[SPOILER] Nergal Deck Exposed!

If you are interested in reading the contents of the Nergal Deck, it is available as a part of the Return of Nergal Storyline Event webstory at http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes. I encourage everyone to respect the people who do not wish to be exposed to the deck beforehand, and keep this information to themselves. Thank you, -- Oscar J. Garza III Organized Play Coordinator White Wolf Publishing

OrgPlay <org...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1126643822....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > If you are interested in reading the contents of the Nergal Deck, it is > available as a part of the Return of Nergal Storyline Event webstory at > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes. > I'm confused -- it's clearly against the idea of the event to know the contents of the Nergal Deck ahead of time -- so why is white wolf officially spoiling the deck to everyone? NW

OrgPlay wrote: > If you are interested in reading the contents of the Nergal Deck, it is > available as a part of the Return of Nergal Storyline Event webstory at > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes. > > I encourage everyone to respect the people who do not wish to be > exposed to the deck beforehand, and keep this information to > themselves. Let me add that the three promo-only cards, Nergal, Alan Sovereign (Advanced) and Helena (Advanced) are NOT listed in the Nergal deck spoiler. Expect to see those previewed in the near future. -Robert Robert Goudie V:EKN Storyline Director vtes...@white-wolf.com

"Name" <na...@name.com> wrote in message news:jfKVe.1083$D42...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] (IAMNRG but...) Because others will spoil the Nergal Deck if White Wolf doesn't. That is, it is not within White Wolf's power to prevent people from seeing the contents of the special deck ahead of time - except possibly on the first weekend. So they might as well spoil it fairly and accurately for everyone. Or for everyone who chooses to look, at least. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] As was pointed out in a previous thread - once the Nergal deck is played in early storyline events, it'll get spoiled over the newsgroup no matter how much you ask for people not to (see the Prophecies League for an example of this). So WW is posting the spoilers early, for those people who do feel like they would be at a disadvantage against players that had already seen the deck and/or its spoilers - several people had requested this of Robert. > NW -John Flournoy

Robert Goudie wrote: > Let me add that the three promo-only cards, Nergal, Alan Sovereign > (Advanced) and Helena (Advanced) are NOT listed in the Nergal deck > spoiler. Expect to see those previewed in the near future. > > -Robert > > Robert Goudie > V:EKN Storyline Director > vtes...@white-wolf.com umm, not wanting to bea spoiler, but i beleive the nergal card was indicated at the bottom of the list... was that intentional? -Bem

[ quoted text not captured ] There is the storyline-only copy of Nergal that is in the special Nergal deck, and there is also a different, promo version of Nergal that is legal for regular play. Robert is saying he will will preview the non-exclusive-to-this-Storyline Nergal in the near future. > -Bem -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] ...and *carefully*. Having the spoilers on a page with proper spoiler warnings is a lot safer for those who want to avoid the spoilers. Someone recklessly posting the stuff in a forum can spoil contents even for those who don't seek out the information. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] All of the cards in the Nergal, Prince of Hell deck are not legal for play (outside of this event, of course). The 3 promo-only cards are Helena (Advanced), Alan Sovereign (Advanced) and Nergal. These 3 cards are not in the Nergal, Prince of Hell deck. The Nergal promo-only card is different from the illegal Nergal, Prince of Hell card. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frea...@yahoo.com wrote: > Robert Goudie wrote: > > > Let me add that the three promo-only cards, Nergal, Alan Sovereign > > (Advanced) and Helena (Advanced) are NOT listed in the Nergal deck > > spoiler. Expect to see those previewed in the near future. > > > > -Robert > > > > Robert Goudie > > V:EKN Storyline Director > > vtes...@white-wolf.com > > umm, not wanting to bea spoiler, but i beleive the nergal card was > indicated at the bottom of the list... was that intentional? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e34311b392e91e0e

So if Nergal gets torpored, the table can just leave him in torpor and the Nergal deck is then completely neutered? gNat [ quoted text not captured ]

tigernat1 wrote: > So if Nergal gets torpored, the table can just leave him in torpor and > the Nergal deck is then completely neutered? > > gb392e91e0e Perhaps there will be some kind of Rapid Healing in the deck, or otherwise you'll have to make deals with players to rescue/diab Nergal...

