Rules Team Rulings 19-MAY-2003

As always, errata and reversals of previous rulings do not go into effect for constructed deck tournaments until 30 days (i.e., until June 18, 2003). Reversals in this RTR: Alternate hunt actions. Mask of a Thousand Faces. RULINGS ======= Contesting: The incoming contested card has no effect prior to being contested. That is, if you contest an Elder Library, you don't draw up to your new Elder Library hand size and then discard when the Library becomes contested - it is simply contested. Likewise contesting Jan Pieterzoon doesn't cycle a card from each player's hand. End of round: Things that are played "at the end of round" (Disarm, Taste of Vitae, etc.) are played after presses are handled (in the "after presses are handled" phase, much like Torn Signpost is played in the "before maneuvers are handled" phase). Alternate Hunt Actions (REVERSAL): Previously, modifications to the amount gained by special hunt actions (Legacy of Caine, Week of Nightmares, etc.) could not be made, but other modifications (to stealth, say) were allowed. The restriction against modifying the amount is now dropped. Any hunt modification (Aaron's Razor, Hesha, etc.) is allowed on special hunts (Legacy of Caine, Week of Nightmares, etc.), following card text. Note that card text on Festivo dello Estinto and Inbase Discotek explicitly move the additional blood from the blood bank (rather than from the new, non-default, target of the hunt). Specifically Aaron's Feeding Razor, Amadeo, Hesha Ruhadze, Hungry Coyote, Succulent Vitae (superior), Tainted Vitae move additional blood, if available, from the source to the hunter. Festivo dello Estinto the successful hunter, after gaining blood from whatever source, fills up with blood from the blood bank. Foul Blood the hunter takes 1 less blood from the source. Immaculate Vitae (superior), Masquerade Endangered, Vampiric Disease no blood is moved from the source. Inbase Discotek, Frankfurt the hunter, after gaining a blood from whatever source, gains a blood from the blood bank. Rachel Brandywine: You activate her ability at the end of the discard phase, after discarding your card(s). That is discard (to the ash heap), draw back to hand size (from the library), then move the cards you just discarded from the ash heap to the library and shuffle. If you exhaust your library while trying to draw back up to your hand size in the middle, then you can continue to draw back up to your hand size after adding the new cards to your library, as normal. Mask of a Thousand Faces (REVERSAL): All effects that had been applied to the action or the acting minion carry over as if they had been applied with the Masker as the acting minion. The standing rule that "Mask cannot be used to mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of taking that action, nor if any action modifiers have been played on this action that could not have been played if the Masking vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting blood that has already been spent.)" still applies, and it applies to other effects as well. So if Backways is tapped to give the acting Gangrel a stealth, then non-Gangrel cannot mask the action. If Redirection is used at inferior by a 7 capacity vampire, then vampires with capacity of 7 or more cannot mask the action (since they are not younger than the reacting vampire). And so on. Draba or Veiled Sight vs. Mask of a Thousand Faces (REVERSAL): The stealth reduction of Draba and Veiled Sight carries over at the same level as before the mask. The two effects can be treated as equivalent to "-X stealth" where X is (was) the current amount of stealth of the action, with the X unchanged by the play of the mask. ERRATA ====== Canceling cards and retrieving costs: Cards that cancel other cards as they are played and retrieve the cost (resulting in a loss as the cost is paid and then a gain as the cost is retrieved) instead cancel the card and nullify the cost (no cost is paid for the canceled card). The Anarchs version of Sudden Reversal has the new "(no cost is paid)" wording, and other cancel cards are to be handled similarly. Those other cards are Contingency Planning, Denial of Aphrodite's Favor, Direct Intervention, Iron Heart, The Jones, and Rewind Time. Angelica, The Canonicus: Can only use her ability once each action (when attempting to block). Archon/Templar: These cards are placed on the target if the referendum passes. The vampire with the card gets the abilities. The action given by the cards in play cannot be repeated by that minion twice in the same turn, by the base rules on repeating actions. The card is burned if the ability is removed (via the referendum given in card text). If the vampire has two Archon/Templar cards, he can take the action allowed by one and, if he untaps, then take the action allowed by the other. -- 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/

Sorry about those long lines. Here it is again, formatted for newsgroup consumption: [ quoted text not captured ]

