[LSJ] Charming Lobby & Rutor's Hand

* Charming Lobby: So now it only requires a total of 2 vamps? And playing CL turns into a Political Action? Vamp A plays CL and a PA which goes unblocked. The PA vote passes Vamp B plays a PA which then will pass automatically? * Rutor's Hand: I thought that the total cost was 3, but upon rereading the errata, it seems that it is 4, 1 of which is the cost of the card. The reasoning for the errata for the SUP, I thought, was that the prevention was simply paying the cost of rescuing from torpor right now. Why the additional blood? For the priviledge of 'preventing' the damage? a0 -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > * Charming Lobby: > So now it only requires a total of 2 vamps? And playing CL turns > into a Political Action? Yes. And CL *is* a political action. [RTR 23-JUN-98] > Vamp A plays CL and a PA which goes unblocked. > The PA vote passes > Vamp B plays a PA which then will pass automatically? If B remains unblocked, yes. > * Rutor's Hand: > I thought that the total cost was 3, but upon rereading the errata, > it seems that it is 4, 1 of which is the cost of the card. > The reasoning for the errata for the SUP, I thought, was that the > prevention was simply paying the cost of rescuing from torpor right > now. Why the additional blood? For the priviledge of 'preventing' > the damage? Sure, that's one way of looking at it. The one blood is the cost of playing the card. The three blood is the cost of preventing the damage (available only at superior). There is no torpor and no rescue if the damage is prevented. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

> > * Charming Lobby: > > So now it only requires a total of 2 vamps? And playing CL turns > > into a Political Action? > Yes. And CL *is* a political action. [RTR 23-JUN-98] Very cool. I've always wanted to use Charming Lobby but previously was too difficult to use effectively. > > * Rutor's Hand: > > I thought that the total cost was 3, but upon rereading the errata, > > it seems that it is 4, 1 of which is the cost of the card. > The one blood is the cost of playing the card. > The three blood is the cost of preventing the damage (available only > at superior). > There is no torpor and no rescue if the damage is prevented. Where/how did you come up with '3 blood' as the cost of preventing the damage at SUP? Was it just an arbitrary number you chose? Was there some template that you based the cost on? 4 blood makes it awefully expensive. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > * Rutor's Hand: > > > I thought that the total cost was 3, but upon rereading the errata, > > > it seems that it is 4, 1 of which is the cost of the card. > > The one blood is the cost of playing the card. > > The three blood is the cost of preventing the damage (available only > > at superior). > > There is no torpor and no rescue if the damage is prevented. > > Where/how did you come up with '3 blood' as the cost of preventing > the damage at SUP? Was it just an arbitrary number you chose? Was > there some template that you based the cost on? 4 blood makes it > awefully expensive. Three blood was chosen as a number that was suitably balanced for the effect. The effect is great - so is the cost. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <71psmf$d6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com writes > >> > * Charming Lobby: >> > So now it only requires a total of 2 vamps? And playing CL turns >> > into a Political Action? >> Yes. And CL *is* a political action. [RTR 23-JUN-98] > >Very cool. I've always wanted to use Charming Lobby but previously >was too difficult to use effectively. > It's now very similar to the way I'd read the Jyhad text. To me, the Jyhad text had always read as: If this action is successful, call a vote which isn't a card or anything like that but just a vote to determine if the next vote passes. And now it's better because there's a benefit for people in passing the first vote (rather than just arbitrarily voting it down as they would have done in my group) if you call a nice vote. >> > * Rutor's Hand: >> > I thought that the total cost was 3, but upon rereading the errata, >> > it seems that it is 4, 1 of which is the cost of the card. >Where/how did you come up with '3 blood' as the cost of preventing >the damage at SUP? Well, the "justification" (not that any is needed) was that you took 1 damage and went to torpor. Then you would have been rescued. So you would have paid the 1 blood for the card, 1 blood for the damage and 2 blood for the rescue. 4 blood in total (though you wouldn't necessarily have paid for the rescue). So it wasn't entirely arbitrary. However, that doesn't work under the new aggro rules. >Was it just an arbitrary number you chose? Was >there some template that you based the cost on? 4 blood makes it >awefully expensive. Well Rutor's Hand is VERY powerful. And bear in mind that preventing the damage was nigh on impossible before. (Tears and that was it.) Now, at least, you can prevent the damage if you want. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