"OrgPlay" <org...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1126643822....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > If you are interested in reading the contents of the Nergal Deck, it is > available as a part of the Return of Nergal Storyline Event webstory at > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes. > > I encourage everyone to respect the people who do not wish to be > exposed to the deck beforehand, and keep this information to > themselves. Am I right in saying that for some of the cards in the deck, the *only* change (making them tournament illegal) is the card title? Regards, Mike

[ quoted text not captured ] Oooops...almost spoiled something here.

Mike wrote: > Am I right in saying that for some of the cards in the deck, the *only* > change (making them tournament illegal) is the card title? That's what it looks like, although many of the cards have very subtle, not immediately recognizeable changes (like removal of a DNR clause, or changing who a given card can target). -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes and no. You've only read a spoiler. If, for example, the cards were printed on slices of cheese then that would make an additional reason they are tournament illegal. Anyway, I think your point you intended is that some texts are unchnaged and you are correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

OrgPlay wrote: > If you are interested in reading the contents of the Nergal Deck, it is > available as a part of the Return of Nergal Storyline Event webstory at > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes. > > I encourage everyone to respect the people who do not wish to be > exposed to the deck beforehand, and keep this information to > themselves. - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - - stop to read if you don´t wanna know that the deck does - Ok so now even on my big ass screen this won´t be on the first side :) If someone plays Pentex Subversion (and no other player goes for it) on Nergal the Nergal player is dead, right? I mean his deck consists only of 1 vampire (Nergal) and there is no other way to remove the PS. -- johannes walch

[ quoted text not captured ] Non-snippage of spoiler space intentional. 1. There's a 'burn card on him' rule. So it can be removed. 2. There's no guarantee he's the sole vampire in the crypt (is there?). If he's the sole vamp there, PS will hurt, yes. Playing weenie DEM?

[ quoted text not captured ] Where ist that? Didn´t find it :-/ > > 2. There's no guarantee he's the sole vampire in the crypt (is there?). > > If he's the sole vamp there, PS will hurt, yes. Yes there is: THE NERGAL, PRINCE OF HELL DECK ========================= All of the library cards in this deck are variations of existing library cards and have been modified in various ways to represent Nergal's power. Read the card texts carefully and don't assume the cards work the same way as legal-for-play version. The crypt consists of only one vampire which is also illegal outside of this event >Playing weenie DEM? Me? :-)

Johannes Walch wrote: > tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote: > > Non-snippage of spoiler space intentional. > > > > 1. There's a 'burn card on him' rule. So it can be removed. > > Where ist that? Didn´t find it :-/ In the rules for the event (following the prologue). See www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ > > 2. There's no guarantee he's the sole vampire in the crypt (is there?). > > [clip] > > Yes there is: > > THE NERGAL, PRINCE OF HELL DECK > ========================= > > All of the library cards in this deck are variations of existing library > cards and have been modified in various ways to represent Nergal's > power. Read the card texts carefully and don't assume the cards work the > same way as legal-for-play version. The crypt consists of only one > vampire which is also illegal outside of this event I think he's saying that could be read as "one crypt card" or as "12 crypt cards of the same vampire". -Robert [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] If Nergal is controlled, his controller can burn a card on him during the untap phase. But anything that affects Nergal while he is uncontrolled is what hoses this deck. Brainwash will lock him down. Gisela Harden can burn him from the Uncontrolled Region and then he has no vampires left. etc, etc.

