> watch out, the rules team might try that one.....
Yes, you can play a Wakey to play Reform body.
I didn't use to think that Reaction cards were playable in combat,
but the ruling on Reform Body clearly shows that they are.
[ quoted text not captured ]
salem christ.... wrote:
> can a tapped vampire in combat being burned during someone else's turn
> play a wakey and then a reform body?
>
> watch out, the rules team might try that one.....
>> salem christ.....
Heh, they might at that. I think that the answer is no, unless you pull
out the Thick Black Texter (TM) and draw a combat symbol on WWEF.
However, the rules team might tap Heidelberg Castle to allow them to
issue errata while in combat and change reform body back to a useful
card. A difficult target.
James B.
'Such friends as the Butcher and Beaver became,
have seldom if ever been known,
In winter or summer it was always the same,
you could never meet either alone.'
Lewis Carrol, The Hunting of the Snark