LSJ Guard Duty Q

I was using guard duty and managed to have the location burned. My question is the Guard duty seems to 'remember' the selected location. If a minion with a Guard Duty and a location, has the location burned, does the Guard duty kick back into play is a new copy of the same location returns to play. Reguardless of whether or not you control it? Second Do you have to have a location in play to play a guard duty? The Card text indicates only you name a location, not a location in play. So is it possible to play guard duty in advance of playing the location and will the guard duty be effective? Meaning will it acquire the location as a valid target once the location enters play? Raille

Raille wrote: > I was using guard duty and managed to have the location burned. > > My question is the Guard duty seems to 'remember' the selected location. > > If a minion with a Guard Duty and a location, has the location burned, does > the Guard duty kick back into play is a new copy of the same location > returns to play. Reguardless of whether or not you control it? No. Effects key on card instance, not card name, by default. (And note that the "instance" is generally lost if the card goes into the ash heap, library, hand, or crypt; but not if it is contested or returned to the uncontrolled region). > Second > Do you have to have a location in play to play a guard duty? The Card text > indicates only you name a location, not a location in play. The rules cover the "in play" part. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec1_6_1 (item #5) > So is it possible to play guard duty in advance of playing the location and > will the guard duty be effective? Meaning will it acquire the location as a > valid target once the location enters play? No. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

What I want to know, Raiile, is why were you even playing with guard Duty?

On 24 Dec 2004 10:34:00 -0800, "Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >What I want to know, Raiile, is why were you even playing with guard >Duty? exactly. note that the action to burn the location must be at +1 stealth _already_ before you can even use Guard Duty to attempt to block due to the 'can't use an effect to gain intercept unless you need the intercept rule' "Put this card on the acting minion and choose a location. If the chosen location is the target of a (D) action (and you control the location), this minion can burn 1 blood or burn this card to untap and attempt to <block> with +1 intercept." LSJ, i don't suppose the rules team wants to insert a 'even if the intercept is not yet needed' errata line into guard duty? please? salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 24 Dec 2004 10:34:00 -0800, "Screaming Vermillian" > <vermil...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >>What I want to know, Raiile, is why were you even playing with guard >>Duty? > exactly. note that the action to burn the location must be at +1 > stealth _already_ before you can even use Guard Duty to attempt to > block due to the 'can't use an effect to gain intercept unless you > need the intercept rule' > "Put this card on the acting minion and choose a location. If the > chosen location is the target of a (D) action (and you control the > location), this minion can burn 1 blood or burn this card to untap and > attempt to <block> with +1 intercept." > LSJ, i don't suppose the rules team wants to insert a 'even if the > intercept is not yet needed' errata line into guard duty? please? Personally, I think they should have just left it as "may attempt to bock." :)

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d8dps05l8pvksul5k...@4ax.com... > On 24 Dec 2004 10:34:00 -0800, "Screaming Vermillian" > <vermil...@yahoo.com> scrawled: > >>What I want to know, Raiile, is why were you even playing with guard >>Duty? > > exactly. note that the action to burn the location must be at +1 > stealth _already_ before you can even use Guard Duty to attempt to > block due to the 'can't use an effect to gain intercept unless you > need the intercept rule' > > "Put this card on the acting minion and choose a location. If the > chosen location is the target of a (D) action (and you control the > location), this minion can burn 1 blood or burn this card to untap and > attempt to <block> with +1 intercept." > > LSJ, i don't suppose the rules team wants to insert a 'even if the > intercept is not yet needed' errata line into guard duty? please? Well one loop whole for effective card use is always being tapped. With the curernt ruling that you can always hunt even if at capacity, means your always tapped, and can always burn a blood to untap and attempt to block with your +1 intercept. I don't think the card needs the line even if intercept is not yet needed. The Card text parallels certain vampire with +1 intecept. And I really, really think that an vampire with +1 intercept can attempt to block a 0 stealth action, even if the +1 intercept is not yet needed. That vampire does not loose the ability to use the intercept at a later moment is additional stealth is generated. Raille