"tigernat1" <tige...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1126770113.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... . [spoiler space...] . . . [spoiler space...] . . . [spoiler space...] . . . [spoiler space...] . . . [spoiler space...] . . . [spoiler space...] . . . [spoiler space...] . . > So if Nergal gets torpored, the table can just leave him in torpor and > the Nergal deck is then completely neutered? Go back and look at the text on Nergal's crypt card. You'll see that it won't work that way (exactly, usually...). Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Eh, sorry, but it does -- if you only read the text on Nergal as it is written at the moment :) Sten During

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:4329cd25$0$18641$1472...@news.sunsite.dk... [ quoted text not captured ] > Eh, sorry, but it does -- if you only read the text on Nergal as it is > written at the moment :) I don't see what you're getting at. Some silly point about "at the moment"? There are no actual cards "at the moment" I can look at so I'm going from the Nergal card text spoiled. And it has a pretty easy solution to the dilemna Nat seems to fear. Perhaps you haven't discerned it? Or else you're splitting hairs that it doesn't work all the time, I can't tell. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:lpkWe.79956$DW1.19995@fed1read06... [ quoted text not captured ] Ah, I see - my bad. My understanding of 'regions' was flawed. Perhaps someone may have meant it to work differently or perhaps not. There are a couple cards that might allow the Nergal deck to go on. (Although strangely, one card that is normally useful in torpor has been altered so as not to be. Odd.) Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] No hairsplitting. Torpor is still controlled. Sten During

[ quoted text not captured ] Bah, didn't see your answering yourself. Oh well. Sten

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I see no need to put spoiler space, honestly. The thread says in big letters "spoiler" -- and most everyone has already gone and looked anyway. =) Jozxyqk wrote: > > If Nergal is controlled, his controller can burn a card on him during > the untap phase. > > But anything that affects Nergal while he is uncontrolled is what hoses this > deck. Brainwash will lock him down. Gisela Harden can burn him from > the Uncontrolled Region and then he has no vampires left. etc, etc. Four Brainwashes on turn 1 will lock him down, you mean. Plus one Brainwash per turn afterwards as there are 8 other copies that will need Brainwashing; Nergal's Methuselah will just move them over one by one. The Nergal player always goes last on turn 1, and always has four transfers. Nergal is a 4-cap, meaning that if there is ANY unBrainwashed copy available to transfer to, he comes out immediately. It is impossible to influence Gisela before Nergal first arrives. Once Nergal becomes controlled for the first time, he's even harder to deal with. He can be Banished by an IC, sure... but he'll always come back out for a max of 4 pool, and possibly for free. I don't see the Leandro/Brainwash or the Arika/Gisela deck making the finals this week, personally, and of course Nergal's victory conditions make it _always_ playing to win if he goes and arbitrarily crushes an IC member. Or Gisela. And I definitely don't see four separate Brainwash decks both making the finals and drawing a Brainwash on turn 1. Hypotheticals are nice, but let's at least consider that people will play competitive decks :) - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDKfeKtQZlu3o7QpERAmZ7AKCGJJsYmbCIWRa3cY/Dl4IHJPPOuQCggZUY ZGTcflvtXyhPAwXj75TFqQA= =UGAy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jozxyqk wrote: > Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > > OrgPlay wrote: > > > If you are interested in reading the contents of the Nergal Deck, it is > > > available as a part of the Return of Nergal Storyline Event webstory at > > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes. > > > > > > I encourage everyone to respect the people who do not wish to be > > > exposed to the deck beforehand, and keep this information to > > > themselves. > I snipped the spoiler spacing, since google hides it in quoted text anyway and there is a big spoiler warning on the subject line and I'm not sure I'm spoiling anything. > > > Ok so now even on my big ass screen this won´t be on the first side :) > > If someone plays Pentex Subversion (and no other player goes for it) on > > Nergal the Nergal player is dead, right? I mean his deck consists only > > of 1 vampire (Nergal) and there is no other way to remove the PS. > > If Nergal is controlled, his controller can burn a card on him during > the untap phase. > > But anything that affects Nergal while he is uncontrolled is what hoses this > deck. Brainwash will lock him down. Gisela Harden can burn him from > the Uncontrolled Region and then he has no vampires left. etc, etc. Someone mentioned Brainwash on the White Wolf forums and without spoiling anything, I said were it to happen to me, I'd offer to oust the prey of anyone that got rid of Brainwash. Sounds like a legal deal to me. If Brainwash stays, I lose the game. Even if I oust other players, I have not compromised my chance of winning, since I only need to be last man standing. If the table chooses to screw Nergal, Brainwash or no Brainwash, the Nergal deck will lose. If someone chooses to work with Nergal, they can ride that wave all the way to the end, and then Nergal and the other player can have a showdown. How is Gisela Harden going to burn Nergal with her special? Banishment, followed up with her special??? I think Nergal getting PTO'd is a much bigger and more likely thing to be worried about (oops, don't let this thread turn into a PTO discussion). Later, ~Rehlow