> As always, errata and reversals of previous rulings do not > go into effect for constructed deck tourn Is it just my browser or is a lot of the text clipped here? Not sure I want to read this looking at the last bit anyway :o( Rob -- Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com http://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > RULINGS > ======= > Contesting: The incoming contested card has no effect prior to being > contested. That is, if you contest an Elder Library, you don't draw up to > your new Elder Library hand size and then discard when the Library becomes > contested - it is simply contested. Likewise contesting Jan Pieterzoon > doesn't cycle a card from each player's hand. What about Permanent Trifles (i.e. Coven)? Do you still get the additional MPA? And if not, could you then play a different Trifle with an MPA you gain from another source like the Parthenon? > Alternate Hunt Actions (REVERSAL): Previously, modifications to the amount > gained by special hunt actions (Legacy of Caine, Week of Nightmares, etc.) > could not be made, but other modifications (to stealth, say) were allowed. > The restriction against modifying the amount is now dropped. Any hunt > modification (Aaron's Razor, Hesha, etc.) is allowed on special hunts (Legacy > of Caine, Week of Nightmares, etc.), following card text. Note that card text > on Festivo dello Estinto and Inbase Discotek explicitly move the additional > blood from the blood bank (rather than from the new, non-default, target of > the hunt). Are Alternate Hunt Actions still un-Repeatable? > Mask of a Thousand Faces (REVERSAL): All effects that had been applied to the > action or the acting minion carry over as if they had been applied with the > Masker as the acting minion. The standing rule that "Mask cannot be used to > mask an action if the Masking vampire is not capable of taking that action, > nor if any action modifiers have been played on this action that could not > have been played if the Masking vampire were the acting minion. (Not counting > blood that has already been spent.)" still applies, and it applies to other > effects as well. So if Backways is tapped to give the acting Gangrel a > stealth, then non-Gangrel cannot mask the action. If Redirection is used at > inferior by a 7 capacity vampire, then vampires with capacity of 7 or more > cannot mask the action (since they are not younger than the reacting > vampire). And so on. Does this mean that Masking vampires can no longer play additional copies of action modifiers played by the "pre-masked" vampire? (i.e. each playing Lost in Crowds, or Masking a Masked action)

Jozxyqk wrote: > What about [contesting] Trifles (i.e. Coven)? Do you still get the additional > MPA? Yes. > Are Alternate Hunt Actions still un-Repeatable? Any action that the rules designate as un-repeatable are un-repeatable. The alternate hunt actions all happen to be covered by the rule against repeating actions allowed by card-in-play, so yes. But that has nothing to do with the fact that it is an alternate hunt action. > Does this mean that Masking vampires can no longer play additional copies of > action modifiers played by the "pre-masked" vampire? (i.e. each playing > Lost in Crowds, or Masking a Masked action) No. Who played what is not affected. [ quoted text not captured ]

Question 1: Is the text from archon: "An archon may enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah as a +1 stealth (D) action. Any vampire attempting to block an archon burns 1 blood." cummulative? IE: two archons on a vampire.... does it burn two blood to attempt to be blocked by vampires? Is the rush action at +2 stealth? Question 2 - no releated to RTR Volker (Brujah Prince) goes "Into the Fire" and joins the sabbat. By my understanding he is still a titled vampire (but with no votes) and so could not take the "Go Anarch" action. Is this correct? Thanks bunches.. -JTP

[ quoted text not captured ] Great I'm gonna see hesha get legacy of caine, aaron's feeding razor, and turn sabbat(Has the Hungry coyote in play)... She'll steal 4 blood off any vampire, and temptation them all. [ quoted text not captured ]

John P. wrote: > Question 1: > > Is the text from archon: > "An archon may enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah as a +1 stealth (D) action. Any vampire attempting to > block an archon burns 1 blood." > cummulative? IE: two archons on a vampire.... does it burn two blood to attempt to be blocked by vampires? The would-be blocker would have to burn two blood, yes. > Is the rush action at +2 stealth? No. Card text: "as a +1 stealth (D) action." > Question 2 - no releated to RTR > Volker (Brujah Prince) goes "Into the Fire" and joins the sabbat. > By my understanding he is still a titled vampire (but with no votes) > and so could not take the "Go Anarch" action. Is this correct? No. A vampire with no (active) title is not considered titled for any purpose. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EC8F1DF...@white-wolf.com>... > Alternate Hunt Actions (REVERSAL):... > Specifically > Aaron's Feeding Razor, Amadeo, Hesha Ruhadze, Hungry Coyote, Succulent Vitae (superior), Tainted Vitae move additional blood, if available, from the source to the hunter. Since you're calling them out specifically, Kyoko Shinsegawa should be included.

[ quoted text not captured ] Kyoko is not an example of a card that modifies the amount of blood hunted, so she doesn't end up on a list of cards that modify the amount of blood hunted. She is an example of a card that allows/effects a non-default hunt action. [ quoted text not captured ]

So can Kyoko Shinsegawa hunt, freak drive, hunt freak drive, hunt..... ect ect? yes or no please.

[ quoted text not captured ] No. Google: "Kyoko hunt author:LSJ" [ quoted text not captured ]

Kulaid wrote: > Great I'm gonna see hesha get legacy of caine, aaron's feeding razor, > and turn sabbat(Has the Hungry coyote in play)... She'll steal 4 blood > off any vampire, and temptation them all. What's the plan to get Legacy of Caine on _your_ Hesha? -- Francois HILLBILLIES ARE PEOPLE TOO Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode AABF11

> Kulaid wrote: > >> Great I'm gonna see hesha get legacy of caine, aaron's >> feeding razor, >> and turn sabbat(Has the Hungry coyote in play)... She'll >> steal 4 blood >> off any vampire, and temptation them all. > > What's the plan to get Legacy of Caine on _your_ Hesha? Errr, never mind... Forgot the whole 'another meth' line in it... Ok, it'll be Kyoko, CI to a sabbat and get an aaron's feeding razor... [ quoted text not captured ]

