Return from Torpor

Good Evening, It has been a very long time since I've walked among the world of darkness. Nearing the beginning of the fall I was suddenly swamped with work from launching my second business while simultaneously receiving a boon of tuition funds to put me through film school. Needless to say, everything else in my life fell by the wayside. But I certainly missed Vtes, it was always a great love of mine. Now I'm getting refreshed again on the empire and it's status. When I attempted to load the Madness Network, however, I was told the url doesn't exist. Another disturbing discovery, the wizards site didn't carry it's own link to the new "updated rulebook". I don't have the rulemonger website url at eh moment, so I have no idea what -- if any -- more errata has been released. On the plus side, however, I was able to download the statistics from Mike B's web site on the Vtes poll we did a while back. I had always wondered how that turned out. So to the objective iconnu, I have but a few questions: How is Vtes doing? How are the retail sales looking? Is the organized support increasing or decreasing? I know the Crusade series was just completed, how was the response? Is there going to be any further expansions or promo cards? I'm thankful that we have such advances as the internet to reacquaint us with knowledge and information -- I've certainly been out of touch for a while. Sincerely, Dave the Romantic -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

In article <76mle2$pr8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Rmtc...@aol.com wrote: > Good Evening, > > It has been a very long time since I've walked among the world of darkness. Welcome back. > So to the objective iconnu, I have but a few questions: > > How is Vtes doing? Fairly well in Austin, but too few new players stay with the game. > How are the retail sales looking? Non-existent except over the net (in Austin). > Is the organized support increasing or decreasing? Never noticed any "organized" support. We did get prize support for our last Crusade though. > I know the Crusade series was just completed, how was the response? No new players, mostly players that were already in contact with my main group (in Austin). > Is there going to be any further expansions or promo cards? There are once again rumors of both to come out in the summer of 1999. These rumors remain unconfirmed. > I'm thankful that we have such advances as the internet to reacquaint us with > knowledge and information -- I've certainly been out of touch for a while. Depending on how long you have been gone, you might want to search for the 9/28/98 Rules Team Rulings archived on DejaNews and at: http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra/RTR9-28.htm The Updated Rulebook is listed on WOTC's site at: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.pdf it is also archived at http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra/VTES_Rules.pdf and it is also archived there as the plain text that LSJ posted at: http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra/revised_rules.htm Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

Rmtc...@aol.com wrote: > Good Evening, > > It has been a very long time since I've walked among the world of darkness. > Nearing the beginning of the fall I was suddenly swamped with work from > launching my second business while simultaneously receiving a boon of tuition > funds to put me through film school. Needless to say, everything else in my > life fell by the wayside. But I certainly missed Vtes, it was always a great > love of mine. Welcome back, Dave. > Now I'm getting refreshed again on the empire and it's status. When I > attempted to load the Madness Network, however, I was told the url doesn't > exist. Hmmm. It was up before the holidays, but it seems to be gone now. I don't know what happened there. > Another disturbing discovery, the wizards site didn't carry it's own > link to the new "updated rulebook". It's available from the wizard's website under the "rules" section (if it's not still on the opening page, where it has been for the last few months). It is in PDF only. For a text version, see the USENET post archived on DejaNews(TM): http://beta5.dejanews.com/=dnt_fg/getdoc.xp?AN=399007475 > I don't have the rulemonger website url > at eh moment, so I have no idea what -- if any -- more errata has been > released. http://Rulemonger.Home.ML.Org The errata can be found on DejaNews as well - just search this group for posts with subject: "Team & Ruling*" > On the plus side, however, I was able to download the statistics from Mike > B's web site on the Vtes poll we did a while back. I had always wondered how > that turned out. > > So to the objective iconnu, I have but a few questions: > > How is Vtes doing? Better. See below. > How are the retail sales looking? With no new products on retail (and therefore no coherent sales statistics), this is a difficult question to address responsibly. > Is the organized support increasing or decreasing? Increasing, as far as I can tell. > I know the Crusade series was just completed, how was the response? Unknown. > Is there going to be any further expansions or promo cards? Yes. New cards are being developed. They should be released some time this year. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 05:32:30 -0800, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> said: LSJ> Yes. New cards are being developed. They should be released some LSJ> time this year. Here's wishing we'll see some more vampires so that some of the seriously vampire-wise lacking clans can finally work on their own (Assamites come to mind, but the Settites and most of the Sabbat clans could also use a boost in membership). A "tap to give 1 life to an ally" location is also on the wishlist :) //Petri