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > I see no need to put spoiler space, honestly. The thread says in big > letters "spoiler" -- and most everyone has already gone and looked > anyway. =) > Jozxyqk wrote: > > > > If Nergal is controlled, his controller can burn a card on him during > > the untap phase. > > > > But anything that affects Nergal while he is uncontrolled is what hoses this > > deck. Brainwash will lock him down. Gisela Harden can burn him from > > the Uncontrolled Region and then he has no vampires left. etc, etc. > Four Brainwashes on turn 1 will lock him down, you mean. Plus one > Brainwash per turn afterwards as there are 8 other copies that will need > Brainwashing; Nergal's Methuselah will just move them over one by one. As far as I know, there is only one physical copy of Nergal. Not 12. And since Nergal has no controller if he's uncontrolled, the "his controller may burn 1 card each untap phase" rule does not apply. So, just one Brainwash will hose him, unless he can convince some kindhearted Methuselah to remove it for him. > Once Nergal becomes controlled for the first time, he's even harder to > deal with. He can be Banished by an IC, sure... Nergal's special text says that any time he leaves the controlled region, he goes to the uncontrolled region. So if you find any way to "burn" him, or "remove him from game" (say.. combat, or Golconda, or any temporary-change-of-control effect), then he'll become uncontrolled, and can follow it up with Gisela's ability or a Might of the Camarilla vote, in theory. So it is possible.

Rehlow <news...@rehlow.com> wrote: > How is Gisela Harden going to burn Nergal with her special? "If Nergal would leave your controlled region, place him in your uncontrolled region instead." This includes burning him, removing him from the game, or any effect that moves him to another Methuselah's controlled region (Form of Corruption, Graverobbing, Temptation of Greater Power...). If any of these effects happens, he immediately goes uncontrolled. So then, yes, you could follow it up with a "Burn an uncontrolled vampire" special ability/card effect, if you had decided to build such a metagame-specific deck (although I'd expect to see Gisela, even in a completely spoiler-free environment).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jozxyqk wrote: > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Four Brainwashes on turn 1 will lock him down, you mean. Plus one >>Brainwash per turn afterwards as there are 8 other copies that will need >>Brainwashing; Nergal's Methuselah will just move them over one by one. > > As far as I know, there is only one physical copy of Nergal. Not 12. Why would you assume the deck would be illegally constructed? > And since Nergal has no controller if he's uncontrolled, the "his > controller may burn 1 card each untap phase" rule does not apply. > So, just one Brainwash will hose him, unless he can convince some > kindhearted Methuselah to remove it for him. This conclusion, however, assumes the deck is illegally constructed. We know nothing about this, so why jump to conclusions? >>Once Nergal becomes controlled for the first time, he's even harder to >>deal with. He can be Banished by an IC, sure... > > Nergal's special text says that any time he leaves the controlled region, > he goes to the uncontrolled region. > So if you find any way to "burn" him, or "remove him from game" (say.. > combat, or Golconda, or any temporary-change-of-control effect), then he'll Torporizing Nergal in combat would seem to be the best way to solve the problem, wouldn't it -- as then he remains in the torpor region, controlled. It is likely to be very hard to burn Nergal, given the number and nature of the anti-agg cards in Nergal's deck. > become uncontrolled, and can follow it up with Gisela's ability or a Might > of the Camarilla vote, in theory. Did you miss the part where I said I'm not particularly worried about the Leandro/Gisela deck making the finals? Guess what: I'm DEFINITELY not worried about the Tariq/Gisela deck, which seems one of the more plausible ways to easily burn-and-erase him. Inferior versions of other combat decks hoping to have Gisela out at the right time, even less worried. > So it is possible. *sigh* I quote MYSELF: Hypotheticals are nice, but let's at least consider that people will play competitive decks :) Besides, there's another gotcha: when Nergal successfully Calls his Great Beast, he 1) has a second minion available and 2) comes back immediately. It's certain that someone will manage to torporize Nergal in some storyline, somewhere. But is Nergal auto-hosed? I'm not so sure anymore, given the ability to casually burn a card on him during his untap. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDKhbItQZlu3o7QpERAlzJAKCGpHJauqyJxEJCfQDYPmi0knKbQgCfYblA Nt5gsu1fnEHLbhc8aTjvExQ= =z6Tk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Don't the rules say "The crypt consists of only one vampire which is also illegal outside of this event?" The last time I checked, having 12 of the same vampire in your crypt was quite legal. Therefore this leads me to believe there is ONLY 1 vampire in the deck making it an illegal deck. Hence 1 Nergal. How does casually burning a card on Nergal help me when Nergal is in torpor from being D attacked (quite common)? Perhaps Nergal should have text similar to Jimmy Dunn saying new copies of him burn old copies and the deck should have 2 copies of him (or perhaps 4, a full starting uncontrolled region)? gNat

I'm hoping for Four copies of the Arika/Gisela deck at the tourney here, just so I can say Negral won by default. Now to be serious, I agree with Rehlow: "If the table chooses to screw Nergal, Brainwash or no Brainwash, the Nergal deck will lose. If someone chooses to work with Nergal, they can ride that wave all the way to the end, and then Nergal and the other player can have a showdown. " The Negral deck will live or die by it's players ability to negotiate with the rest of the table, and by that I mean swindle, because VP's do it absolutely no good. Basically, the negral deck will have to get at least one other deck to work with it to the end, and then squash or be squashed. Which is exactly why I'm resurrecting/rebuilding the infamous "Ultimate Fighter/My deck only works backwards" Jalan-Aajav/Karsh deck, with the added fun of Enkidu. -BEAR who has just insured his defeat by contesting.

"tigernat1" <tige...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1126843013.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Don't the rules say "The crypt consists of only one vampire which is > also illegal outside of this event?" The last time I checked, having > 12 of the same vampire in your crypt was quite legal. Therefore this > leads me to believe there is ONLY 1 vampire in the deck making it an > illegal deck. Hence 1 Nergal. I'm pretty sure there's only one Nergal in the crypt (not 12 identical ones) because the words say, "...consists of only one vampire...". But the reason they wrote, "...which is also illegal outside of this event..." is because you can't take the single Nergal card and use it in any other VEKN events any more than you can use any of the Nergal deck library cards in other VEKN events. Not because the crypt is illegally small. (Though the latter is clearly true as well.) The VEKN-legal Nergal crypt promo card is a different thing. > How does casually burning a card on Nergal help me when Nergal is in > torpor from being D attacked (quite common)? Well, try not to get torporized from D attacks, I suppose. If you're not run out of blood, you can also try to leave torpor. > Perhaps Nergal should have text similar to Jimmy Dunn saying new copies > of him burn old copies and the deck should have 2 copies of him (or > perhaps 4, a full starting uncontrolled region)? Actually, I wish the text on him worked the way I was thinking it did (torpor region not being part of the controlled region). That would make torporizing him a penalty but not a horrible penalty. Much more fun. ("HE'S B-A-A-A-AAAAACK!!!" *scary music*) Fred