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:10:20 -0500, "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> scrawled: > >"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:d8dps05l8pvksul5k...@4ax.com... >> On 24 Dec 2004 10:34:00 -0800, "Screaming Vermillian" >> <vermil...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >> >>>What I want to know, Raiile, is why were you even playing with guard >>>Duty? >> >> exactly. note that the action to burn the location must be at +1 >> stealth _already_ before you can even use Guard Duty to attempt to >> block due to the 'can't use an effect to gain intercept unless you >> need the intercept rule' >> >> "Put this card on the acting minion and choose a location. If the >> chosen location is the target of a (D) action (and you control the >> location), this minion can burn 1 blood or burn this card to untap and >> attempt to <block> with +1 intercept." >> >> LSJ, i don't suppose the rules team wants to insert a 'even if the >> intercept is not yet needed' errata line into guard duty? please? > > >Well one loop whole for effective card use is always being tapped. With the >curernt ruling that you can always hunt even if at capacity, means your >always tapped, and can always burn a blood to untap and attempt to block >with your +1 intercept. or you could just stay untapped and burn a blood to untap and get +1 intercept. nothing wrong with untapping an already untapped minion. >I don't think the card needs the line even if intercept is not yet needed. >The Card text parallels certain vampire with +1 intecept. nope, it's using an effect to gain intercept. there's nothing stopping the vampire attempting to block, but they are not allowed to trigger the effect unless they need the intercept. >And I really, really think that an vampire with +1 intercept can attempt to >block a 0 stealth action, even if the +1 intercept is not yet needed. That >vampire does not loose the ability to use the intercept at a later moment is >additional stealth is generated. correct. but that's something that's already in play and working all the time. the vampire with +1 intercept can't, however, play an Spirit's Touch to get +1 intercept on an action that'sonly currently at +1 stealth, because they don't need the intercept. a quick search of google groups: LSJ Jun 11 2001, 4:41 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad From: LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:33:47 -0400 Local: Mon, Jun 11 2001 4:33 am Subject: Guard Duty (Re: Beginning the Final Nights cardlist (contains Spoiler)) Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse Gomi no Sensei wrote: > Question: Given that we can tap a tapped vampire, we can untap an > untapped vampire, yes? Yes. > Given that, do multiple Guard Duties stack, so that one can be used to > untap/block at +1 intercept, then another blood can be burned to a second > copy of Guard Duty for a second intercept? Can I do this even if I don't > currently need the intercept? I think 'yes' to both, but I'm murky. Yes. No - you can only burn Guard Duty if you need the intercept, since it gives intercept. -- LSJ (vtes...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:smYyd.1154779$Gx4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... [ quoted text not captured ] So if a copy is burned, removed to the ash heap and returned to play at a later time the guard duty should kick back in. At least according to your clarification http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/347c7d2b4a53ec54 So Guard duty is not that useless if you have means to draw locations back out of the ash heap. Its also, giving the restrictive rule of not being able to untap unless you need the +1 intercept, still not that bad. You only need other blockers to 'force' the acting minion to add stealth. Although I still feel its a ruling in error. Other cards allow you to untap and add intercept even if its not needed, so why such a draconian rule on such a little used card? Raille

Raille wrote: > So if a copy is burned, removed to the ash heap and returned to play at a > later time the guard duty should kick back in. At least according to your > clarification > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/347c7d2b4a53ec54 No. That clarification is outdated and no longer in effect. Burned cards forget everything (except the conditions under which they were burned, for the convenience of certain effects like Possession). > So Guard duty is not that useless if you have means to draw locations back > out of the ash heap. Even if you wanted to apply that outdated ruling, the effect would have to be one that pulled it directly out of the ash heap (not having the card get "lost" on its trip through the hand or library). > Its also, giving the restrictive rule of not being able to untap unless you > need the +1 intercept, still not that bad. You only need other blockers to > 'force' the acting minion to add stealth. > > Although I still feel its a ruling in error. Other cards allow you to untap > and add intercept even if its not needed, so why such a draconian rule on > such a little used card? Card text. It isn't the subject of a ruling which would follow from some ambiguity. It's just card text. Card text is not ambiguous. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:10:20 -0500, Raille <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > With the current ruling that you can always hunt even if at capacity > [...] Is this so? -- Bye, Daneel

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 20:07:24 GMT, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> With the current ruling that you can always hunt even if at capacity >Is this so? Yes. Hunting is not restricted to vampires that are short of their capacity. See the online rulebook, section 6.1.2. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/ To have a vampire hunt, announce the action and tap the acting vampire. If the action is successful, move a blood counter to the acting vampire from the blood bank. If this causes the vampire's blood to exceed his blood capacity, then (as always) the excess is immediately returned to the blood bank. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