In article <7xr9tab...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi>, Petri Wessman <or...@termiitti.akumiitti.fi> writes >Here's wishing we'll see some more vampires so that some of the >seriously vampire-wise lacking clans can finally work on their own >(Assamites come to mind, but the Settites and most of the Sabbat clans >could also use a boost in membership). > >A "tap to give 1 life to an ally" location is also on the wishlist :) See http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~justinf/jyhad/ for a lot of cards, designed for use with the group over JOL, including similar to those you mention. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <3690C2...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > Rmtc...@aol.com wrote: > > Is there going to be any further expansions or promo cards? > > Yes. New cards are being developed. They should be released some > time this year. Do you (or does anyone else) know how the new cards will be distributed? My understanding is that there will probably be a relatively small number of cards (probably more than two, but fewer than a hundred), so it seems unlikely that they would be marketed as an 'expansion set' with randomly sorted packs, but it's not impossible... So, are we expecting the new cards to be released as promos, or sold in fixed packs, or something else entirely? Josh back from vacation almost defended the honor of the brujah pot/cel rush combat deck but was unfortunately unable to finish the game (eight players at once, what a bad idea; two four-player games is almost always preferable if you ask me) [ quoted text not captured ]

> >A "tap to give 1 life to an ally" location is also on the wishlist :) > See http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~justinf/jyhad/ > for a lot of cards, designed for use with the group over JOL, including > similar to those you mention. I really, *really* like those cards. It would be more than cool if WotC printed those cards. Sucks that it'll never happen, though. :( My kudos to whoever participated in creating them! a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <76tr5k$mnp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: [snip] > My understanding is that there will probably be a relatively small > number of cards (probably more than two, but fewer than a hundred), so > it seems unlikely that they would be marketed as an 'expansion set' > with randomly sorted packs, but it's not impossible... So, are we That seems like the easiest manner for them to do it, but then again, I'm not a marketing-type guy...I'd just bill it as a mini-expansion... > almost defended the honor of the brujah pot/cel rush combat deck What do you mean almost? You did quite well, beating up on a poor little Raptor deck. :P > but was unfortunately unable to finish the game (eight players at > once, what a bad idea; two four-player games is almost always > preferable if you ask me) I think you're right...but I'm not (really) organizing them...yet...I just show up and take directions right now...but now that I've got a mid-sized phone list...hehehe. But I sure could have used you after you left for support on the wild variety of foolish rules arguments that erupted. Sigh...as MIke (the host) put it, one of the groups likes to argue a lot more than his regular group... Xian, I mean really...who cares whether or not the additional (non-damage) effects of a strike are applied during the current phase before damage resolution or not when the whole crux of the argument is that Bonecraft *specifically states* it doesn't apply to that strike (post-erratta, or round pre-erratta)? And how does this ruling make the Tzimisce any better or worse off? It's not like there are lots of strikes that have additional effects that are abusive... "they look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain lion on crack" --greensea [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <76u4vi$5m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > In article <76tr5k$mnp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > almost defended the honor of the brujah pot/cel rush combat deck > > What do you mean almost? You did quite well, beating up on a poor little > Raptor deck. :P Heh. I beat up on that Followers of Set deck that was my predator, too... > But I sure could have used you after you left for support on the wild variety > of foolish rules arguments that erupted. Sigh...as MIke (the host) put it, > one of the groups likes to argue a lot more than his regular group... Sheesh, I guess so, if they actually argued about how Bonecraft would work if it didn't say what it does. (it seems clear, by the way, that non-damage effects of a strike will never usefully apply to the current strike phase (unless First Strike is involved, of course), since strikes always resolve simultaneously.) Josh keep up the good work... and while you're reviving the MN jyhad scene and converting people from 4cl, you might as well get them all familiar with the actual current rules and errata at the same time... ^_- [ quoted text not captured ]

jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > New cards are being developed. They should be released some > > time this year. > > Do you (or does anyone else) know how the new cards will be distributed? I have no additional information, sorry. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > (it seems clear, by the way, that non-damage effects of a strike will never > usefully apply to the current strike phase (unless First Strike is involved, > of course), since strikes always resolve simultaneously.) Except for the few Thaumaturgy strikes that make the opponent's weapon strikes do no damage: Blood Fury, Blood Rage, Soul Burn. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <76vu7b$i1q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > (it seems clear, by the way, that non-damage effects of a strike will never > > usefully apply to the current strike phase (unless First Strike is involved, > > of course), since strikes always resolve simultaneously.) > > Except for the few Thaumaturgy strikes that make the opponent's > weapon strikes do no damage: Blood Fury, Blood Rage, Soul Burn. Right. (Although the most recent ruling I see on a quick check of Soul Burn says that it *doesn't* work on the current opposing strike.) So now I have to ask: Why *do* those ones work? My guess is that their non-damage effect ('If victim attempts to strike with a weapon this round, victim does no damage'), while applied simultaneously with an opposing weapon strike, ends up taking effect before damage is *resolved*, and so the weapon strike results in no damage. If that's the proper explanation, though, I'm not sure why Soul Burn wouldn't also work on the current opposing strike. ('For the remainder of this round, the opposing minion cannot inflict damage with weapons.') The remainder of the round should include the current damage resolution step, which does follow the strike resolution I think. Or maybe I'm just off-base in my understanding of how non-damage effects work and strikes resolve. Josh [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Except for the few Thaumaturgy strikes that make the opponent's > > weapon strikes do no damage: Blood Fury, Blood Rage, Soul Burn. > > Right. (Although the most recent ruling I see on a quick check of > Soul Burn says that it *doesn't* work on the current opposing strike.) > So now I have to ask: Why *do* those ones work? Blood Fury - Combat (tha) (1) Blood Fury doesn't protect the target from taking damage from a weapon strike, since "inflict" has been ruled to mean "inflict on the opposing minion/retainer". So side-effect damage from a Bomb, Zip Gun, etc. is unaffected by Blood Fury. [LSJ 980216] Joshua, I believe means that I can't use Soul Burn to protect myself from my own weapon strikes...and that makes sense. I don't believe this was intended to have any effect on weapon strikes from the opposing minion. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <770lgm$8rj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > In article <76vu7b$i1q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > > (it seems clear, by the way, that non-damage effects of a strike will never > > > usefully apply to the current strike phase (unless First Strike is involved, > > > of course), since strikes always resolve simultaneously.) > > > > Except for the few Thaumaturgy strikes that make the opponent's > > weapon strikes do no damage: Blood Fury, Blood Rage, Soul Burn. > > Right. (Although the most recent ruling I see on a quick check of > Soul Burn says that it *doesn't* work on the current opposing strike.) Oops. Right. Sould Burn uses a different template that the other two. (Though why it does I don't know - having the effect apply only to additional strikes in the current round is fairly useless - I'll check on that.) > So now I have to ask: Why *do* those ones work? My guess is that their > non-damage effect ('If victim attempts to strike with a weapon this round, > victim does no damage'), while applied simultaneously with an opposing > weapon strike, ends up taking effect before damage is *resolved*, and > so the weapon strike results in no damage. VTES template: "If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage." Not that anything really changes there. Your explanation is good enough. The strike (Blood Rage/Fury) cancels the opposing weapon strike's damage just as a Dodge cancels the opposing strike's effect on the dodger. > If that's the proper explanation, though, I'm not sure why Soul Burn > wouldn't also work on the current opposing strike. ('For the remainder > of this round, the opposing minion cannot inflict damage with weapons.') > The remainder of the round should include the current damage resolution > step, which does follow the strike resolution I think. It's a matter of when the "remainder of this round" begins. See the article cited in the ruling on Soul Burn: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=324802124 -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <772d37$nm5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > In article <770lgm$8rj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > So now I have to ask: Why *do* [Blood Fury/Rage] work? My guess is that > > their > > non-damage effect ('If victim attempts to strike with a weapon this round, > > victim does no damage'), while applied simultaneously with an opposing > > weapon strike, ends up taking effect before damage is *resolved*, and > > so the weapon strike results in no damage. > > VTES template: "If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this > round, he or she does no damage." Not that anything really changes there. > > Your explanation is good enough. The strike (Blood Rage/Fury) cancels > the opposing weapon strike's damage just as a Dodge cancels the opposing > strike's effect on the dodger. I guess I'm not clear on why Blood Rage/Fury takes effect during the current strike resolution, but Soul Burn doesn't - even with the wording difference. If the Rage/Fury effect is part of the strike's effect, isn't it implemented at the same time as Soul Burn's effect would be? And if so, why doesn't 'remainder of the round' include 'the damage resolution step that comes right after this strike resolves'? I looked at the original Soul Burn response, but it doesn't seem to elaborate on the definition of 'remainder of the round'. I can see how Dodge cancels an opposing strike's effect since (1) that's the rulebook definition of Dodge and (2) Dodge resolves before other strikes. But it's not obvious to me why Blood Fury/Rage should be interpreted to have a 'cancellation' rather than Bonecraft-like effect, except due to the timing of damage resolution vs other effects of resolving strikes. Josh 'bass! how low can you go? death row, what a brother know..' [Soul Burn-cited article follows:] >[LSJ wrote] >>1jbt...@unixstew.tstc.edu wrote:> >> On the thaumaturgy strike card Soul Burn, it says: >> "For the remainder of this round, the opposing >> minion cannot inflict damage with weapons."> >> When does the remainder of this round begin?> >> I assume that if this card is not played as a first >> strike, the current weapon strike will do damage, yes? > >Yes. > >> This would be different from Blood Fury and Blood Rage> which say: >> "If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a >> weapon this round, he or she does no damage." >> These two clearly cancel the current weapon strike. > >Yes. It really just looks like Soul Burn simply fouled up the template. >I'll see if anyone wants to issue errata to make it work properly. > >> If any of these three strikes is dodged, may I blur and >> shoot them twice or not? > >Dodge cancels/negates the effect of the strike*, yes. [8.3] > >*On the dodging minion and any non-Retainer cards on him. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <770pgb$cno$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > Except for the few Thaumaturgy strikes that make the opponent's > > > weapon strikes do no damage: Blood Fury, Blood Rage, Soul Burn. > > > > Right. (Although the most recent ruling I see on a quick check of > > Soul Burn says that it *doesn't* work on the current opposing strike.) > > So now I have to ask: Why *do* those ones work? > > Blood Fury - Combat (tha) (1) > Blood Fury doesn't protect the target from taking damage from a > weapon strike, since "inflict" has been ruled to mean "inflict on the > opposing minion/retainer". So side-effect damage from a Bomb, Zip > Gun, etc. is unaffected by Blood Fury. > [LSJ 980216] > > Joshua, I believe means that I can't use Soul Burn to protect myself > from my own weapon strikes...and that makes sense. I don't believe > this was intended to have any effect on weapon strikes from the > opposing minion. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, Noal. The ruling you cite appears to me to indicate that Merrill Molitor using Blood Fury on Gideon Fontaine, who was shooting Merrill with a Zip Gun, does not negate the Zip Gun damage to Gideon - only the Zip Gun damage to Merrill. My Soul Burn aside there was that the current Soul Burn ruling on the Rulemonger page says that, unlike Blood Fury/Rage, Soul Burn does not negate damage to the Soul Burner during the Soul Burn-inclusive strike resolution: "If the opposing minion's strike is a weapon strike, that strike is unaffected by the Soul Burn, since Soul Burn only affects the "remainder" of this round. [LSJ 980213] " Josh easily confused as usual [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua wrote: > I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, Noal. The ruling you cite > appears to me to indicate that Merrill Molitor using Blood Fury on Gideon > Fontaine, who was shooting Merrill with a Zip Gun, does not negate the Zip > Gun damage to Gideon - only the Zip Gun damage to Merrill. For example, if Anvil and Gideon are in a combat and Gideon is the acting minion. Anvil has a Zip Gun and Gideon has an Assault Rifle. Gideon declares his strike to be the Assault Rifle. Anvil declares his strike to be Blood Fury and uses Blur to strike twice with the Zip Gun. The Blood Fury will prevent the damage from the Assault Rifle, but not from the Zip Gun. I don't see why Soul Burn can't be used interchangeably with Blood Fury in this case. > "If the opposing minion's strike is a weapon strike, that strike is unaffected > by the Soul Burn, since Soul Burn only affects the "remainder" of this round. > [LSJ 980213] " from the Errata page: Soul Burn doesn't protect the target from taking damage from a weapon strike, since "inflict" has been ruled to mean "inflict on the opposing minion/retainer". So side-effect damage from a Bomb, Zip Gun, etc. is unaffected by Soul Burn. [LSJ 980216] I see your quote on the Clarifications page. Personally, the one you quote from the Clarifications page looks like a huge error on LSJ's part since strike resolution is after strike declaration, which is when that clause would take effect, IMO. I think it would be pretty idiotic to have to use Soul Burn as a First Strike to get that clause to kick in. After all, the card costs 1 blood and only does 1R-2R damage. Hardly worth it when you consider Theft of Vitae, which removes 1-2 blood at range and costs nothing. I have to agree with you on this one Josh. Sould Burn should work _exactly_ like Blood Rage and Blood Fury in this regard since that was the obvious intent. I'm just glad that MJL tournaments aren't burdened by nonsense like this and that we use common sense and consistency when making rulings. But then, if WotC would hire someone that can read and write at higher than a grade school level to edit the cards' text before printing them, we wouldn't have this problem. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > > > So now I have to ask: Why *do* [Blood Fury/Rage] work? My guess is that > > > their > > > non-damage effect ('If victim attempts to strike with a weapon this round, > > > victim does no damage'), while applied simultaneously with an opposing > > > weapon strike, ends up taking effect before damage is *resolved*, and > > > so the weapon strike results in no damage. > > > > VTES template: "If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this > > round, he or she does no damage." Not that anything really changes there. > > > > Your explanation is good enough. The strike (Blood Rage/Fury) cancels > > the opposing weapon strike's damage just as a Dodge cancels the opposing > > strike's effect on the dodger. > > I guess I'm not clear on why Blood Rage/Fury takes effect during the > current strike resolution, but Soul Burn doesn't - even with the wording > difference. If the Rage/Fury effect is part of the strike's effect, > isn't it implemented at the same time as Soul Burn's effect would be? Card text on Blood Rage/Fury applies to all weapon strikes for the round. Card text on Soul Burn applies only to the remainder of the round. > And if so, why doesn't 'remainder of the round' include 'the damage > resolution step that comes right after this strike resolves'? Even if it did, it wouldn't change the damage resolving at that time. The weapon does some damage. Then the damage resolves. Together with Soul Burn: * The weapon does damage. And, for the remainder of the round, the weapon will do no damage. And Soul Burn does 1 (or two) damage. * The damage (from the weapon and from Soul Burn) is resolved. > I can see how Dodge cancels an opposing strike's effect since (1) that's > the rulebook definition of Dodge and (2) Dodge resolves before other > strikes. No matter when Dodge resolves, it would protect the dodging minion from the opposing strike - that's the way the rules read. It has to resolve, though (which is why it doesn't protect from Catatonic Fear's damage - the dodge never resolves). So many people are confused by that that it is typically explained that Dodge resolves first. But that isn't important, and it isn't described that way in the rules. Blood Fury/Rage work somewhat like Dodge does - thwarting the current strike by the opposing weapon - because card text says they do. > But it's not obvious to me why Blood Fury/Rage should be > interpreted to have a 'cancellation' rather than Bonecraft-like effect, > except due to the timing of damage resolution vs other effects of resolving > strikes. Bonecraft's template is different. It doesn't affect strikes directly (by cancelling damage, for instance) - it changes the minion's strength. And it has (parenthetical) card text explicitly *not* affecting the current opposing strike. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <772d37$nm5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: [Blood Fury/Rage] >VTES template: "If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this >round, he or she does no damage." Not that anything really changes there. > >Your explanation is good enough. The strike (Blood Rage/Fury) cancels >the opposing weapon strike's damage just as a Dodge cancels the opposing >strike's effect on the dodger. Tangential question: the anti-weapon effect of Blood Fury/Rage is canceled by a dodge, right? -- Justin Fang (jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu) This space intentionally left blank.

jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) wrote: > In article <772d37$nm5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > [Blood Fury/Rage] > > >VTES template: "If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this > >round, he or she does no damage." Not that anything really changes there. > > > >Your explanation is good enough. The strike (Blood Rage/Fury) cancels > >the opposing weapon strike's damage just as a Dodge cancels the opposing > >strike's effect on the dodger. > > Tangential question: the anti-weapon effect of Blood Fury/Rage is canceled > by a dodge, right? Correct. Note that this answer would be different if the effect of Blood Fury/Rage resolved when the strike was announced. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Joshua wrote: > > I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, Noal. The ruling you cite > > appears to me to indicate that Merrill Molitor using Blood Fury on Gideon > > Fontaine, who was shooting Merrill with a Zip Gun, does not negate the Zip > > Gun damage to Gideon - only the Zip Gun damage to Merrill. > > For example, if Anvil and Gideon are in a combat and Gideon is the acting > minion. Anvil has a Zip Gun and Gideon has an Assault Rifle. > > Gideon declares his strike to be the Assault Rifle. > Anvil declares his strike to be Blood Fury and uses Blur to strike twice with > the Zip Gun. > > The Blood Fury will prevent the damage from the Assault Rifle, but not from > the Zip Gun. I don't see why Soul Burn can't be used interchangeably with > Blood Fury in this case. Because the templates are different. Soul Burn only affects the "remainder" or the round. Card text. > > "If the opposing minion's strike is a weapon strike, that strike is unaffected > > by the Soul Burn, since Soul Burn only affects the "remainder" of this round. > > [LSJ 980213] " > > I see your quote on the Clarifications page. Personally, the one you quote > from the Clarifications page looks like a huge error on LSJ's part since > strike resolution is after strike declaration, which is when that clause > would take effect, IMO. You think that the strike's effect would take effect during strike announcement? Like the way the old RT had ruled/errata'ed S:CE to work (before ultimately reversing that unworkable position)? And *not* ruling that way (which would have been errata - something that I couldn't issue at the time) was a "huge error" on my part? What do you base this opinion on? > I think it would be pretty idiotic to have to use > Soul Burn as a First Strike to get that clause to kick in. After all, the > card costs 1 blood and only does 1R-2R damage. Hardly worth it when you > consider Theft of Vitae, which removes 1-2 blood at range and costs nothing. > > I have to agree with you on this one Josh. Sould Burn should work _exactly_ > like Blood Rage and Blood Fury in this regard since that was the obvious > intent. Note that Blood Fury and Blood Rage don't take effect during strike announcement, either. The old RT didn't think that errata to Soul Burn (to make it work like Blood Rage and Blood Fury actually do) was justified. I'm putting it back on the RT review list, as I noted earlier in this thread, since some people claim that they prefer that I refrain from making off-the-cuff errata (myself included). [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: >jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) wrote: >> In article <772d37$nm5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >> >> [Blood Fury/Rage] >> >> >VTES template: "If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this >> >round, he or she does no damage." Not that anything really changes there. >> > >> >Your explanation is good enough. The strike (Blood Rage/Fury) cancels >> >the opposing weapon strike's damage just as a Dodge cancels the opposing >> >strike's effect on the dodger. >> >> Tangential question: the anti-weapon effect of Blood Fury/Rage is canceled >> by a dodge, right? > >Correct. huh... so a celerity/weapons deck really has nothing to fear from a straight thaumaturgy deck, as long as it dodges the Fury/Rage?? interesting... I guess that this ruling differs from the bonecraft ruling because bonecraft specifically states to place the card on the minion... the fact that it's a strike just tells you when to play it, you dodge the damage but still get the card put on you... Bill Pyle (wp...@mindspring.com)

> > I have to agree with you on this one Josh. Sould Burn should work _exactly_ > like Blood Rage and Blood Fury in this regard since that was the obvious > intent. I'm just glad that MJL tournaments aren't burdened by nonsense like > this and that we use common sense and consistency when making rulings. But > then, if WotC would hire someone that can read and write at higher than a > grade school level to edit the cards' text before printing them, we wouldn't > have this problem. Right, that's my opinion, too. We played Soul Burn from the beginning exactly like Rage/Fury. We never changed that. Seems very consistent to me. Your comment about reading the texts before printing: Damn right!!! Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) [ quoted text not captured ]

> You think that the strike's effect would take effect during strike > announcement? Like the way the old RT had ruled/errata'ed S:CE to > work (before ultimately reversing that unworkable position)? Okay...maybe not. But the timing issue on the card should be changed. It's not like there are other cards that have been chenged so that they no longer resemble the card text (RtI, Mind Rape) > And *not* ruling that way (which would have been errata - something > that I couldn't issue at the time) was a "huge error" on my part? > > What do you base this opinion on? Okay...I'll concede that it was beyond your power. It was a huge error, just not yours. I'll try not to blame you for everything...*grin* As for what I base the opinion (that Soul Burn should work like Rage/Fury) on, I've already gone into that in length. > The old RT didn't think that errata to Soul Burn (to make it > work like Blood Rage and Blood Fury actually do) was justified. This would be the "huge error". > I'm putting it back on the RT review list, as I noted earlier > in this thread, since some people claim that they prefer that I > refrain from making off-the-cuff errata (myself included). Good deal. I'll make sure it ends up on the MJL RT review list as well. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7731lt$b1d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > I guess I'm not clear on why Blood Rage/Fury takes effect during the > > current strike resolution, but Soul Burn doesn't - even with the wording > > difference. If the Rage/Fury effect is part of the strike's effect, > > isn't it implemented at the same time as Soul Burn's effect would be? > > Card text on Blood Rage/Fury applies to all weapon strikes for the > round. Card text on Soul Burn applies only to the remainder of the > round. Okay. So your reading is that 'remainder of the round' on Soul Burn means 'the rest of the round after this strike resolution', whereas 'this round' on Blood Fury/Rage means 'this round including this strike resolution'? > > And if so, why doesn't 'remainder of the round' include 'the damage > > resolution step that comes right after this strike resolves'? > > Even if it did, it wouldn't change the damage resolving at that time. > > The weapon does some damage. Then the damage resolves. > > Together with Soul Burn: > > * The weapon does damage. And, for the remainder of the round, the weapon > will do no damage. And Soul Burn does 1 (or two) damage. > * The damage (from the weapon and from Soul Burn) is resolved. To my mind, the 'for the remainder of the round the weapon will do no damage' part would work exactly like 'for this round the weapon will do no damage' on Blood Fury - Blood Fury doesn't use the term 'cancel' any more than Soul Burn does. > > I can see how Dodge cancels an opposing strike's effect since (1) that's > > the rulebook definition of Dodge and (2) Dodge resolves before other > > strikes. > > No matter when Dodge resolves, it would protect the dodging minion from the > opposing strike - that's the way the rules read. It has to resolve, though > (which is why it doesn't protect from Catatonic Fear's damage - the dodge > never resolves). > > So many people are confused by that that it is typically explained that > Dodge resolves first. But that isn't important, and it isn't described > that way in the rules. Hmmm. It's not important if your definition of 'cancel' would allow it to retroactively protect the Dodging minion. But if Dodge didn't resolve before First Strike, it seems logical to me that a First Strike hit would successfully do damage to a Dodging minion, since the Dodge tries to cancel it but can't since the damage has already resolved. > Blood Fury/Rage work somewhat like Dodge does - thwarting the current > strike by the opposing weapon - because card text says they do. To me, the card text doesn't make it obvious that they work by 'cancelling' opposing weapon damage. > > But it's not obvious to me why Blood Fury/Rage should be > > interpreted to have a 'cancellation' rather than Bonecraft-like effect, > > except due to the timing of damage resolution vs other effects of resolving > > strikes. > > Bonecraft's template is different. It doesn't affect strikes directly (by > cancelling damage, for instance) - it changes the minion's strength. And > it has (parenthetical) card text explicitly *not* affecting the current > opposing strike. As far as I can see, Blood Fury/Rage don't affect strikes directly either. Their 'victim's weapons do no damage this round' effect is something applied to the opposing minion, not to the opposing strike. To my mind, the only thing that causes Blood Fury/Rage to *effectively* cancel damage from an opposing weapon strike is that their anti-weapon effect kicks in before the weapon damage is actually resolved. Which could be the same for Soul Burn, even with the different wording, since it looks to me like timing is what makes Blood Fury/Rage work, and the timing is the same for Blood Fury as for Soul Burn. (The difference would be if the 'remainder of the round' text is meant specifically to exclude this current strike resolution.) Josh possibly slipping into longwinded argumentativeness again [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36954a20...@news.mindspring.com>, wp...@mindspring.com wrote: > huh... so a celerity/weapons deck really has nothing to fear from a straight > thaumaturgy deck, as long as it dodges the Fury/Rage?? interesting... Yes, that's exactly right. > I guess that this ruling differs from the bonecraft ruling because bonecraft > specifically states to place the card on the minion... the fact that it's a strike > just tells you when to play it, you dodge the damage but still get the card > put on you... Actually, this ruling is pretty much the same as the Bonecraft rules. If you Dodge a Bonecraft hit, you will not suffer the -1/-2 hand damage effects - Dodge negates all effects of the opposing strike on the Dodging minion and any non-retainer cards on him/her. You're probably thinking of what happens if Camille Devereux prevents the damage from Bonecraft, eg with Skin of Rock: In that case, the -1/-2 hand damage effect still happens, because preventing the damage doesn't do anything about the other effects of the strike. (This is also the same as Blood Fury/Blood Rage. If Joaquina Amaya prevents the damage from Blood Rage with Apparition, she will still do no damage with weapon strikes this round.) Josh 'you know my name... look up the number' [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <772qc9$46l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > For example, if Anvil and Gideon are in a combat and Gideon is the acting > minion. Anvil has a Zip Gun and Gideon has an Assault Rifle. > > Gideon declares his strike to be the Assault Rifle. > Anvil declares his strike to be Blood Fury and uses Blur to strike twice with > the Zip Gun. > > The Blood Fury will prevent the damage from the Assault Rifle, but not from > the Zip Gun. I don't see why Soul Burn can't be used interchangeably with > Blood Fury in this case. No, you're right. This just isn't the point I thought I was addressing. ^_^ Although Anvil using Soul Burn will not, officially, currently reduce the damage from the Assault Rifle, since its anti-weapon effect only applies to later strikes. [re the Soul Burn clarification that it only applies to later strikes in the round] > I have to agree with you on this one Josh. Sould Burn should work _exactly_ > like Blood Rage and Blood Fury in this regard since that was the obvious > intent. I'm just glad that MJL tournaments aren't burdened by nonsense like > this and that we use common sense and consistency when making rulings. > But > then, if WotC would hire someone that can read and write at higher than a > grade school level to edit the cards' text before printing them, we wouldn't > have this problem. The intent is pretty apparent, yes. I certainly don't fault LSJ for ruling according to his reading of the actual text, though. (Even though it's not my reading. -_^) Perhaps the Rules Team will issue errata to make Soul Burn work the way it was supposed to... Josh 'I only smile in the dark...' [ quoted text not captured ]