Robert Goudie wrote: >>THE NERGAL, PRINCE OF HELL DECK >>========================= >> >>All of the library cards in this deck are variations of existing library >>cards and have been modified in various ways to represent Nergal's >>power. Read the card texts carefully and don't assume the cards work the >>same way as legal-for-play version. The crypt consists of only one >>vampire which is also illegal outside of this event > > > I think he's saying that could be read as "one crypt card" or as "12 > crypt cards of the same vampire". I never knew that 12 crypt cards of the same vampire was an illegal crypt outside of the storyline. -- johannes walch

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I see no need to put spoiler space, honestly. The thread says in big > letters "spoiler" -- and most everyone has already gone and looked > anyway. =) There is a need, so, please, keep the spoiler space. Or better, just don't post any spoilers, even tangental ones, until after the event, as per the spirit of the event. Spoilers were posted on the WW site to help encourage that (that is, to help alleviate the need to have spoilers posted elsewhere). -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 tigernat1 wrote: > Don't the rules say "The crypt consists of only one vampire which is > also illegal outside of this event?" The last time I checked, having > 12 of the same vampire in your crypt was quite legal. Therefore this Yes. And 12 of the same vamp in your crypt is commonly phrased as "the crypt consists of only one vampire" as well. > leads me to believe there is ONLY 1 vampire in the deck making it an > illegal deck. Hence 1 Nergal. The phrasing above specifies that the "one vampire" is illegal outside of this event... nothing about how many copies are in the deck. > How does casually burning a card on Nergal help me when Nergal is in > torpor from being D attacked (quite common)? Oh, really? You have such experience playing the Nergal deck that you can say it's quite common for Nergal to go to torpor from being Rushed? The intent of the deck is clearly that beating Nergal into torpor is one of the weaknesses of the deck. Given cards available like Regeneration (gain 5 blood), the anti-agg cards, and the like, it might be just a touch difficult to actually DO so. > Perhaps Nergal should have text similar to Jimmy Dunn saying new copies > of him burn old copies and the deck should have 2 copies of him (or > perhaps 4, a full starting uncontrolled region)? If the Nergal deck only has a single physical vampire card in the crypt, it will surely lose and may well never even actually get played in a number of tournaments, as getting lucky once with an uncontrolled-region hoser is kind of easy to do, you know? A plain old Banishment/Might of the Camarilla deck will do the trick, for example, and it's not unheard of for those to do well in tournament play as well.. ie, make the finals. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDKrVBtQZlu3o7QpERAt7SAKCKFLt3Dc0JrnOMGDNEa7eV/nID1ACgjS8Z UAU+I7SVGp1ZlhZwL7Q1GXc= =HKMb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 LSJ wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: > >> I see no need to put spoiler space, honestly. The thread says in big >> letters "spoiler" -- and most everyone has already gone and looked >> anyway. =) > > There is a need, so, please, keep the spoiler space. Not sure about you, but I'm unsympathetic to people who look in a thread titled "[SPOILER, DON'T READ BECAUSE THERE IS DISCUSSION OF THE CONTENT IN HERE]" and then complain that their fun was spoiled because they learned secrets. > Or better, just don't post any spoilers, even tangental ones, until > after the event, as per the spirit of the event. Hence my comments being confined to the thread entitled "[SPOILER]", to maintain the spirit of the event -- which is that those who want to be surprised _can_ be surprised by easily avoiding the information. > Spoilers were posted on the WW site to help encourage that (that is, > to help alleviate the need to have spoilers posted elsewhere). Oh, sure. Nobody's gone and posted his full text or the contents of the deck, and that is a good thing. And none of us are going to (i don't think). But there will be plenty of discussion, and at some point we're going to have to reference specific features and/or text on the cards during that discussion... so it will still be possible to obtain SOME information by reading the thread. Hence the title of the thread, and at that point my initial paragraph applies. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDKrZ5tQZlu3o7QpERAki2AKDX5G6Q+RFE2s5+qsK/gUvtC5mFXgCfZD1g MnCtp6N9M7GUyrDdhIJi3xU= =EkWP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah, I see. That sentence is poorly written. The intent is to point out that Nergal, The Prince of Hell (different from the promo-only version) is a vampire that is illegal outside of this event and NOT that one card crypts are illegal oustide of this event. -Robert Robert Goudie V:EKN Stoyrline Director vtes...@white-wolf.com

[ quoted text not captured ] It doesn't say that the crypt is illegal (other than the fact that the only cards it contains are illegal). It says the library cards are illegal, and the vampire is also illegal.