Raille <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1103994633.07450ca8fb872e66411fc5f27f434356@teranews... > > "salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:d8dps05l8pvksul5k...@4ax.com... > > On 24 Dec 2004 10:34:00 -0800, "Screaming Vermillian" > > <vermil...@yahoo.com> scrawled: > > > >>What I want to know, Raiile, is why were you even playing with guard > >>Duty? > > > > exactly. note that the action to burn the location must be at +1 > > stealth _already_ before you can even use Guard Duty to attempt to > > block due to the 'can't use an effect to gain intercept unless you > > need the intercept rule' > > I know! Use the Paris Opera House to give the acting minion +1 stealth by tapping a Daughter of Cacophony, then you can untap that Daughter and block with +1 intercept. :) Neil

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:43:19 GMT, "Name" <na...@name.com> scrawled: >I know! Use the Paris Opera House to give the acting minion +1 stealth by >tapping a Daughter of Cacophony, then you can untap that Daughter and block >with +1 intercept. > >:) heh. but on a more serious note, that might be fun with Deflections to give your predator stealth when they get their bleeds bounced to your prey....hmmm... [ quoted text not captured ]

salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7gqus0d9r5evjk2hj...@4ax.com... > On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:43:19 GMT, "Name" <na...@name.com> scrawled: > > >I know! Use the Paris Opera House to give the acting minion +1 stealth by > >tapping a Daughter of Cacophony, then you can untap that Daughter and block > >with +1 intercept. > > > >:) > > heh. but on a more serious note, that might be fun with Deflections to > give your predator stealth when they get their bleeds bounced to your > prey....hmmm... > Actually I've been meaning to do just that for awhile, I'm only lacking one or two Paris Opera Houses. That, and didn't like the logistics of adding bounce disciplines to the Daughters or having to have two minions untapped to perform the trick. Though Muse has inferior animalism so she could untap when being bled, the block could fail because of the Opera House and she'd be tapped, then another minion could deflect. . . (begins mumbling incoherently) . . . Neil

> exactly. note that the action to burn the location must be at +1 > stealth _already_ before you can even use Guard Duty to attempt to > block due to the 'can't use an effect to gain intercept unless you > need the intercept rule' Huh. I hadn't noticed that Guard Duty worked that way, and you're right it's pretty much worthless. I just did a search through Monger and I can't find any other card in the game that has this problem. Every other card that gives you intercept and an untap has been errated to say that you can use it even if you don't need the intercept (2nd Tradition, Read the Winds), or the intercept is an optional additional effect (Speak With Spirits, Special Report). Guard Duty really should be ammended to be parallel with 2nd Trad. and RtW, since right now it's total wallpaper... Cthulukitty

CthuluKitty wrote: >>exactly. note that the action to burn the location must be at +1 >>stealth _already_ before you can even use Guard Duty to attempt to >>block due to the 'can't use an effect to gain intercept unless you >>need the intercept rule' > > > Huh. I hadn't noticed that Guard Duty worked that way, and you're > right it's pretty much worthless. I just did a search through Monger > and I can't find any other card in the game that has this problem. > Every other card that gives you intercept and an untap has been errated > to say that you can use it even if you don't need the intercept (2nd > Tradition, Read the Winds), Neither Second Tradition nor Read with the Winds is currently under errata. Second Tradition's text was migrated in Camarilla Edition to what you find now. Read the Winds is as it always has been. It has only been printed once. That one printing saw it printed in its current form. or the intercept is an optional additional > effect (Speak With Spirits, Special Report). Guard Duty really should > be ammended to be parallel with 2nd Trad. and RtW, since right now it's > total wallpaper... Yes, well. Being wallpaper is not in and of itself a reason to issue errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

Could I get a google link for the change to the above? I could not find anything else. Of course I did not go through all 473 Posts related to contracts. Raille