Kulaid wrote: > Ok, it'll be Kyoko, CI to a sabbat and get an aaron's feeding razor... We can even use the brand new "Into the Fire!". Fun idea. -- Francois NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN MY UNDERPANTS Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 9F17

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EC939AB...@white-wolf.com>... > DaveB wrote: > > So can Kyoko Shinsegawa hunt, freak drive, hunt freak drive, hunt..... ect > > ect? > > > > yes or no please. > > No. > Google: "Kyoko hunt author:LSJ" Nothing about this LSJ.. just want to squeeze that stupid male enhancement ad/junkmail to the bottom when you search by dates... *sigh* ---jAMES---

LSJ, Is this correct, Minion A & B both have OBF Minion A bleeds, plays lost in crowds in response to a block, Minion B plays mask for the hell of it (+3 total stealth), can B then play lost in crowds if another block attempt occurs? (+5 Stealth) thanks M. "DeistMutts" <psydu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a3baa2e3.03051...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 19 May 2003 22:29:26 -0400, "Metropolis" <do...@umich.edu> scrawled: >LSJ, > >Is this correct, >Minion A & B both have OBF > >Minion A bleeds, plays lost in crowds in response to a block, >Minion B plays mask for the hell of it (+3 total stealth), B can only play Mask at superior if the blocking minion has +2 or more intercept (assuming the Lost was played at superior) . >can B then play lost in crowds if another block attempt occurs? (+5 Stealth) if the blocking minion has intercept equal to or greater than the acting minion's stealth, yes. that was answered earlier, see: ** > Does this mean that Masking vampires can no longer play additional copies of > action modifiers played by the "pre-masked" vampire? (i.e. each playing > Lost in Crowds, or Masking a Masked action) No. Who played what is not affected. -- 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/ ** hope that helps, salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3EC90981...@white-wolf.com... > John P. wrote: > > Question 1: > > > > Is the text from archon: > > "An archon may enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah as a +1 stealth (D) action. Any vampire attempting to > > block an archon burns 1 blood." > > cummulative? IE: two archons on a vampire.... does it burn two blood to attempt to be blocked by vampires? > > The would-be blocker would have to burn two blood, yes. Really? Doesn't Archon (the card) just define what it means to be an archon, which includes that "any vampire attempting to block an archon burns 1 blood"? It seems to me that having this defined by two copies of Archon on the same vampire shouldn't make each copy force a blood-burn effect. Josh look, sir - rulings!

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3EC8F859...@white-wolf.com... > Jozxyqk wrote: > > Does this mean that Masking vampires can no longer play additional copies of > > action modifiers played by the "pre-masked" vampire? (i.e. each playing > > Lost in Crowds, or Masking a Masked action) > > No. Who played what is not affected. I see your point, but it seems like the idea of the new Mask ruling is that it was really the Masking vampire all along (so if something was done that the Masking vamp couldn't have been present for, you can't Mask). Allowing the same action mod both pre- and post-Mask seems to me to go against this concept (ie it becomes unintuitive). Along these lines: if an Achingly Beautiful Toreador is blocked, and you want to Mask to another Toreador: is this legal if the second Toreador doesn't have an Aching Beauty? If he has one Aching Beauty? If he has two Aching Beauties? Would a pool be burned for both the original-vamp and new-vamp Aching Beauties, or only if the second vamp had more than the first, or something else? Josh not really sure why the new Mask ruling was made - I'm not clear on what problems there were that this fixes...