Derek Ray wrote: > > Hence my comments being confined to the thread entitled "[SPOILER]", to > maintain the spirit of the event -- which is that those who want to be > surprised _can_ be surprised by easily avoiding the information. > Incidentally, I 100% agree with you. But just so you know, any text in brackets (at least, in leading brackets, not sure if it counts anywhere else in the text) seems to be hidden from DejaNews (err.. I mean Google Groups) readers. That's why some people use "deck: deckname" as a subject instead of [deck] (at least it's why I have in the past, and may be why others do), because if you do [deck] it gets hidden, for a lot of people. Not that I care, because I don't mind spoilers, but if the thread simply said [SPOILER]Nergal deck exposed, rather than [SPOILER]Nergal Deck Exposed! Don't read blah blah blah... I wouldn't have known there were spoilers. Since people are always asking posters to make allowances for the shortcomings of their own newsreaders (such as inability to keep threads straight, which Google Groups does a good job of), perhaps leading bracket tags are a bad idea in light of the shortcomings of Google Groups.

Chris Berger wrote: > Incidentally, I 100% agree with you. But just so you know, any text in > brackets (at least, in leading brackets, not sure if it counts anywhere > else in the text) seems to be hidden from DejaNews (err.. I mean Google > Groups) readers. Yeah--does anyone know why that is? Is it some sort of crazy intentional mechanism that is completely obscure to us usenet people? Why would you make [ ] tags invisible? As a function? Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot, easily spilled liquids to naked people." -Brittni Meil