> Neither Second Tradition nor Read with the Winds is currently > under errata. I did not mean to imply that they were. Just pointing out how card printed in after GD were either more complete or errata'd to fit the new template. Yes, well. Being wallpaper is not in and of itself a reason to > issue errata. That was not my comment, I personally don't see it as wall paper, just a lesser valued card by progression of game definitions. However card and play comsistancy IS a reason to errata cards and has been the reason for card errata in the past. Why should you change tracks now on how you evaluate cards for errata? Guard duty had the misfortune of being printed prior to the more universal text coverage of Blood lines and CE. Had the card been printed in a later set, it most certainly have had the additional text of "even if not yet needed" In a related vein, did you ever notice the statement that stealth/intercept can be added ONLY when needed, yet a host of cards automatically give you stealth. By that defination Guard Duty currently works just fine, however, the minions performing stealthly action cards Should be measured against the cannot add stealth rule and forfeit the inherent +1 Stealth if its not needed, such as in times when acting minions have a -1 stealth applied to them. In any case, Guard Duty simply a requires a small correction to bring it into the current rules set which passed it by. 2nd Trad. and RtW are already there, and perhaps others, since I've not looked for other cases. Raille

uhm, how about tapping a Daughter and untapping some one who can actually block! Daughters seem to have a lot of problems blocking actions. and most of the animalism cards actually Untap you, so you could rats warning, untap, then deflect. Next bleed to the same thing. Or to quote someone, "Wash rinse and repeat." Raille

rai...@yahoo.com wrote: >>Neither Second Tradition nor Read with the Winds is currently >>under errata. > > I did not mean to imply that they were. You'll note that the above was a reply to CthuluKitty, as cited. > Just pointing out how card printed in after GD were either more > complete or > errata'd to fit the new template. > > Yes, well. Being wallpaper is not in and of itself a reason to > >>issue errata. > > That was not my comment, I personally don't see it as wall paper, just > a > lesser valued card by progression of game definitions. Again, it was a reply to CthuluKitty, as cited. > However card and play comsistancy IS a reason to errata cards and has > been > the reason for card errata in the past. Why should you change tracks > now on > how you evaluate cards for errata? I didn't say I had changed tracks. I said that being wallpaper in and of itself is not a reason to issue errata. > Guard duty had the misfortune of being printed prior to the more > universal > text coverage of Blood lines and CE. Had the card been printed in a > later > set, it most certainly have had the additional text of "even if not yet > needed" Actually, it was a simple mistake. It should have had that text regardless of CE or BL. The need for such text in such instances was already known (see the 1998 RTRs). > In a related vein, did you ever notice the statement that > stealth/intercept > can be added ONLY when needed, yet a host of cards automatically give > you > stealth. Um. Either "of course" or "they don't" depending on what you mean. > By that defination Guard Duty currently works just fine, however, the What definition? Guard Duty doesn't match it or it isn't a functionally correct (official) one, one of the two. > minions performing stealthly action cards Should be measured against > the > cannot add stealth rule and forfeit the inherent +1 Stealth if its not > needed, such as in times when acting minions have a -1 stealth applied > to > them. Some actions have stealth. Having is different than adding stealth. > In any case, Guard Duty simply a requires a small correction to bring > it > into the current rules set which passed it by. 2nd Trad. and RtW are > already there, and perhaps others, since I've not looked for other > cases. 2nd Tradition and RtW do not suffer from the omission of text like Guard Duty does, correct. A "small correction" is errata barring another printing (which is not out of the question). See also Abandon the Flesh. [ quoted text not captured ]

rai...@yahoo.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Probably. I think it is likely that Google has it archived, whatever "it" is. What did searching Google yield? What search patterns did you try? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:f7Azd.1166319$Gx4.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Card text. It isn't the subject of a ruling which would follow from some > ambiguity. It's just card text. Card text is not ambiguous. since most "burn location" actions and cards are at 0 stealth, why print a card with bad card text ? was it really designer's intent to have this card worded this way ?

Reyda wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de > news:f7Azd.1166319$Gx4.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > Card text. It isn't the subject of a ruling which would follow from some > > ambiguity. It's just card text. Card text is not ambiguous. > > since most "burn location" actions and cards are at 0 stealth, why print a > card with bad card text ? Yeah, he's right Scott. Print cards with good text only. No more bad text, please. Now that I've done my good deed for the day, I'll go to lunch... ;) -Robert

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:6RVzd.1172613$Gx4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > rai...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Could I get a google link for the change to the above? I could not >> find >> anything else. >> >> Of course I did not go through all 473 Posts related to contracts. >> Raille > > Probably. I think it is likely that Google has it archived, whatever "it" > is. What did searching Google yield? What search patterns did you try? > > -- I was searching for references to 'Contract' looking for its targeting restrictions. I probably could have defined that better in the search. Raille