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Really? Doesn't Archon (the card) just define what it means > to be an archon, which includes that "any vampire attempting > to block an archon burns 1 blood"? It used to. Now [RTR 19-MAY-2003] it is a card in play with an effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>No. Who played what is not affected. > > I see your point, but it seems like the idea of the new Mask > ruling is that it was really the Masking vampire all along (so > if something was done that the Masking vamp couldn't have been > present for, you can't Mask). Allowing the same action mod > both pre- and post-Mask seems to me to go against this concept > (ie it becomes unintuitive). Ideas are one thing. Explicit implementation is another. > Along these lines: if an Achingly Beautiful Toreador is blocked, > and you want to Mask to another Toreador: is this legal if the > second Toreador doesn't have an Aching Beauty? If he has one > Aching Beauty? If he has two Aching Beauties? Would a pool > be burned for both the original-vamp and new-vamp Aching > Beauties, or only if the second vamp had more than the first, > or something else? Any minion can mask before the Aching Beauty on the first Toreador is activated (i.e., before the pool is burned). After it is activated, only a minion with *that* Aching Beauty can mask, which means that no minion can mask, since the only minion with that Aching Beauty is the acting minion. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <bage6m$sf91v$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >Really? Doesn't Archon (the card) just define what it means >to be an archon, which includes that "any vampire attempting >to block an archon burns 1 blood"? From the ruling: The vampire with the card gets the abilities. and: If the vampire has two Archon/Templar cards, he can take the action allowed by one and, if he untaps, then take the action allowed by the other. So it's now linked to the possession of the *card*, not the 'archon' definition. The presence or absence of the card gives the abilities. In essence, the card text now appears to read close to: Choose a Camarilla vampire. Successful referendum [puts this card on that vampire]. [The vampire with this card] may enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah as a +1 stealth (D) action. Any vampire attempting to block [the vampire with this card] burns 1 blood. Blood hunts cannot be called on [the vampire with this card]. Any Camarilla vampire can call a referendum to [burn this card] as a +1 stealth political action. Essentially, wherever it refers to an archon, replace with "the vampire with this card". -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3ECBCE1D...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > I see your point, but it seems like the idea of the new Mask > > ruling is that it was really the Masking vampire all along (so > > if something was done that the Masking vamp couldn't have been > > present for, you can't Mask). Allowing the same action mod > > both pre- and post-Mask seems to me to go against this concept > > (ie it becomes unintuitive). > > Ideas are one thing. Explicit implementation is another. Indeed. I'm still finding the implementation of the new Mask ruling pretty confusing. :-) I'm not sure how to determine what effects do or don't prohibit Masking to another vampire. It sounds like "continuous" effects don't, but "one time" or "voluntary" (as in "play them when you want") effects do. But I'm really just guessing here. This would explain why Jost Werner can be Masked away from, or Zoe Masked to, but once an Aching Beauty effect is applied another one (on another vampire) can't be. The Jost ruling imples that the traditional "start a bleed with Victoria (bleed of 1) and Mask it to Arika (bleed of 3) after blocks are declined" still works. Correct? How about if Zebulon has a Blood Bond on one of my prey's vampires, a superior Blackmail on another, and an Incriminating Videotape on the third. He attempts to bleed, and when my prey declines to block, Ozmo wants to Mask in. Is this legal too? I have to tell you, I don't see what things this ruling makes simpler or fixes - it seems much more complicated to me. I admit it's possible that this is because I already was familiar with the old rule. :-) Josh it's our time to be hated

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:vl8OlYJf...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... [snip] > Essentially, wherever it refers to an archon, replace with "the vampire > with this card". Thanks, that does make it more obvious how it works. In fact, it seems like the RTR post would've been much clearer if it had simply given new texts like this for Archon and Templar as errata. :-) I guess they'll become available when White Wolf's spoiler lists are updated. Josh spoiled again

Joshua Duffin wrote: > The Jost ruling imples that the traditional "start a bleed > with Victoria (bleed of 1) and Mask it to Arika (bleed of 3) > after blocks are declined" still works. Correct? Correct. > How about if Zebulon has a Blood Bond on one of my prey's > vampires, a superior Blackmail on another, and an > Incriminating Videotape on the third. He attempts to bleed, > and when my prey declines to block, Ozmo wants to Mask in. > Is this legal too? Yes. See previous examples with Toreador Grand Ball and with Aisling. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <bagn5a$t0jpf$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >Thanks, that does make it more obvious how it works. I would assume that the card in play giving the abilities was assumed to be explicit enough. Works for me (tm). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 21 May 2003 16:10:23 -0400, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: >I have to tell you, I don't see what things this ruling >makes simpler or fixes - it seems much more complicated to >me. I admit it's possible that this is because I already >was familiar with the old rule. :-) Perhaps it clears up the funky Toreador Grand Ball/Mask ugliness? Or not, I can't really be sure. I kind of skimmed over this whole ruling when I read it initially, as it seemed uninteresting, and not very different from the prior implementation. Xian all this hatred i can't take this all this hatred now

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ECBCD90...@white-wolf.com>... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Really? Doesn't Archon (the card) just define what it means > > to be an archon, which includes that "any vampire attempting > > to block an archon burns 1 blood"? > > It used to. > Now [RTR 19-MAY-2003] it is a card in play with an effect. Why not just make Archon a title and thus non-stackable like other titles? Otherwise you havn't closed the archon loophole but just made it harder to jump through it, requiring a player to put multiple archon votes on a vamp to gain multiple archon rushes with that vamp. I realize that making it a title makes other titled vamps lose their titles to become an archon, but I believe that is in line with the source material anyways. T

On 21 May 2003 23:53:33 -0700, talo...@hotmail.com (Talonz) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] if you made it a title, then by most praxis type cards, the card never goes on the vampire, so the archon loophole opens right up again. if the RTR felt it was overpowered being able to stack archons, they'd have probably implemented a much more elegant 'choose a vampire that does not have an archon....' line, or a 'a vampire may only have one archon' line. as it is, they've taken the time to errata it. they made it stackable. obviously, by their thinking, it's not too powerful like that. if you think otherwise, build a deck that abuses it, go win a bunch of tournaments, and wave the results in LSJ's face. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Salem wrote: > if you think otherwise, build a deck that abuses it, go > win a bunch of > tournaments, and wave the results in LSJ's face. :) Ahhhhh seems to me that that's not even given that much consideration these days. Rob [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <76d1d5ef.03052...@posting.google.com>, Talonz <talo...@hotmail.com> writes: >Why not just make Archon a title and thus non-stackable like other >titles? Because that wouldn't solve the loophole. If you "just" make Archon a title, the ability is not being provided by a card in play - the ability is still being provided by the card in the ash-heap. >Otherwise you havn't closed the archon loophole The loophole was being able to pass 1 Archon (or Templar) vote and get as many rushes as you could untap for. This is no longer possible. Thus, the loophole is closed. >but just made >it harder to jump through it, requiring a player to put multiple >archon votes on a vamp to gain multiple archon rushes with that vamp. Quite. Which is nothing like the previous situation, where you got as many as you could untap for. Being able to pass multiple Archon votes is not a trivial requirement. You need the cards, you need vampires (Princes or Justicars[0]) to call them, you need the votes to pass them. Every time you do that, you get a free rush action. The loophole was being able to do that *once* and get as many free rushes as you could untap for. Each time someone blocked, each time someone played Delaying Tactics... all that did was delay it. You get the vote through once, and the Archon goes to town. That's no longer possible. The cards still provide a useful and powerful effect, for a non-trivial cost. Why is it necessary to curb them further? Errata isn't issued in order to make cards weak. [0] Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals or Prisci in the Templar version. But Templar is significantly poorer in terms of the abilities it grants. [ quoted text not captured ]

robtreasure wrote: > Salem wrote: > > >>if you think otherwise, build a deck that abuses it, go >>win a bunch of >>tournaments, and wave the results in LSJ's face. :) > > > Ahhhhh seems to me that that's not even given that much consideration > these days. ? Elaborate, please. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3ECBE97C...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > The Jost ruling imples that the traditional "start a bleed > > with Victoria (bleed of 1) and Mask it to Arika (bleed of 3) > > after blocks are declined" still works. Correct? > > Correct. Thanks. > > How about if Zebulon has a Blood Bond on one of my prey's > > vampires, a superior Blackmail on another, and an > > Incriminating Videotape on the third. He attempts to bleed, > > and when my prey declines to block, Ozmo wants to Mask in. > > Is this legal too? > > Yes. See previous examples with Toreador Grand Ball and with > Aisling. The question arises, you understand, because previous examples are no longer applicable. Any chance a more detailed explanation of the ruling could be given? I honestly don't think I can give rulings in tournaments with any confidence based on the new Mask ruling (for any situation I haven't specifically asked about already). What kinds of effects are applied to a vampire and invoke the new Mask prohibition? What kinds aren't? Without such general rules, I'm left knowing only about individual cases. For example, it's not intuitive to me that a vampire acting with stealth from Backways can't be Masked by a non-Gangrel, but a Toreador acting unblockably with Toreador Grand Ball can be Masked away from. Josh el grande toreador

On Thu, 22 May 2003, salem wrote: > if you think otherwise, build a deck that abuses it, go win a bunch of > tournaments, and wave the results in LSJ's face. :) I hear it worked well for Stu. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>Yes. See previous examples with Toreador Grand Ball and with >>Aisling. > > The question arises, you understand, because previous examples > are no longer applicable. The previous examples given in this thread, post-RTR, do apply. > Any chance a more detailed explanation of the ruling could be > given? I honestly don't think I can give rulings in tournaments > with any confidence based on the new Mask ruling (for any > situation I haven't specifically asked about already). If it is played during the action, it is used. > What kinds of effects are applied to a vampire and invoke the > new Mask prohibition? What kinds aren't? Without such general > rules, I'm left knowing only about individual cases. For > example, it's not intuitive to me that a vampire acting with > stealth from Backways can't be Masked by a non-Gangrel, but a > Toreador acting unblockably with Toreador Grand Ball can be > Masked away from. Everything that isn't on the minion (inherent stealth or lack thereof, inherent bleed or lack thereof, equipment, etc.) passes. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<dmdy1YUc...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <76d1d5ef.03052...@posting.google.com>, Talonz > <talo...@hotmail.com> writes: > >Why not just make Archon a title and thus non-stackable like other > >titles? > > Because that wouldn't solve the loophole. > It does if you apply that to the erratted version. Of course a simpler solution in the first place would have just been to recognize that if Tyler (or any vamp made into an archon) has the archon abilities and is a card in play and thus can only peform their innate rush once per turn. Simple, elegant, logical. And avoids actual erratta. > > The loophole was being able to pass 1 Archon (or Templar) vote and get > as many rushes as you could untap for. This is no longer possible. > > Thus, the loophole is closed. > Clumsily, but sure. Now it has led to another anomaly of being able to make a single vamp into multiple archons and regain multiple permanent rushes. > > Being able to pass multiple Archon votes is not a trivial requirement. If you can pass the first one, the hurdles likely are no different for passing the next one. Barring a change in actual table situation or cards in hand of course. T

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3ECCF011...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > >>Yes. See previous examples with Toreador Grand Ball and with > >>Aisling. > > > > The question arises, you understand, because previous examples > > are no longer applicable. > > The previous examples given in this thread, post-RTR, do apply. Sorry, I hadn't seen those examples yet since they didn't show up as being in the same thread in my newsreader. I see what you mean now. :-) > If it is played during the action, it is used. Thanks. So if it already existed, it's normally not something that would invoke a Mask prohibition. Josh clarified, somewhat

In message <76d1d5ef.03052...@posting.google.com>, Talonz <talo...@hotmail.com> writes: >Of course a simpler solution in the first place would have just been >to recognize that if Tyler (or any vamp made into an archon) has the >archon abilities and is a card in play and thus can only peform their >innate rush once per turn. They don't have an innate rush, though. They have a set of abilities given by a card no longer in play. Declaring black is white won't make it so. >Clumsily, but sure. Now it has led to another anomaly of being able >to make a single vamp into multiple archons and regain multiple >permanent rushes. Sure. What's the problem with that? You still need a source of untap, as well, amongst other things. >If you can pass the first one, the hurdles likely are no different for >passing the next one. Barring a change in actual table situation or >cards in hand of course. Yeah. Tables change so infrequently. People don't draw Delaying Tactics. It's so sad. :( A deck exploiting multiple untapping Archons needed - in the first instance - to pass *one* copy of Archon. Sift cards until you get the combo. Bingo. Now, for multiple, permanent rushes, you need multiple copies of Archon (you can just wait until you get one and suddenly you get unlimited rushes). You need multiple vote-pushing cards - the Prince or Justicar, plus the Archon vote, is unlikely to be reliable. Sure, on the right table etc. But three votes (the Prince) or four votes (the Justicar) is small enough that some vote-pushing tech is going to be needed for reliable vote-passing. You need multiple turns, or multiple vampires. The Archon vote can only be called once per turn by your Prince or Justicar. You'll need another turn, or more princes. (Theoretically, you could use Malkavians to Madness Network it if you have a source of untap, and use Telepathic Vote Counting as your vote-push tech. Doable, but still tricky.) Thus, you don't get unlimited rushes. You get 1 this turn, 2 next turn, 3 next turn. (Assuming that on each turn, you pass the Archon vote with the Prince again.) However, hand jam. Since you are now having to pass multiple votes, you are now having to include multiple political actions and multiple vote- push tech. Certainly more than previously, if you're going to exploit many rushes per turn. If you have exactly the right card flow that you can rush one vampire this turn whilst passing a vote, and then you can get two rushes in next turn, a source of untap, and have enough for the next vote, then the following turn have enough for three combats, two sources of untap and pass the vote *again*, and so on... That's some nifty shuffling you've managed. How are you getting the combats piling up like that without running into vote card problems? The delay means that a vampire gets one rush this turn. They don't get to untap and rush again. (They can untap, of course, but they won't be able to use the Archon rush again. They could use other sources of rush, but then the issue of Archon untaps wouldn't be relevant.) And again. And again. You don't get to devour the whole table *RIGHT NOW*. You get one rush. The table has a whole round (unlike under former exploits, where all the significant vamps stood a good chance of being bruises) to re-adjust, discard, call the vote to remove the abilities (which they couldn't do before until the damage was done) and so on. Sure, they don't exactly get warning of the first rush - but you could just have played Nose of the Hound instead. Why's this problematic? The power level is toned down. Why does it need to be toned down further? What pressing, overwhelming brokenness exists? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<kwMcgkbb...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <76d1d5ef.03052...@posting.google.com>, Talonz > <talo...@hotmail.com> writes: > >Of course a simpler solution in the first place would have just been > >to recognize that if Tyler (or any vamp made into an archon) has the > >archon abilities and is a card in play and thus can only peform their > >innate rush once per turn. > > They don't have an innate rush, though. They have a set of abilities > given by a card no longer in play. > That's the argument given in LSJ's ruling, yes. There is another argument that once one card gives another certain abilities, then that card has those abilities. Seeing as one remained in play and still had those abilities, then the result is obvious: a vampire[card] made into an archon has those abilities while in play. Pretty bloody simple. But we've been down this road before. > Declaring black is white won't make it so. > Spouting useless analogies won't help your case either. > > >Clumsily, but sure. Now it has led to another anomaly of being able > >to make a single vamp into multiple archons and regain multiple > >permanent rushes. > > Sure. What's the problem with that? You still need a source of untap, > as well, amongst other things. > Ah...its inconsistent with source material, illogical in application, and as a solution to one problem that creates another is therefore a flawed solution. > > Why's this problematic? The power level is toned down. Why does it > need to be toned down further? What pressing, overwhelming brokenness > exists? See above. Trading one problem for another, even if it is a 'lesser evil' is a less than desired solution imo. T

In message <76d1d5ef.03052...@posting.google.com>, Talonz <talo...@hotmail.com> writes: >That's the argument given in LSJ's ruling, yes. That's not an argument. It's fact. > There is another >argument that once one card gives another certain abilities, then that >card has those abilities. Seeing as one remained in play and still >had those abilities, then the result is obvious: Clearly, it is not. >a vampire[card] made >into an archon has those abilities while in play. Pretty bloody >simple. Would you care to point to the card text on the vampire that provides the abilities? You can't. Would you care to point to the card in play with that text? You can't. >> Declaring black is white won't make it so. > >Spouting useless analogies won't help your case either. You're attempting to claim that the abilities aren't provided by a card not in play. You're simply wrong. There are no two ways about this. There is no card in play providing the abilities. The Archon card is in the ash heap. By no definition is this in play. >> >Clumsily, but sure. Now it has led to another anomaly of being able >> >to make a single vamp into multiple archons and regain multiple >> >permanent rushes. >> >> Sure. What's the problem with that? You still need a source of untap, >> as well, amongst other things. >> > >Ah...its inconsistent with source material, Lots of things are inconsistent with source material. The source material inspires cards, it doesn't write them. >illogical in application, All things in V:TES are cumulative by default. Now, of course, a card can specify that it is not cumulative. But things being cumulative by default is a basic facet of the game. This is not illogical. See for instance Anarch Revolt. Perhaps the Anarchs should only be allowed to Revolt once. How do they get more revolting? Will you be declaring that a vampire should only be allowed one Aching Beauty too? After all, you can only be achingly beautiful once. Will you be preventing a vampire from using different weapons on a Blur? That's illogical too. You shouldn't be able to Blur and fire a .44 Magnum, a Starshell Grenade Launcher and an RPG Launcher all in the same (not first) round. But such possibilities are afforded by the same illogicality and back- story abilities. Imagine a Prince who creates an Archon, and continually lobbies the Primogen Council to afford it more power. Or a Justicar who does the same. There's no reason why all Archons should be created equal. A neophyte Archon might be easily thwarted. An Archon with overwhelming power and control effected through continual subjugation of the ruling council and the Prince's continual ear, managing to frighten enough of them into fear and respect in a truly Machiavellian fashion, is going to be a different kettle of fish. They *will* find you. You *will* die. We know from the backstory that all Princes aren't equal. We know that all Justicars aren't equal - the Inner Circle representative for the clan sometimes being completely screwed over by a more capable bunch from the other clans and forcing them into a nasty compromise. We know that all Princes aren't created equal - Calebros and Volker show one side of it, Wilhelm Waldburg shows another What's illogical about gifting more leniency to an Archon? Yeah, it's really logical to make them all cookie-cooker archons. The World of Darkness forces all vampires to follow exactly the same rules, all the time. Yeah. Such a pity. >and as a solution to one problem that creates another is therefore a >flawed solution. You haven't even begun to show that it creates another problem. What problem does it create? You haven't showed one. You haven't even begun to. You've said there's one. Now show it. Notice that you've snipped the discussion of the balancing factors at work, for instance. An attempt to show a problem would address the balancing factors and show that they are insufficient, or possibly so. Just saying "It's a problem" won't get anything changed. You have been told this before, and nothing changed then. You are being told it again now. If you want something changed, you need to work to prove it. When the entire Rules Team has agreed a change, do you really think saying "It needs to be changed" is going to convince anyone? I wouldn't be convinced, were it me. Do you really think this factor wasn't even considered? It's jumping right out of the card text. I can't believe that no-one even thought of it before now. Additionally to previous suggestions, in order to pass multiple of them, you need the Prince (or Justicar) still around. (Substitute appropriate titles for the Sabbat Templar card.) That provides an obvious target. A rush deck can try and destroy it. (A rush deck will also get defence against the Archon, of course - at least, a mutual annihilation defence with one vampire, you'd hope.) A politics deck that is pro-vote but with little anti-vote capability other than titles (and the odd political card it cares to throw) can target that vampire - Banishment is an obvious candidate, Free States Rant a second (for the right vote deck, of course). An obvious defence against Princes is Blood Siege. (Along with providing you a neat way of bolstering your power.) Multiple decks stand a chance of getting a theft action/card through - temporary or otherwise - which can allow for some nastiness. And it's still an action being called multiple times. The old Archon needed one to get through and BOOM. This one requires multiple to get through. Someone can block one of them, perhaps. (Or are you packing uber-stealth in that Archon deck of yours? Doable with the Nosferatu princes and Forgotten Labyrinth, to some extent - but they aren't the greatest on the defensive, when a rush deck goes and pounds them.) Even without specific vote defence, many decks have generic action defence - it's certainly not a bad thing. (Especially if people start including the Anarch Free Press, Car Bomb and the like - excellent multi- functional defence.) A card that requires one vampire with a versatile skill (like bringing out an Assamite with Thaumaturgy - the other players don't know that you'll be using the Thaumaturgy, necessarily so) may be problematic once. If you keep passing it, it's a continual problem and, oh look, you've just given the rest of the table fair warning. And you still haven't even begun to explain how you're managing this card flow without your hand getting super jammed. Or why investing so much time and effort in one vampire isn't just going to put a big flashing neon light over his head saying "Kill me, my deck dies". So, still no attempt at actually showing a problem then. It figures. >> Why's this problematic? The power level is toned down. Why does it >> need to be toned down further? What pressing, overwhelming brokenness >> exists? > >See above. Trading one problem for another, even if it is a 'lesser >evil' is a less than desired solution imo. What problem is there? Simply saying "There's a problem" won't prove there is one. What problem is there? What convincing evidence is there? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<OwnWQmfp...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > > > >Ah...its inconsistent with source material, > > Lots of things are inconsistent with source material. The source > material inspires cards, it doesn't write them. > A less than usefull distinction. Thus the inconsistency remains. > >illogical in application, > > All things in V:TES are cumulative by default. > And when this defies logic or gamebalance the default is overridden by card text. > Yeah, it's really logical to make them all cookie-cooker archons. The > World of Darkness forces all vampires to follow exactly the same rules, > all the time. Yeah. Such a pity. > Sarcasm aside, that's what the old card did, gave all archons the same ability. Special and unique archons were given cardtext on the minion card to represent that. I would rather those remain the exception than have archons now stack and thus allow multi rushes with the same card via multiple copies. > > > >and as a solution to one problem that creates another is therefore a > >flawed solution. > > You haven't even begun to show that it creates another problem. > Old archon did not stack. New one does. Now if the old one did somehow stack (although how it did as it wasn't 'in play' I do not know) then we still have an old problem rather than a new one. > The old Archon > needed one to get through and BOOM. This one requires multiple to get > through. Very true. A matter of degree then isn't it? T

In message <76d1d5ef.03052...@posting.google.com>, talo...@hotmail.com (Talonz) mumbled something about: >Sarcasm aside, that's what the old card did, gave all archons the same >ability. Special and unique archons were given cardtext on the minion >card to represent that. I would rather those remain the exception >than have archons now stack and thus allow multi rushes with the same >card via multiple copies. and... >Old archon did not stack. New one does. >Now if the old one did somehow stack (although how it did as it wasn't >'in play' I do not know) then we still have an old problem rather than >a new one. What the fuck are you talking about, monkey boy? You think it's broken, build a deck, win a tournament, show us. Hell, you build a deck and win a GAME and show us. And be sure to show us that it was the stacked Archon ability that was broken. I don't give a damn if you build a deck that stacks Archons on people with Charming Lobby, and then calls chained KRCs all day long -- that doesn't show anything about Archon being broken. I say you can't do it. Much like Mirror Image, the card simply isn't a problem stacked up, because the card itself doesn't do that much -- you have to do something else BESIDES stack up Archons. Actually, Mirror Image is stronger stacked than Archon is, frankly. One more free Rush? Who cares? You still have to untap -- I'd rather make someone an Archon once, and then have them use Harass and Ambush. Easier on card slots. If stacked Archon is broken, what about Nu? He can rush many more times a turn than the average stacked-Archon deck can. Is he broken? Of course not, and he's ALSO better in combat than your Archon deck ever will be, because of the TEM cards. If Nu isn't broken, how can stackable Archons be broken? By the way, I'm waiting for your oh-so-awesome tournament report about Mirror Image being broken. Oh, that's right, I forgot: You can't back up your claims, because your claims are founded on the HOT AIR you keep spewing. Puling child. Back to your high chair and get building your decks. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vfd4dv08vjg2hd9h6...@4ax.com>... > You think it's broken, build a deck, win a tournament, show us. You'll note that at no point did I say the current Archon card is broken. Inconsistent and illogical yes, broken, no. Do us the favour of reading and understanding the thread in full, or don't bother. Actually with your penchant for bile and vitriol don't bother at all. T

In message <76d1d5ef.03052...@posting.google.com>, Talonz <talo...@hotmail.com> writes: >You'll note that at no point did I say the current Archon card is >broken. You keep telling us about the loophole that is left. If it is not broken, it is not really a loophole. Certainly not one worth bothering with. A 'loophole' - which it is not, since it must surely have been seen by LSJ - in a card where it is balanced and intended is, in actuality, a 'feature'. >Inconsistent Cards stack. You put five Aching Beauties on a vampire, it gets to do it five times. You put Archon on a vampire, it gets to do it five times. >and illogical yes, Forgive me if I don't see the value of your "logic". You do not have a track history of being on the mark with your "logic". >broken, no. Then why bother going on about it? The card is fixed in a simple manner, consistent with the stacking abilities of many other cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <0LOoOULN...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >You put Archon five Archon, of course, in the situation described. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <76d1d5ef.03052...@posting.google.com>, talo...@hotmail.com (Talonz) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vfd4dv08vjg2hd9h6...@4ax.com>... >> You think it's broken, build a deck, win a tournament, show us. > >You'll note that at no point did I say the current Archon card is >broken. Inconsistent and illogical yes, broken, no. Cry me a river then, fanboy. There are plenty of other things that are inconsistent and illogical. A certain amount of each is going to happen, no matter what. Shouldn't a card named "Behind You" be, instead of a maneuver, be close range and first strike? After all, behind someone is no further away necessarily... but it should be surprise? You could make such a case for every card in the game. If you don't have a problem with the effect of the card, pipe down. >Do us the favour of reading and understanding the thread in full, or >don't bother. Actually with your penchant for bile and vitriol don't >bother at all. Pot. Kettle. Black. I read *and* understood it quite well. What I saw was you whining, AGAIN, about a change that didn't happen exactly the way you wanted it to. Fortunately, we do NOT have you designing the game, because you seem unable to avoid the more obvious pitfalls in logic chains, and you have some trouble distinguishing what is effective from what is desired. Perhaps you should go back and read what you write. [ quoted text not captured ]