> > Where/how did you come up with '3 blood' as the cost of preventing > > the damage at SUP? > Three blood was chosen as a number that was suitably balanced for > the effect. The effect is great - so is the cost. Ok, so if played at INF, would the vamp be less 2 blood or just 1? My guess is just 1, the cost of the card. The 1 point of agg damage, because of the new agg rule, would simply send them to torpor. If you *know* you can rescue the vamp, it's almost preferable to play it at inferior as it saves blood. 1 may not seem like much savings, but anytime you don't have to spend blood more blood is good. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:01:39 GMT, agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >> > Where/how did you come up with '3 blood' as the cost of preventing >> > the damage at SUP? >> Three blood was chosen as a number that was suitably balanced for >> the effect. The effect is great - so is the cost. > >Ok, so if played at INF, would the vamp be less 2 blood or just 1? >My guess is just 1, the cost of the card. The 1 point of agg damage, >because of the new agg rule, would simply send them to torpor. >If you *know* you can rescue the vamp, it's almost preferable to >play it at inferior as it saves blood. 1 may not seem like much >savings, but anytime you don't have to spend blood more blood is >good. > it seems to me that if played at inferior, you pay one blood for the card, take your 1 agg damage (burning no blood), go to torpor, untap in torpor with the card, then can rescue yourself from torpor by paying two blood. Total cost of 3, but at a risky second action which people who declined to intercept the equip action might find much more entertaining to stop. Or at superior, pay an extra blood to avoid having to take a second action, and never risk having your vamp stuck in torpor. LSJ: is this accurate? and is Merrill's special ability of change 1 agg to 1 normal useful here? -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

> agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > > * Rutor's Hand: > > > I thought that the total cost was 3, but upon rereading the errata, > > > it seems that it is 4, 1 of which is the cost of the card. > > The one blood is the cost of playing the card. > > The three blood is the cost of preventing the damage (available only > > at superior). > > There is no torpor and no rescue if the damage is prevented. > > Where/how did you come up with '3 blood' as the cost of preventing > the damage at SUP? Was it just an arbitrary number you chose? Was > there some template that you based the cost on? 4 blood makes it > awefully expensive. If you read the errata on the card, you'd see where he came up with the '3 blood'. Personally, I think it's a silly ruling when you can use Blood Tears to prevent the damage. Noal -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > > Where/how did you come up with '3 blood' as the cost of preventing > > > the damage at SUP? > > Three blood was chosen as a number that was suitably balanced for > > the effect. The effect is great - so is the cost. > > Ok, so if played at INF, would the vamp be less 2 blood or just 1? > My guess is just 1, the cost of the card. The 1 point of agg damage, > because of the new agg rule, would simply send them to torpor. Right. > If you *know* you can rescue the vamp, it's almost preferable to > play it at inferior as it saves blood. OK. That'll cost you an extra action. If you need to have this as an equation of other costs, then factor in the cost of a freak drive and horrid form (to make the "leave torpor" action unblockable). > 1 may not seem like much > savings, but anytime you don't have to spend blood more blood is > good. True. And anytime you don't have to take more actions is good. Likely better for a vampire with a skill which excels at gaining blood. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S. Ray wrote: > [Re: Rutor's Hand] > it seems to me that if played at inferior, you pay one blood for the > card, take your 1 agg damage (burning no blood), go to torpor, untap > in torpor with the card, then can rescue yourself from torpor by > paying two blood. Total cost of 3, but at a risky second action which > people who declined to intercept the equip action might find much more > entertaining to stop. You don't not get the free untap on the turn that you play the card, by card text. > Or at superior, pay an extra blood to avoid having to take a second > action, and never risk having your vamp stuck in torpor. > > LSJ: is this accurate? and is Merrill's special ability of change 1 > agg to 1 normal useful here? Merrill's ability is "once each combat", by card text, so "no" since Rutor's Hand's damage doesn't occur in combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Ok, so if played at INF, would the vamp be less 2 blood or just 1? >> My guess is just 1, the cost of the card. The 1 point of agg damage, >> because of the new agg rule, would simply send them to torpor. > Right. In the 6/23 errata (I went back and re-read it; I didn't want to rely just on memory), it says for Rutor's Hand that the 3 blood cost is (pretty much) made up of 1 blood from the agg damage that the vamp takes and 2 blood cost of rescue all in one shot. However, in the 7/7 errata/rulings/etc., you change how agg damage works and now the first point of agg damage doesn't actually remove blood, but simply sends them to torpor. Do you have any plans on bringing the errata made for Rutor's Hand on 6/23 inline with the errata/ruling made for Agg Damage on 7/7? a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <71sa8l$3ud$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >If you read the errata on the card, you'd see where he came up with >the '3 blood'. Personally, I think it's a silly ruling when you can use >Blood Tears to prevent the damage. You mustn't be aware of the other errata that was on it prior to that.... this one makes much more sense. [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >> Ok, so if played at INF, would the vamp be less 2 blood or just 1? > >> My guess is just 1, the cost of the card. The 1 point of agg damage, > >> because of the new agg rule, would simply send them to torpor. > > Right. > > In the 6/23 errata (I went back and re-read it; I didn't want to > rely just on memory), it says for Rutor's Hand that the 3 blood > cost is (pretty much) made up of 1 blood from the agg damage that > the vamp takes and 2 blood cost of rescue all in one shot. It says that the superior is changed to "...this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the damage". What you're paraphrasing is the comment, which was correct at the time and was intended to give some sort of memory aid for the new errata. The new errata stands on its own, however. > However, in the 7/7 errata/rulings/etc., you change how agg damage > works and now the first point of agg damage doesn't actually > remove blood, but simply sends them to torpor. > Do you have any plans on bringing the errata made for Rutor's > Hand on 6/23 inline with the errata/ruling made for Agg Damage > on 7/7? As I've said, it already is in line, since the two have nothing to do with each other. The vampire performing Rutor's Hand can *either* pay three blood to prevent the damage or he can choose to take the damage. If he takes the damage, he doesn't lose any blood (in line with the 7/7 rules). If that doesn't suit you, then errata the comment in the 6/23 post to include the cost of a Freak Drive untap, as I alluded to in the previous post (in the section you clipped). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > As I've said, it already is in line, since the two have nothing > to do with each other. The vampire performing Rutor's Hand can > *either* pay three blood to prevent the damage or he can choose > to take the damage. If he takes the damage, he doesn't lose any > blood (in line with the 7/7 rules). I hope we still have the option of burning Blood Tears to prevent the damage. Noal -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <71spo3$rm4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > As I've said, it already is in line, since the two have nothing > > to do with each other. The vampire performing Rutor's Hand can > > *either* pay three blood to prevent the damage or he can choose > > to take the damage. If he takes the damage, he doesn't lose any > > blood (in line with the 7/7 rules). > > I hope we still have the option of burning Blood Tears to prevent > the damage. No, you no longer have that option by card text. RTR 6-23-98 Rutor's Hand: A vampire can only have one Rutor's Hand. New card text: "Superior: As above, but this vampire can pay 3 blood to prevent the damage." The damage at inferior could never be prevented, also by card text. Put this card on the acting vampire. The vampire takes 1 aggravated damage (damage not preventable). Beginning with your next turn, the vampire gets one additional untap during each of your minion phases for the remainder of the game. The argument that Blood Tears should prevent the damage from this card is poor because when this card was originally released (Dark Sovereigns), BT did not exist. Therefore, some effect or card already in the game at that time must have been able to prevent the damage. This lead to the previos errata that RH damage could be prevented by combat cards (which I certainly did my best to abuse ;> ). The current errata (6-23-98) is the way the card should originally have been worded, a specific cost to avoid the aggravated damage. Now, whether or not the cost is appropriate is another matter. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