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: > > > Incidentally, I 100% agree with you. But just so you know, any text in > > brackets (at least, in leading brackets, not sure if it counts anywhere > > else in the text) seems to be hidden from DejaNews (err.. I mean Google > > Groups) readers. > > Yeah--does anyone know why that is? Is it some sort of crazy intentional > mechanism that is completely obscure to us usenet people? > > Why would you make [ ] tags invisible? As a function? > (BTW, I meant they were hidden in subject lines, which I didn't write, but you knew what I meant) Good question. There are only two reasons I can think of. One is that Google Groups uses bracket tags for some purpose, and thus hides them from view. This seems unlikely since you can see the bracket tags in the subject line *after* you open the thread, so they're not 100% hidden, they're just hidden when browsing threads. The other reason is that it's some sort of misguided attempt at HTML compliance. Tags using '>' brackets would probably be hidden because they are HTML code, and perhaps they hide text in [ ] because they think that those might also be HTML code?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chris Berger wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: > >>Hence my comments being confined to the thread entitled "[SPOILER]", to >>maintain the spirit of the event -- which is that those who want to be >>surprised _can_ be surprised by easily avoiding the information. > > Incidentally, I 100% agree with you. But just so you know, any text in > brackets (at least, in leading brackets, not sure if it counts anywhere > else in the text) seems to be hidden from DejaNews (err.. I mean Google Well, your replies seem to trim the [SPOILER], but leave the [DON'T READ...] portion. Weird. Let me know if Google eats any of my over-the-top reaction in the new, improved subject line. > Not that I care, because I don't mind spoilers, but if the thread > simply said [SPOILER]Nergal deck exposed, rather than [SPOILER]Nergal > Deck Exposed! Don't read blah blah blah... I wouldn't have known there > were spoilers. Since people are always asking posters to make > allowances for the shortcomings of their own newsreaders (such as > inability to keep threads straight, which Google Groups does a good job > of), perhaps leading bracket tags are a bad idea in light of the > shortcomings of Google Groups. Leading square-bracket tags, anyway. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDK0RmtQZlu3o7QpERAirXAKDE+q23VOXk+sp9yR9HfE2ZYzaSZwCbBsEB hKeCqj6SuEFZ+DvakKJlsQE= =GDKW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > Incidentally, I 100% agree with you. But just so you know, any text in > > brackets (at least, in leading brackets, not sure if it counts anywhere > > else in the text) seems to be hidden from DejaNews (err.. I mean Google > > Well, your replies seem to trim the [SPOILER], but leave the [DON'T > READ...] portion. > > Weird. > Yep, and completely counter-intuitive. I like Google Groups for many reasons, but it's definitely got some problems. > Let me know if Google eats any of my over-the-top reaction in the new, > improved subject line. > It did not. So I guess that means SPOIL3RZZZ away!!! So, anyway, isn't it cool how the Nergal deck gets a card that can breed Salubri as a Master Phase action, and those Salubri can take a +2 stealth action to burn any minion at this table or an adjacent table?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chris Berger wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: > >>Let me know if Google eats any of my over-the-top reaction in the new, >>improved subject line. > > It did not. So I guess that means SPOIL3RZZZ away!!! So, anyway, > isn't it cool how the Nergal deck gets a card that can breed Salubri as > a Master Phase action, and those Salubri can take a +2 stealth action > to burn any minion at this table or an adjacent table? I thought it was for !Salubri? Damn. Those guys just keep getting hosed, you know? - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDLW63tQZlu3o7QpERArnsAKCjay+l66w9gDMxaErDzS1/mhTtxgCg4aSr Ynp0qIh/ozuz4Td+ligoZLI= =dMkf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derek Ray wrote: > > > > It did not. So I guess that means SPOIL3RZZZ away!!! So, anyway, > > isn't it cool how the Nergal deck gets a card that can breed Salubri as > > a Master Phase action, and those Salubri can take a +2 stealth action > > to burn any minion at this table or an adjacent table? > > I thought it was for !Salubri? Damn. Those guys just keep getting > hosed, you know? > Hah! You know, I fully expect the !Salubri to get like one vampire in LoB, with all 3 clan disciplines, 2 superiors, 5 cap, and a Sonja Blue-like disadvantage. ;)

I have some spoiler-specific rules questions regarding the Nergal deck. I'm putting back some spoiler space --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* EAT AT JOE'S *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- --* SPOILER SPACE IS COOL *-- A few of the cards' texts refer to the "original" names of the cards being copied. I'm not sure if this is a printing oversight, or if the cards are printed in such a way that this will make sense, but: * While it is being "called", Nergal Calls the Great Beast doesn't contest with Call the Great Beast since the cards have different names. But, once it has become a vampire, does the Great Beast created by Nergal's card contest with the normal Great Beast? (It says it is unique, and it calls it Great Beast) Less importantly: * Form of Demonic Corruption's text says "A Methuselah can only have one Form of Corruption in play." Can Nergal have both Form of Corruption and Form of Demonic Corruption in play at the same time (if he steals a card with the Erciyes Fragments, for instance)? Or is "Form of Demonic Corruption" considered to be "a Form of Corruption" for this purpose? * Same question with Demonic Pulse of the Canaille. Card text says Pulse of the Canaille, not "Demonic", so can he have both? * Rutor's Hand vs. Rutor's Infernal Hand. (card text says Rutor's Hand)

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah. Good question. Yes, the card texts that refer to the original names of the cards is an oversight. > But, once > it has become a vampire, does the Great Beast created by Nergal's > card contest with the normal Great Beast? No. > Less importantly: Same with all the others. Consider the card text to be an abbreviated version of the card's true name. -Robert Robert Goudie V:EKN Storyline Director vtes...@white-wolf.com

[ quoted text not captured ] > > Less importantly: > Same with all the others. Consider the card text to be an abbreviated > version of the card's true name. So, then, if Nergal has Demonic Pulse of the Canaille, and manages to get a copy of Pulse of the Canaille into his hand, he is free to have both?

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. (Good luck working that out. :) [ quoted text not captured ]