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1104180666.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Yea. What he said. or Ditto Raille

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:25:08 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: [re: Guard Duty sucking] >A "small correction" is errata barring another printing (which is >not out of the question). do it! i dare you! >See also Abandon the Flesh. No such card. all i could find was Abandoning the Flesh, which does indeed suck ;) What 'small correction' might, if applied and/or made into a new printing, would 'fix' it? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:oPVzd.1172606$Gx4.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > rai...@yahoo.com wrote: >> However card and play comsistancy IS a reason to errata cards and has >> been >> the reason for card errata in the past. Why should you change tracks >> now on >> how you evaluate cards for errata? > > I didn't say I had changed tracks. I said that being wallpaper in > and of itself is not a reason to issue errata. > >> Guard duty had the misfortune of being printed prior to the more >> universal >> text coverage of Blood lines and CE. Had the card been printed in a >> later >> set, it most certainly have had the additional text of "even if not yet >> needed" > > Actually, it was a simple mistake. It should have had that text > regardless of CE or BL. The need for such text in such instances > was already known (see the 1998 RTRs). Well there is the crux of the problem. You indicate it was a simple mistake. Yet the card was not corrected shortly after printing like most sets do see for card problems. And since you seem to be aware of the cards short coming, why has it taken so long for the problem of the card text on Guard Duty taken so long to be addressed, and even now seems to be actively avoided by the primary mover and shaker of card errata and changes. >> In a related vein, did you ever notice the statement that >> stealth/intercept >> can be added ONLY when needed, yet a host of cards automatically give >> you >> stealth. > > Um. Either "of course" or "they don't" depending on what you mean. > >> By that defination Guard Duty currently works just fine, however, the > > What definition? > Guard Duty doesn't match it or it isn't a functionally correct > (official) one, one of the two. Uhm thought train derailment. yea. What I mean, is the old card works by its card text definition. It would work slightly better by Using a new definition. >> minions performing stealthly action cards Should be measured against >> the >> cannot add stealth rule and forfeit the inherent +1 Stealth if its not >> needed, such as in times when acting minions have a -1 stealth applied >> to >> them. > > Some actions have stealth. > Having is different than adding stealth. Really. The act of playing a card with stealth by default adds stealth without checking to see if the action needs stealth. However thats now what I'm here to talk about. No reason to get completely sidetracked. >> In any case, Guard Duty simply a requires a small correction to bring >> it >> into the current rules set which passed it by. 2nd Trad. and RtW are >> already there, and perhaps others, since I've not looked for other >> cases. > > 2nd Tradition and RtW do not suffer from the omission of text like > Guard Duty does, correct. > > A "small correction" is errata barring another printing (which is > not out of the question). > So does this mean we might get errata, or is it in the works to be reprinted with KMW? Raille

>> Card text. It isn't the subject of a ruling which would follow from some >> ambiguity. It's just card text. Card text is not ambiguous. > >since most "burn location" actions and cards are at 0 stealth, why print a >card with bad card text ? was it really designer's intent to have this card >worded this way ? Fear the power of Felix! Or big-cap Nosferatu in a Nosferatu Performance Art. Or titled vampires trying to burn down Powerbase: Barranquilla. And I suppose there's always that nasty Smash and Grab! And Reformation. And defending Wasserschloss Anif from eeeevil Malkavians! And there's Haunt. Halcyan 2 For the record I wouldn't mind seeing Guard Duty made more useful however.

>A "small correction" is errata barring another printing (which is >not out of the question). > >See also Abandon the Flesh. Since we're on the topic, was there any particular reason why Legacy of Power wasn't reprinted in 10th so that it isn't beaten by Psyche!? As you said in the thread "[LSJ] Legacy of Power malfunction ! :)", "Yes. It "should" have been written to be played before combat and preclude combat from starting. But it wasn't. It is played during combat and ends combat." Halcyan 2

>However card and play comsistancy IS a reason to errata cards and has >been >the reason for card errata in the past. Why should you change tracks >now on >how you evaluate cards for errata? I don't think consistency itself has generally been a reason to issue card errata (aside from reprinting with new text). Take for example: Ventrue Investment and Slave Auction which are not Investments (like Secret Horde, Protracted Investment, and Short Term Investment). Chainsaw which still seems out of step compared to Gas-Powered Chainsaw. Machine Blitz still using the old weapon damage template as opposed to the newer one used by Illegal Search and Seizure and Concealed Weapon. (Though I prefer having MB use the old one of course). Halcyan 2

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:21:05 +1100, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> See also Abandon the Flesh. > > No such card. all i could find was Abandoning the Flesh, which does > indeed suck ;) What 'small correction' might, if applied and/or made > into a new printing, would 'fix' it? Usable by a tapped vampire. Usable by a vampire in torpor. -- Bye, Daneel

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Elsewhere in this thread, LSJ said: "Actually, it was a simple mistake." <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4cacf34738aecf25> -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> writes: > Well there is the crux of the problem. You indicate it was a simple > mistake. > > Yet the card was not corrected shortly after printing like most sets do see > for card problems. I'm not sure that LSJ has said *when* the mistake came to light. I may be wrong. > And since you seem to be aware of the cards short coming, why has it > taken so long for the problem of the card text on Guard Duty taken > so long to be addressed, and even now seems to be actively avoided > by the primary mover and shaker of card errata and changes. I'm not sure LSJ is avoiding it. Standard LSJ behaviour on such matters is that errata is not issued to make bad cards stronger. If an issue arises which requires action to be taken about that card (contradictory wording, say), the action taken may also make a bad card stronger in the process, but bad cards don't have errata issued on them just because they're bad. [ quoted text not captured ]

Halcyan 2 wrote: > Since we're on the topic, was there any particular reason why Legacy of Power > wasn't reprinted in 10th so that it isn't beaten by Psyche!? > > As you said in the thread "[LSJ] Legacy of Power malfunction ! :)", Another oversight/mistake. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:3ymzvyd...@newred.gradwell.net... > "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Well there is the crux of the problem. You indicate it was a simple >> mistake. >> >> Yet the card was not corrected shortly after printing like most sets do >> see >> for card problems. > > I'm not sure that LSJ has said *when* the mistake came to light. I > may be wrong. > >> And since you seem to be aware of the cards short coming, why has it >> taken so long for the problem of the card text on Guard Duty taken >> so long to be addressed, and even now seems to be actively avoided >> by the primary mover and shaker of card errata and changes. > > I'm not sure LSJ is avoiding it. > > Standard LSJ behaviour on such matters is that errata is not issued to > make bad cards stronger. If an issue arises which requires action to > be taken about that card (contradictory wording, say), the action > taken may also make a bad card stronger in the process, but bad cards > don't have errata issued on them just because they're bad. > > Well as far as it goes, the Guard Duty is mostly non functional due to the incorrect wording. It can only be used as writen, by a tapped minion who is attempting to block another minion that has a built in +1 stealth, who is attempting to destroy a location you control. Of course other situations might arise if another minion attempted to block, pushing the acting minions stealth past zero. Its more of a case of a card that was over looked as more used cards got the attention. Raille

"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:1104333476.f556c6a0d767f65f23cff787851e4b1e@teranews... > Well as far as it goes, the Guard Duty is mostly non functional due to the > incorrect wording. (...) > Its more of a case of a card that was over looked as more used cards got the > attention. > > Raille Well, Purity of the beast springs to mind, i guess =°

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:20:12 -0500, "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> scrawled: > >Well as far as it goes, the Guard Duty is mostly non functional due to the >incorrect wording. > >It can only be used as writen, by a tapped minion who is attempting to block >another minion that >has a built in +1 stealth, who is attempting to destroy a location you >control. I don't recall seeing text requiring a tapped minion. untapped minions are allowed to untap. just like tapped minion are allowed to get tapped. >Of course other situations might arise if another minion attempted to block, >pushing the acting >minions stealth past zero. or the guarder themselves. >Its more of a case of a card that was over looked as more used cards got the >attention. yup. suX0rz. [ quoted text not captured ]

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c7m6t0hnkfjmvnjf1...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:20:12 -0500, "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> > scrawled: > >> >>Well as far as it goes, the Guard Duty is mostly non functional due to the >>incorrect wording. >> >>It can only be used as writen, by a tapped minion who is attempting to >>block >>another minion that >>has a built in +1 stealth, who is attempting to destroy a location you >>control. > > I don't recall seeing text requiring a tapped minion. untapped minions > are allowed to untap. just like tapped minion are allowed to get > tapped. Card Text: +2 stealth action. Put this card on the acting minion and choose a location. If the chosen location is the target of a (D) action (and you control the location), this minion can burn 1 blood or burn this card to untap and attempt to block with +1 intercept. So pehaps it does not require you to be tapped, but if your not tapped, you fail to get any added benifit. Raille