> > As I've said, it already is in line, since the two have nothing > > to do with each other. The vampire performing Rutor's Hand can > > *either* pay three blood to prevent the damage or he can choose > > to take the damage. If he takes the damage, he doesn't lose any > > blood (in line with the 7/7 rules). > I hope we still have the option of burning Blood Tears to prevent > the damage. Well, the new wording would seem to rule that out. It doesn't just say 'can prevent', it says 'prevent in this manner'. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > As I've said, it already is in line, since the two have nothing > > to do with each other. The vampire performing Rutor's Hand can > > *either* pay three blood to prevent the damage or he can choose > > to take the damage. If he takes the damage, he doesn't lose any > > blood (in line with the 7/7 rules). > > I hope we still have the option of burning Blood Tears to prevent > the damage. No, sorry. The damage is unpreventable (card text) except as allowed by card text in the superior. [LSJ 24-JUL-98] -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > I hope we still have the option of burning Blood Tears to prevent > > the damage. > > No, sorry. The damage is unpreventable (card text) except as allowed by > card text in the superior. [LSJ 24-JUL-98] So...despite the card text (as printed on the card) that allows you to prevent the damage with Blood Tears (the only card that allows you to prevent damage outside of combat), you, in an effort to make it easier to prevent the damage, have cut off that option?!?!? Bloody lovely. *smirk* If I ever needed a reason to preach pure card text...this is it. Noal McDonald -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, James Coupe wrote: > >> Yes. And CL *is* a political action. [RTR 23-JUN-98] > > > >Very cool. I've always wanted to use Charming Lobby but previously > >was too difficult to use effectively. > > It's now very similar to the way I'd read the Jyhad text. To me, the > Jyhad text had always read as: > > If this action is successful, call a vote which isn't a card or anything > like that but just a vote to determine if the next vote passes. Agreed. The Jyhad text tells you to "Call a vote" in the same way that Computer Hacking tells you to "Bleed at +1". It never made sense, in either case, to assume that obeying card text would require a separate minion taking a separate action. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |