I was reading the errata on this card, and it says
to ignore the Superior text, since the card requires
a Setite, and it doesn't make sense.
Am I the only person who thinks that the much more
obvious errata was the _requirement_ on the card,
as opposed to the text?
I can see a few better ways of dealing with this card
(and other similar misprints, if there are any):
First, just make the card require Serpentis instead of
requiring a Setite. What's the big deal about that?
Second, make it require both. Maybe it's a ritual only
known to the Followers of Set, but they still need the
Discipline to pull it off.
Third, make it require only Serpentis, but instead of the
boldface text being a Superior power, it only works if the
vampire is a Setite.
Or, the other way around. Require a Setite, and "If this
Setite posesses Serpentis, gain this bonus."
Is there a reason they couldnt just officially switch the
Requirement icon from the Clan to the Discipline?
That would have been the simplest solution, and doesn't make
it a particularly unbalancing card...
In article <8KAb6.12771$t3.28...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
While your first solution would be the simplest yes, I wonder how you
can think your other ones are compared to the current solution (i.e.
that making it require both the clan AND the disciplne would be a
simple soltion when it's never been made before).
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
"cantila" <rogc...@student.luth.se> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:94nf25$puh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8KAb6.12771$t3.28...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
> > I was reading the errata on this card, and it says
> > to ignore the Superior text, since the card requires
> > a Setite, and it doesn't make sense.
> > Am I the only person who thinks that the much more
> > obvious errata was the _requirement_ on the card,
> > as opposed to the text?
> >
<snip>
> While your first solution would be the simplest yes, I wonder how you
> can think your other ones are compared to the current solution (i.e.
> that making it require both the clan AND the disciplne would be a
> simple soltion when it's never been made before).
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Indeed the "first" errata solution (make StS a serpentis card)
would have been the easiest and the most intuitive.
In fact, i still can't understand the reason why the errata on the card is
still the counter-intuitive one.
Just my thought
Emiliano, Prince of Rome
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:17:04 GMT, "tetragrammaton"
<aedip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Indeed the "first" errata solution (make StS a serpentis card)
>would have been the easiest and the most intuitive.
>In fact, i still can't understand the reason why the errata on the card is
>still the counter-intuitive one.
Makes sense to me. If you already have a vampire with Serpentis, why
do you want another one? But instead, a Setite, ANY Setite,
...including the weenies without Serpentis, or an Embrace with an OBF
skill card, for example... can go fetch someone from your crypt that
you want. Much better than Recruitment, at 2 blood instead of 2 pool,
and only an action instead of a Master.
An idea occurring to me is a Setite vote deck; with a couple Summon
the Serpents in it, you put one copy of Murat and one copy of Suhailah
in, and any of your OTHER vamps (especially those weenies without
Presence) can go through your crypt and fetch you a Prince, without
having to devote an entire crypt to it. (And both have OBF to use
your stealth.) You basically put all the weenies and all the voters
in; and when you get the card, you can go FETCH the voters you didn't
start with, instead of screwing around with the top card of your
crypt, spending pool, and hoping. (Not to mention you get 4 transfers
to the vamp -that- turn. =)
-- Derek
"Oh, cool... TABLE ACTIONS!" -- M. Perlman
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "tetragrammaton" <aedip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Indeed the "first" errata solution (make StS a serpentis card)
> >would have been the easiest and the most intuitive.
> >In fact, i still can't understand the reason why the errata on the
> >card is still the counter-intuitive one.
>
> Makes sense to me. If you already have a vampire with Serpentis, why
> do you want another one? But instead, a Setite, ANY Setite,
> ...including the weenies without Serpentis, or an Embrace with an OBF
> skill card, for example... can go fetch someone from your crypt that
> you want.
Also the "current errata" is not errata at all - just a clarification.
The card plays as printed (and most vampires will find it impossible
to get "superior Setite"). Which is simpler than errata'ing the
card to require serpentis instead of Follower of Set.
--
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 ]
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:io2v6t0vrm48ufo24...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:17:04 GMT, "tetragrammaton"
> <aedip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Indeed the "first" errata solution (make StS a serpentis card)
> >would have been the easiest and the most intuitive.
> >In fact, i still can't understand the reason why the errata on the card
is
> >still the counter-intuitive one.
>
>
<snip>
> An idea occurring to me is a Setite vote deck; with a couple Summon
> the Serpents in it, you put one copy of Murat and one copy of Suhailah
> in, and any of your OTHER vamps (especially those weenies without
> Presence) can go through your crypt and fetch you a Prince, without
> having to devote an entire crypt to it. (And both have OBF to use
> your stealth.) You basically put all the weenies and all the voters
> in; and when you get the card, you can go FETCH the voters you didn't
> start with, instead of screwing around with the top card of your
> crypt, spending pool, and hoping. (Not to mention you get 4 transfers
> to the vamp -that- turn. =)
>
> -- Derek
>
Ok, this is just a nice deck idea,
but the actual "clarification" (as per LSJ note on this thread)
is still counter-intuitive to me:
this way in AH we got, in the total count for discipline/clan cards,
a card less for Serpentis and an additional card for Setites,
perfectly reasonable, yes, but still counter-intuitive
Much like the Purity of the Beast clarification, it was clearly an
animalism card,
but the clarification did't followed the intuitive way........
I bet this has been already argued in the past,
so i don't pretend to be original or to start
a discussion here, i'm just expressing my opinion
Best
Emiliano, Prince of Rome
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:94p1g3$45f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "tetragrammaton" <aedip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
<snip>
> Also the "current errata" is not errata at all - just a clarification.
> The card plays as printed (and most vampires will find it impossible
> to get "superior Setite"). Which is simpler than errata'ing the
> card to require serpentis instead of Follower of Set.
>
I see no difficulties in exchanging the setite symbol with the serpentis
symbol,
and i don't see, too, how ignoring a bold text would be easier to
do than just putting on StS a symbol instead of another .
Just my thought
Emiliano, Prince of Rome
> --[ quoted text not captured ]
"tetragrammaton" <aedip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> this way in AH we got, in the total count for discipline/clan cards,
> a card less for Serpentis and an additional card for Setites,
By my count, Ancient Hearts had:
10 for ser and 10 for qui.
10 for Setites and 10 for Assamites.
How do you figure this as an additional card
for Set and one less card for Ser?
> perfectly reasonable, yes, but still counter-intuitive
> Much like the Purity of the Beast clarification, it was clearly an
> animalism card,
> but the clarification did't followed the intuitive way........
2 each for each discipline except ser and qui (and
dem, vic, and obt, of course).
It seems clear that all (both) of the animalism cards are
accounted for.
--
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 ]
"tetragrammaton" <aedip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio> > Also the "current errata" is not errata at all - just a> > clarification.
> > The card plays as printed (and most vampires will find it impossible
> > to get "superior Setite"). Which is simpler than errata'ing the
> > card to require serpentis instead of Follower of Set.
> >
>
> I see no difficulties in exchanging the setite symbol with the
> serpentis symbol,
That is clearly errata.
> and i don't see, too, how ignoring a bold text would be easier to
> do than just putting on StS a symbol instead of another .
Because, as stated above, that is not errata - that's just a
direct application of the card the way it is printed.
> Just my thought
It's been stated (and answered) already this thread, I believe.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:94qkn4$k1f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "tetragrammaton" <aedip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > this way in AH we got, in the total count for discipline/clan cards,
> > a card less for Serpentis and an additional card for Setites,
>
> By my count, Ancient Hearts had:
> 10 for ser and 10 for qui.
> 10 for Setites and 10 for Assamites.
> How do you figure this as an additional card
> for Set and one less card for Ser?
Yes, my memory was bad about the cards numbering.
Sorry
Emiliano, Prince of Rome
<snip>
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <94qkrn$k3v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> "tetragrammaton" <aedip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>
> > > Also the "current errata" is not errata at all - just a
> > > clarification.
> > > The card plays as printed (and most vampires will find it impossible
> > > to get "superior Setite"). Which is simpler than errata'ing the
> > > card to require serpentis instead of Follower of Set.
> > >
> >
> > I see no difficulties in exchanging the setite symbol with the
> > serpentis symbol,
>
> That is clearly errata.
>
> > and i don't see, too, how ignoring a bold text would be easier to
> > do than just putting on StS a symbol instead of another .
>
> Because, as stated above, that is not errata - that's just a
> direct application of the card the way it is printed.
>
> > Just my thought
>
> It's been stated (and answered) already this thread, I believe.
>
I have an alternate suggestion. There are some cards that are only
usable by vampires of a certain capacity (e.g. Death of my Conscience).
We could add a sentence: if this acting vampire has a capacity above,
say 5, add 2 blood from the blood bank.
I know that this would be errata, but hell, why not?
Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <3a80de65$0$7162$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net>,
> Tim Olivas <tol...@megsinet.net> wrote:>> Derek Ray wrote:
>> > If you already have a vampire with Serpentis, why
>> > do you want another one?
>>>> I'm looking at a discipline card and I notice that it reads "put
>> this card on a vampire"...not "on a READY vampire". Could that mean
>> that you could put a Serpentis card on a vampire in your Crypt?> No.
> You cannot play discipline cards on vampires in your uncontrolled
> region. You may not target vampires (with any card) in the
> uncontrolled region or in your crypt without specific card text.
However, you _can_ target vampires in Torpor with discipline cards..
It's useful to, for example, play Fortitude on your torpored vampires,
so they can play Rapid Healing and get out.