In message <1104415405.2b8237eefdd494f8815bfd24c620d595@teranews>, Raille <rai...@yahoo.com> writes: >Card Text: >+2 stealth action. Put this card on the acting minion and choose a location. >If the chosen location is the target of a (D) action (and you control the >location), this minion can burn >1 blood or burn this card to untap and attempt to block with +1 intercept. > > >So pehaps it does not require you to be tapped, but if your not tapped, you >fail to get any added benifit. You untap (redundantly) and attempt to block with +1 intercept. [LSJ 20020308] <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8 93020f5e6b87c70> Seems like a benefit to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:fBHJGloH...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <1104415405.2b8237eefdd494f8815bfd24c620d595@teranews>, > Raille <rai...@yahoo.com> writes: >>Card Text: >>+2 stealth action. Put this card on the acting minion and choose a >>location. >>If the chosen location is the target of a (D) action (and you control the >>location), this minion can burn >>1 blood or burn this card to untap and attempt to block with +1 intercept. >> >> >>So pehaps it does not require you to be tapped, but if your not tapped, >>you >>fail to get any added benifit. > > You untap (redundantly) and attempt to block with +1 intercept. > [LSJ 20020308] > > <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8 > 93020f5e6b87c70> > > Seems like a benefit to me. > James, you missed the ruling where in you cannot untap with +1 intercept if you don't need it. Thats what a lot of this thread was about. Raille

In message <1104922118.0955d00d5013a7caf87434cc67dc8752@teranews>, Raille <rai...@yahoo.com> writes: >James, you missed the ruling where in you cannot untap with +1 intercept if >you don't need it. > >Thats what a lot of this thread was about. You followed up Salem who said: > I don't recall seeing text requiring a tapped minion. untapped minions > are allowed to untap. just like tapped minion are allowed to get > tapped. You then said: >So pehaps it does not require you to be tapped, but if your not tapped, >you fail to get any added benifit. When blocking with +1 intercept clearly is a benefit you can get, even when not tapped! Additionally, if you're untapped, you can declare a block anyway. When they add stealth, you attempt a new block, by burning the Guard Duty. (Since it has been long established that a single vampire who fails to block at a given point can attempt this afresh.) I fear that you are confusing several different points. Untapping with +1 intercept is *not* what I was posting about, and I am *extremely* familiar with that ruling, having explained old 2nd Tradition many, many, many times. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:NXutTzHq...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <1104922118.0955d00d5013a7caf87434cc67dc8752@teranews>, > Raille <rai...@yahoo.com> writes: >>James, you missed the ruling where in you cannot untap with +1 intercept >>if >>you don't need it. >> >>Thats what a lot of this thread was about. > > You followed up Salem who said: >> I don't recall seeing text requiring a tapped minion. untapped minions >> are allowed to untap. just like tapped minion are allowed to get >> tapped. > > You then said: >>So pehaps it does not require you to be tapped, but if your not tapped, >>you fail to get any added benifit. > > > When blocking with +1 intercept clearly is a benefit you can get, even > when not tapped! > > Additionally, if you're untapped, you can declare a block anyway. When > they add stealth, you attempt a new block, by burning the Guard Duty. > (Since it has been long established that a single vampire who fails to > block at a given point can attempt this afresh.) > > > I fear that you are confusing several different points. Untapping with > +1 intercept is *not* what I was posting about, and I am *extremely* > familiar with that ruling, having explained old 2nd Tradition many, > many, many times. I confused where you were coming from within the thread. Point taken GD does have its use if your not tapped. It has more use if you are tapped. Since you won't need to burn the card. Raille

"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1105008380.76b23f7a1303dcf1dcf55c1606c31e96@teranews... > I confused where you were coming from within the thread. > > Point taken GD does have its use if your not tapped. > > It has more use if you are tapped. Since you won't need to burn the card. Heh, I hesitate to post in this thread, since it seems like it's gone on far too long already considering the utility of Guard Duty, but anyway - you don't have to burn the card if you're untapped either. You can burn a blood *or* burn the card to get both the +1 intercept and the untap. Neither activation method requires the Guard Duty minion to have been tapped. Josh doesn't think it has terribly much use in any case