There are a few cards that I think was perfectly functional, but which
were changed, either made worse or better,for no reason at all. (In my
holy opinion, that is)
1. Torn signpost. The VtES card was great; "can inflict 2 hand damage
as a strike for the reminder of the combat". No combining signpost with
weapons or other strikecards... Now, people can glue their bastard
swords to the end of the signpost, and at the same time throw all their
Fists of death in the trashcan... Stupied...
2. Thoughts betrayed (superior). Why was the "tapped vampires cannot
block this action" part removed... I want to prevent those pesky FA and
WwEF too... Ir would be nice if the superior level was better that the
inferior! Stupied...
3. Drawing out the beast. Why has the damage got to be applied in the
press step? What's the point of that, now that it's unallowed to stack
up 5 drawing out the beast... The damage should be applied in the
damage resolution, just like all other damage... If my opponent sends
me to torpor, I at least want to se him get hurt by my beast...
Stupied...
I'm sure that there are more cards like this, and I'm also sure that
someone will have good explenations for the rulings/erratas on these
cards...
Ceterum censeo Tom Kassel stupido est...
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
hen...@my-deja.com wrote:
> 2. Thoughts betrayed (superior). Why was the "tapped vampires cannot
> block this action" part removed...
It was redundant - the basic rules provide that functionality.
> I want to prevent those pesky FA and WwEF too... Ir would be nice if
> the superior level was better that the inferior! Stupied...
Even with the text you want, the card would not prevent "those pesky
FA and WwEF", since the text you want doesn't alter any of the
basic rules - it simply restates the rule that tapped vampire cannot
block.
> 3. Drawing out the beast. Why has the damage got to be applied in the
> press step? What's the point of that, now that it's unallowed to stack
> up 5 drawing out the beast... The damage should be applied in the
> damage resolution, just like all other damage... If my opponent sends
> me to torpor, I at least want to se him get hurt by my beast...
> Stupied...
The damage was never applied during strike resolution.
It used to be applied "after each round", which led to some odd and
sometimes confusing situations.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/[ quoted text not captured ]
> > 3. Drawing out the beast. Why has the damage got to be applied in
the
> > press step? What's the point of that, now that it's unallowed to
stack
> > up 5 drawing out the beast... The damage should be applied in the
> > damage resolution, just like all other damage... If my opponent
sends
> > me to torpor, I at least want to se him get hurt by my beast...
> > Stupied...
>
> The damage was never applied during strike resolution.
> It used to be applied "after each round", which led to some odd and
> sometimes confusing situations.
Am I right in assuming that when someone plays a Strike: Combat End
card, there is no press stage?
DH
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > 2. Thoughts betrayed (superior). Why was the "tapped vampires cannot
> > block this action" part removed...
> It was redundant - the basic rules provide that functionality.
I think the card being referred to here is "Sleeping Mind" and not "Thoughts
Betrayed"...
> > 3. Drawing out the beast. Why has the damage got to be applied in the
> > press step? What's the point of that, now that it's unallowed to stack
> > up 5 drawing out the beast... The damage should be applied in the
> > damage resolution, just like all other damage... If my opponent sends
> > me to torpor, I at least want to se him get hurt by my beast...
> > Stupied...
> The damage was never applied during strike resolution.
> It used to be applied "after each round", which led to some odd and
> sometimes confusing situations.
Such as what?
I always thought that part of the reason this was changed was to prevent
something like:
Bleed (or whatever)
Dawn Op
Blocked
Drawing out the Beast
Form of Mist to continue action
and the blocking minion went to torpor from unpreventable agg damage...
Sorrow
---
If you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on,
you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made
your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you
from the earth.
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Even with the text you want, the card would not prevent "those pesky
> FA and WwEF", since the text you want doesn't alter any of the
> basic rules - it simply restates the rule that tapped vampire cannot
> block.
This is a point we've always disagreed on.
Since WWEF and FA do not untap a vampire, they technically allow a
tapped vampire to block, regardless of what that "as if they were
untapped" nonsense says.
It is apparent to pretty much everyone that the superior of Sleeping
Mind was intended to prevent vampires from using WWEF and FA to block,
but not prevent them using those wakes to use other intercept cards like
Deflection.
Regards,
Noal
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
[ quoted text not captured ]
Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Even with the text you want, the card would not prevent "those pesky
> > FA and WwEF", since the text you want doesn't alter any of the
> > basic rules - it simply restates the rule that tapped vampire cannot
> > block.
>
> This is a point we've always disagreed on.
Hopefully not. It's a pretty simple point.
Tapped vampires cannot block.
> Since WWEF and FA do not untap a vampire, they technically allow a
> tapped vampire to block, regardless of what that "as if they were
> untapped" nonsense says.
I don't see how the fundamental point "as if untapped" can be
viewed as nonsense. It is the only thing that playing WwEF or
FA actually accoplishes (other than temporarily reducing one's
hand size or possibly causes the burning of a blood).
> It is apparent to pretty much everyone that the superior of Sleeping
> Mind was intended to prevent vampires from using WWEF and FA to block,
> but not prevent them using those wakes to use other intercept cards
> like Deflection.
True. This has been acknowledged. The intent of the designer is
understood. Likewise, the failure of the original card text to
achieve that intent is understood. The likelyhood of the original
intent being overpowered is seen as a suitable reason not to issue
errata to bring the card up to match the designer's intent.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/[ quoted text not captured ]
for me is very strange this one:
"The "otherwise" refers to the opposing minion *being* an Ally. Blood
to Water won't burn vampires" - errata of Blod to Water
vs.
"Ignore all "burn blood" effects entirely" - common errata for allies
how should i understand this?
[ quoted text not captured ]
bartok...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> for me is very strange this one:
>
> "The "otherwise" refers to the opposing minion *being* an Ally. Blood
> to Water won't burn vampires" - errata of Blod to Water
This isn't errata; it's a clarification. The card was worded badly.
The clarified card text is:
Blood to Water [AH]
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 2 blood
Discipline: Thaumaturgy
Only usable {at close range}, before strike resolution. <Opposing
vampire burns 3 blood or opposing ally is burned>. Not usable during the
first round
of combat. (S) As above, but <opposing vampire burns 5 blood>.
I tried (and failed) to find an explanation of the symbol scheme on the
WW website. I think {blah} is a ruling, and <blah> is a clarification.
> vs.
>
> "Ignore all "burn blood" effects entirely" - common errata for allies
Blood to Water does not cause allies to burn blood. If you play it on a
vampire, the vampire burns blood. If you play it on an ally, the ally
burns.
> how should i understand this?
You should understand that sometimes cards are worded poorly, and we
need net reps like LSJ to clarify them for us.
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
"What drives you on can drive you mad.
A million lies to sell yourself is all
you ever had."
-- Garbage
bartok...@my-deja.com wrote:
> "The "otherwise" refers to the opposing minion *being* an Ally. Blood
> to Water won't burn vampires" - errata of Blod to Water
That's not errata - it's just a clarification.
Many players misread the card and attempted to burn vampires
who couldn't burn the appropriate amount of blood.
> vs.
>
> "Ignore all "burn blood" effects entirely" - common errata for allies
>
> how should i understand this?
An effect that says "burn blood" won't affect an ally.
Allies don't have blood, so cannot burn blood.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <93ic52$a41$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
bartok...@my-deja.com wrote:
> for me is very strange this one:
>
> "The "otherwise" refers to the opposing minion *being* an Ally. Blood
> to Water won't burn vampires" - errata of Blod to Water
>
> vs.
>
> "Ignore all "burn blood" effects entirely" - common errata for allies
>
> how should i understand this?
>
You should interpret it as BtW burning blood on vamps but if it's an
ally the ally is burnt (no burning of blood/life is attempted)
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > This is a point we've always disagreed on.
>
> Hopefully not. It's a pretty simple point.
> Tapped vampires cannot block.
Unless they play WWEF or FA. Then they can.
That they can block or play reaction cards as if they were untapped does
not change the fact that they are still very much tapped. That's why I
felt that the "as if untapped" phrase was completely unnecessary. It
produces no actual additional effect.
>> It is apparent to pretty much everyone that the superior of Sleeping
>> Mind was intended to prevent vampires from using WWEF and FA to
>> block, but not prevent them using those wakes to use other intercept
>> cards like Deflection.>
> True. This has been acknowledged. The intent of the designer is
> understood. Likewise, the failure of the original card text to
> achieve that intent is understood. The likelyhood of the original
> intent being overpowered is seen as a suitable reason not to issue
> errata to bring the card up to match the designer's intent.
Considering the plethora of methods to tap vampires (including
the modified Misdirection) I have to grudgingly agree that the superior
was overpowered and the best method for dealing with that was to
eliminate the ambiguous statement. Which, of course, is the reason I'm
not raising Cain to have the phrasing on wakes to be modified. There's
no longer any point.
The only irritation is that the superior of Sleeping Mind is arguably
less powerful than the inferior. But considering the two protean Claws
cards, it's not the first time that's been the case.
In the future, it might be easier on you if you don't even discuss the
ambiguity of the last sentence and just say it got dropped because it
was overpowered. Certainly a helluva lot easier to justify.
Regards,
Noal
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
[ quoted text not captured ]
Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > This is a point we've always disagreed on.
> >
> > Hopefully not. It's a pretty simple point.
> > Tapped vampires cannot block.
>
> Unless they play WWEF or FA. Then they can.
Exactly. Which is why Sleeping Mind's former text
didn't stop it - since it just restated the standard
rule that (we agree) WwEF and FA break anyhow.
> That they can block or play reaction cards as if they were untapped
> does not change the fact that they are still very much tapped. That's
> why I felt that the "as if untapped" phrase was completely
> unnecessary. It produces no actual additional effect.
OK.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/[ quoted text not captured ]
Most of the changes are reasonable - the biggest beef that I have is with the
WWEF change.
I can somewhat agree with the arguements made on WWEF - players could slough the
card during play on blocking actions that they could never block, thus making
the limitation on the card a non-issue. Therefore, the card possibly required a
more severe limitation.
However - the limitation introduced is absolutely debilitating to the card. No
one in my entire play group considers it anything more than wallpaper at this
point in time.
Why? You ask.
Simple, the new card text, by taking away the most fundamental game strategy
(i.e. ousting your prey), makes the card useless. As it stands a WWEF is ONLY
good for intercepting your predator. In any game with a table size larger than
3 it is totally counter-productive to use a WWEF to go after one of your prey's
actions. Waiting until your next untap to get back to a hand-size of 7 is
murder.
The card change SHOULD HAVE either:
1. made it so that a vampire could only use one WWEF in between untaps (you get
the gist) OR
2. made it so that it was replaced AT THE END OF THE CURRENT METHUSELAH'S TURN.
In either instance it is still a good card to use against your prey, but the
tactical decision that must be made when playing the card is not an easy one to
make - thus it is a balanced card. Decisions, decisions, decisions.... what
makes the game so great.
As it stands now, the cumulative, tactical effect of not having the card is so
debilitating that playing with ANY WWEF's in your library is highly
questionable. Better off to risk burning the blood.
The funny part is - if the vampire has no blood on it - you can still cycle
through Forced Awakenings as if they were candy, and since your hand-size isn't
reduced... it is even more effective than WWEF ever was.
I cannot say that a mistake was made in changing WWEF, but I can say that a huge
mistake was made in the scope of the change to WWEF.
Hopefully LSJ can revisit the matter and make a change for the better. As it
stands the card is dead because no one can justify to me in any tactical
deck-building sense that WWEF is (as it is now) better than Forced Awakening...
unless of course you just want to be a wall to your predator - in which case,
you are playing a different game.
Jaysen Knight
In article <3a62...@sumac.tamarack.nt.ca>,
"Jaysen Knight" <jay...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
> No
> one in my entire play group considers it anything more than wallpaper
at this
> point in time.
I'll give you 5 cents each for your wallpaper, I find it to be a very
useful card and I still don't have enough of them.
> In any game with a table size larger than
> 3 it is totally counter-productive to use a WWEF to go after one of
your prey's
> actions.
I almost always play in larger games and will occasionally block my
prey's actions with WWEF. Equipping with a flamethrower is a good
example. Besides, 3 player or 5, you still suffer the limitation of
missing a card (assuming you blocked your prey's action) for your
predator's turn. Unless you are facing cross table actions (which do
occassionally happen) then it is the same situation, 3 player or 5
player.
>
> As it stands now, the cumulative, tactical effect of not having the
card is so
> debilitating that playing with ANY WWEF's in your library is highly
> questionable. Better off to risk burning the blood.
Not true, deflecting costs a blood, combining it with FA would DOUBLE
the cost to deflect which may be worse (depending on the deck design)
than losing a card slot.
>
> The funny part is - if the vampire has no blood on it - you can still
cycle
> through Forced Awakenings as if they were candy, and since your hand-
size isn't
> reduced... it is even more effective than WWEF ever was.
But, minions with no blood are not very good for blocking or deflecting
(unless you have someone really big with Superior Dominate to Redirect,
hmmm deck idea...)
> Hopefully LSJ can revisit the matter and make a change for the
better. As it
> stands the card is dead because no one can justify to me in any
tactical
> deck-building sense that WWEF is (as it is now) better than Forced
Awakening...
As I said before, I will gladly buy WWEF for 5 cents each, or trade for
equivalent Sabbat War cards...
[ quoted text not captured ]
>As I said before, I will gladly buy WWEF for 5 cents each, or trade for
>equivalent Sabbat War cards...
I could also use quite a few more WWEFs.
While this reply touched on most, if not all, of the salient points, I'd just
emphasize that there are a lot of decks that want to wake up and do something
other than block.
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:30:38 -0700, "Jaysen Knight"
<jay...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
>However - the limitation introduced is absolutely debilitating to the card. No
>one in my entire play group considers it anything more than wallpaper at this
>point in time.
Then they aren't thinking properly. It's quite useful still.
>As it stands now, the cumulative, tactical effect of not having the card is so
>debilitating that playing with ANY WWEF's in your library is highly
>questionable. Better off to risk burning the blood.
What if I want to Wake and Deflect, and never actually want to block?
I think that works lots better than FA, myself.
>The funny part is - if the vampire has no blood on it - you can still cycle
>through Forced Awakenings as if they were candy, and since your hand-size isn't
>reduced... it is even more effective than WWEF ever was.
Not hardly. You have to have a fucked-up vampire (one with no blood)
before you can cycle FA like it was water. If you don't, you're
spending blood off your current vamps.
>I cannot say that a mistake was made in changing WWEF, but I can say that a huge
>mistake was made in the scope of the change to WWEF.
And you would be wrong, too. But we've dealt with this plenty in the
past.
>Hopefully LSJ can revisit the matter and make a change for the better. As it
>stands the card is dead because no one can justify to me in any tactical
>deck-building sense that WWEF is (as it is now) better than Forced Awakening...
>unless of course you just want to be a wall to your predator - in which case,
>you are playing a different game.
What, you mean besides Wake/Deflect, Wake/Dread Gaze, Wake/Telepathic
Counter, and any OTHER non-blocking reaction card?
If you want to block people and are confident that you can, use FA and
ignore Wake.
If you want to block people but can't generate more than about +1,
MAYBE +2 intercept at a time, use Wake OR FA, but both will have risks
since you'll be stealthed past a lot. Use whichever is appropriate;
if you have lots of vampire blood to spare, FA will be fine. If you
don't have much vampire blood, Wake will be better.
If you want to Deflect, play Wake and ignore FA.
We aren't even going to go into the fact that I and many other people
have played plenty of full-on intercept decks that used nothing but
Wakes, intercepted both prey AND predator, and did just fine.
-- Derek
Goon-of-the-Month club member
"In a MAN's game, you tap things that block." -- F. Scott, 2001
In article <93ik84$hub$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> The only irritation is that the superior of Sleeping Mind is arguably
> less powerful than the inferior. But considering the two protean Claws
> cards, it's not the first time that's been the case.
though true, this statement misses some situational truths about the
claws cards. when your protean deck is only adding a few combat cards
to balance out another strategy or two, rather than being a total rush
deck, the superior may make or break you more than the inferior. i.e.
it's hard to hit someone with claws of the dead inferior if they
maneuver away. and it's a good idea to be able to press to end against
some nasty tremere with a leather jacket. in many decks, either "claws"
card would still be preferable to bone spur, which no one would claim
has a stronger inferior than superior ability.
just a point.
-spinney
===//
[ quoted text not captured ]