William Pyle wrote: > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > >jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) wrote: > >> Tangential question: the anti-weapon effect of Blood Fury/Rage is canceled > >> by a dodge, right? > > > >Correct. > > huh... so a celerity/weapons deck really has nothing to fear from a straight > thaumaturgy deck, as long as it dodges the Fury/Rage?? interesting... Every deck has nothing to fear from strikes as long as it always dodges the strikes, correct. This is a little more difficult to do in practice than it might seem. > I guess that this ruling differs from the bonecraft ruling because bonecraft > specifically states to place the card on the minion... the fact that it's a strike > just tells you when to play it, you dodge the damage but still get the card > put on you... No. If you dodge a Bonecraft the Bonecraft has no effect. This ruling matches the Bonecraft ruling in that regard. [ quoted text not captured ]

>I guess that this ruling differs from the bonecraft ruling because >bonecraft specifically states to place the card on the minion... the >fact that it's a strike just tells you when to play it, you dodge the >damage but still get the card put on you... Wrong. A Dodge cancels the opponents strike and all of it's side effects. So if Bonecraft is dodged, then the only place that it goes is to the ashheap. However, if the damage from Bonecraft is prevented, then the side effect (the -1 whatever) is still applied, since the strike was not cancelled. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7757ej$5q5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > The intent is pretty apparent, yes. I certainly don't fault LSJ for ruling > according to his reading of the actual text, though. (Even though it's not > my reading. -_^) Perhaps the Rules Team will issue errata to make Soul > Burn work the way it was supposed to... Next on the list then: Concealed Weapon, Summon the Serpent, and other cards that seem obviously miswritten. That's a bit of sarcasm really. What happened to everyone wanting to keep errata and rulings to the minimum? Soul Burn is clearly worded to not affect the opposing minion's simultaneous strike. It's a fine house rule to make it in-line with Blood Fury/Rage, but unless we're throwing errata minimalism out the window, I saw ixne. Just my two pool, Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > > I guess I'm not clear on why Blood Rage/Fury takes effect during the > > > current strike resolution, but Soul Burn doesn't - even with the wording > > > difference. If the Rage/Fury effect is part of the strike's effect, > > > isn't it implemented at the same time as Soul Burn's effect would be? > > > > Card text on Blood Rage/Fury applies to all weapon strikes for the > > round. Card text on Soul Burn applies only to the remainder of the > > round. > > Okay. So your reading is that 'remainder of the round' on Soul Burn > means 'the rest of the round after this strike resolution', whereas > 'this round' on Blood Fury/Rage means 'this round including this > strike resolution'? Yes. "Remainder" means "the part after the present". > [snip] > > > Blood Fury/Rage work somewhat like Dodge does - thwarting the current > > strike by the opposing weapon - because card text says they do. > > To me, the card text doesn't make it obvious that they work by 'cancelling' > opposing weapon damage. You've got a real case there. But the only way out of that (without errata) is to say that Blood Fury/Rage *don't* affect the currently-selected opposing weapon strike. Which is something I think we can all agree on is not the way to go. But Soul Burn's text seems to go out of its way to thwart this kind of "stealth errata" from being feasible. > > > But it's not obvious to me why Blood Fury/Rage should be > > > interpreted to have a 'cancellation' rather than Bonecraft-like effect, > > > except due to the timing of damage resolution vs other effects of resolving > > > strikes. > > > > Bonecraft's template is different. It doesn't affect strikes directly (by > > cancelling damage, for instance) - it changes the minion's strength. And > > it has (parenthetical) card text explicitly *not* affecting the current > > opposing strike. > > As far as I can see, Blood Fury/Rage don't affect strikes directly either. Right. But everyone has managed to play it that way so far because of intuition (or so-called "stealth errata"). The same M.O. won't work for Soul Burn because of Soul Burn's incompatible phrasing. The latter will require real errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >William Pyle wrote: >> huh... so a celerity/weapons deck really has nothing to fear from a straight >> thaumaturgy deck, as long as it dodges the Fury/Rage?? interesting... > >Every deck has nothing to fear from strikes as long as it always >dodges the strikes, correct. This is a little more difficult to >do in practice than it might seem. I meant, it can dodge the fury/rage and still have its weapon strikes later in the round do damage.... I had always been under the impression, which I know now to be false, that the weapons would do no damage for the rest of the round.... but yeah, I get it... and as for the bonecraft thing, all I can say is.... duh..... it's been a really long week, and I was just thinking of prevent, and not dodge.... so forgive my ineptitude, please, all of you who responded to correct my little oversight there... *cough cough* little sarcastic there, sorry, but yeah, what can I say, 55 hours a week'll do things to your brain.... Bill Pyle (wp...@mindspring.com)

In article <775ho3$fjl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@shout.net wrote: > In article <7757ej$5q5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > > The intent is pretty apparent, yes. I certainly don't fault LSJ for ruling > > according to his reading of the actual text, though. (Even though it's not > > my reading. -_^) Perhaps the Rules Team will issue errata to make Soul > > Burn work the way it was supposed to... > > Next on the list then: Concealed Weapon, Summon the Serpent, and other > cards that seem obviously miswritten. > > That's a bit of sarcasm really. What happened to everyone wanting to > keep errata and rulings to the minimum? Soul Burn is clearly worded to > not affect the opposing minion's simultaneous strike. It's a fine house > rule to make it in-line with Blood Fury/Rage, but unless we're throwing > errata minimalism out the window, I saw ixne. Keeping errata and rulings to a minimum is all well and good, but I think intent vs outcomes disparities usually get a special dispensation. That could lead to rewriting Concealed Weapon and Summon the Serpent, sure, but probably not *that* many other cards. There does seem to be a difference betweeen cards that look like they got worded wrong and cards that were simply not a useful idea in the first place. Josh out of the office = very slow on the reply [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <369645...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > Yes. "Remainder" means "the part after the present". Ah, well, given that interpretation I guess Soul Burn is going nowhere fast. [I wrote] > > To me, the card text doesn't make it obvious that they work by 'cancelling' > > opposing weapon damage. > > You've got a real case there. But the only way out of that (without > errata) is to say that Blood Fury/Rage *don't* affect the > currently-selected opposing weapon strike. Which is something I > think we can all agree on is not the way to go. But Soul Burn's > text seems to go out of its way to thwart this kind of "stealth > errata" from being feasible. Yes, I wouldn't want to change Blood Fury/Rage like that. [and I also wrote] > > As far as I can see, Blood Fury/Rage don't affect strikes directly either. > > Right. But everyone has managed to play it that way so far because > of intuition (or so-called "stealth errata"). The same M.O. won't > work for Soul Burn because of Soul Burn's incompatible phrasing. > The latter will require real errata. Okay. Maybe it'll get some. ;-) (My weak argument that it could go without could run something like this: the phrasing 'the remainder of this round' on Soul Burn is actually equivalent to 'this round' on Blood Fury/Rage. Clearly no effects of a strike can take place before the strike resolves. So, 'this round' really means 'the rest of this round starting when this strike resolves'. By using 'remainder' on Soul Burn, the designers were trying to make this explicitly obvious.) Josh corrupting the english language (or at least trying) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <77idk8$q8r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > In article <775ho3$fjl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > mboh...@shout.net wrote: > > In article <7757ej$5q5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > > > > The intent is pretty apparent, yes. I certainly don't fault LSJ for ruling > > > according to his reading of the actual text, though. (Even though it's not > > > my reading. -_^) Perhaps the Rules Team will issue errata to make Soul > > > Burn work the way it was supposed to... > > > > Next on the list then: Concealed Weapon, Summon the Serpent, and other > > cards that seem obviously miswritten. I just noticed that Thanks for the Donation (dominate) has no superior text (I just picked up a second and third copy when I grabbed a number of packs Tuesday...) Any clue on why this is? I mean it's a useful card in and of itself, but Summon the Serpent is the only other discipline card I can think of with no superior... Xian "they look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain lion on crack" --greensea [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:05:49 GMT, xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: >In article <77idk8$q8r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: >> In article <775ho3$fjl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, >> mboh...@shout.net wrote: >> > In article <7757ej$5q5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, >> > jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: >> > >> > > The intent is pretty apparent, yes. I certainly don't fault LSJ for ruling >> > > according to his reading of the actual text, though. (Even though it's not >> > > my reading. -_^) Perhaps the Rules Team will issue errata to make Soul >> > > Burn work the way it was supposed to... >> > >> > Next on the list then: Concealed Weapon, Summon the Serpent, and other >> > cards that seem obviously miswritten. > >I just noticed that Thanks for the Donation (dominate) has no superior text >(I just picked up a second and third copy when I grabbed a number of packs >Tuesday...) Any clue on why this is? I mean it's a useful card in and of >itself, but Summon the Serpent is the only other discipline card I can think >of with no superior... also Horrific Countenance has no superior. (Like it needs one.) Which is probably the reason there as well... there's no suitable inferior for Thanks for the Donation, and to make it any STRONGER would be ungodly or just silly (Allow this Methuselah to choose who pays for his contesting, for example. Though it'd be nice to force the contester to pay two each turn and give up the card, in almost all cases it's worth more to keep nicking your prey for one a turn until the contester gives up. =) -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > I just noticed that Thanks for the Donation (dominate) has no superior text > (I just picked up a second and third copy when I grabbed a number of packs > Tuesday...) Any clue on why this is? I mean it's a useful card in and of > itself, but Summon the Serpent is the only other discipline card I can think > of with no superior... Army of Rats, Rampage, Soul Stealing (as printed) and Horrific Countenance are others. Noal -- DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors. -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]