What happened to Wake?

"Wake is not replaced until your next untap phase. [RTR 980707]" Why was Wake errated? This ruling makes a useful card (certainly not a broken card) into a useless card. Please explain. -- Eric Topp eric...@interact.net.au

Eric Topp wrote: > > "Wake is not replaced until your next untap phase. [RTR 980707]" > > Why was Wake errated? This ruling makes a useful card (certainly not a > broken card) into a useless card. > > Please explain. It is hardly useless. Sometimes blood on your vampire is more important than a card in your hand. When this is true, WwEF is better than Forced Awakening. The debate on Wake has been covered sufficiently on the newsgroup. One particularly well written article was posted in 1996 by The Corruptor: http://www.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=153749163 For a slew of other articles (of varying quality), search for "Wake* & (powerful | fix)" in "rec.*.jyhad" on Dejanews. -- LSJ (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

On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:33:27 +1000, "Eric Topp" <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote: >"Wake is not replaced until your next untap phase. [RTR 980707]" > >Why was Wake errated? This ruling makes a useful card (certainly not a >broken card) into a useless card. Far from useless. But, it was intended to prevent gratuitously beneficial card-cycling, for example: my predator is a pool gain/stealth/bleed deck. I have an untapped vampire with superior DOM which I would just love to use to bounce some bleeds that I know will be coming my way, and I will likely oust my prey if I can bounce even one. But.. i don't have any Deflections in hand. I was worried about Misdirection, so I packed a TON of Wake cards in my deck, and now about four of them are in my hand because my predator isn't . My predator takes a 5th tradition action to reload one of his guys - I cycle three Wake cards on my other three minions, saying "each of these guys Wakes and attempts to block. Damn. I have no intercept in hand and can't generate any. I fail to block." With OLD card text, since combat is over, I redraw all the Wakes, totally clearing my hand jam and probably fetching a Deflection that I need. This is basically wrong - you shouldn't be able to put 20 Wakes in a deck knowing that you can always get rid of a bunch of them on a moment's notice with no penalty. With NEW card text, now I can still play those 3 Wakes to get rid of them, but I will NOT be drawing a Deflection, and I had better hope I survive until my next untap, since I'm playing with a four-card hand until then. As regards useless... I don't see how its -real- utility is remotely diminished, sorry. It is a disciplineless, no-blood-cost card that permits a vampire to take an action and still make reactions out of his own turn. The new restriction merely gives it an "opportunity cost" of use, so to speak. -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

Why not "don't replace if block is unsuccessful"? No need to make the card worse than forced awake. Derek S. Ray wrote in message <2B829BE077A8FF89.B55E4D10...@library-proxy.airnews.ne t>... >On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:33:27 +1000, "Eric Topp" ><eric...@interact.net.au> wrote: >>"Wake is not replaced until your next untap phase. [RTR 980707]" >> >>Why was Wake errated? This ruling makes a useful card (certainly not a >>broken card) into a useless card. >Far from useless. But, it was intended to prevent gratuitously >beneficial card-cycling, for example: <snip> >This is basically wrong - you shouldn't be able to put 20 Wakes in a >deck knowing that you can always get rid of a bunch of them on a >moment's notice with no penalty. <snip> >-- Derek

Bob wrote: >>Why not "don't replace if block is unsuccessful"? No need to make the card worse than forced awake>> It isn't worse than Forced. If you want to block, you use Forced. If you want to play reaction cards and don't want to spend a lot of blood doing it, you use Wake. How many times do you want to pay 2 blood to deflect someone? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I dunno, Marge. Trying is the first step towards failure." -Homer

"Eric Topp" <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote: > >It is hardly useless. Sometimes blood on your vampire is more important > >than a card in your hand. When this is true, WwEF is better than > >Forced Awakening. > > If you play with six (or less) cards in your hand until your next untap > phase, you are dead meat to any serious tournament deck. So Aggressive Tactics is a game breaker, in your estimation, eh? And, are you "dead meat" if you use a Wakey on the last action of your Predator's minion phase (say, to Deflect that mega-bleed he finishes up with after all your untapped vampires have blocked the previous actions)? > I hate the idea of changing the card text of a common card that has been > around since Jyhad. I agree; it's not a task to be taken lightly. -- LSJ (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 ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Eric Topp wrote in message <7f7guc$mam$1...@black.interact.net.au>... >>It is hardly useless. Sometimes blood on your vampire is more important >>than a card in your hand. When this is true, WwEF is better than >>Forced Awakening. >> > >If you play with six (or less) cards in your hand until your next untap >phase, you are dead meat to any serious tournament deck. > While we all appreciate your concern, it seems to me that you haven't had a chance to play errataed WWEF in a tournament environment yet (unless you held one since your original post on 4/15...). You'll be happy to know that it still does just fine.

In article <2wxR2.212$0%.1773@server1.news.adelphia.net>, Bob <hairy...@yahooyahoo.com> writes >Why not "don't replace if block is unsuccessful"? No need to make the card >worse than forced awake. The card isn't worse though, it's different. Which do you value more? Hand size or blood on a minion? For me, it's mostly the latter though it would depend on my deck. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

>It is hardly useless. Sometimes blood on your vampire is more important >than a card in your hand. When this is true, WwEF is better than >Forced Awakening. > If you play with six (or less) cards in your hand until your next untap phase, you are dead meat to any serious tournament deck. I hate the idea of changing the card text of a common card that has been around since Jyhad.

>So Aggressive Tactics is a game breaker, in your estimation, eh? > Don't be facetious - Aggressive Tactics costs 2 pool and can be burnt by a directed action. The cost of the card gives an indication of how the people who designed and playtested the Sabbat expansion viewed a reduction in hand size. >And, are you "dead meat" if you use a Wakey on the last action of your >Predator's minion phase (say, to Deflect that mega-bleed he finishes up >with after all your untapped vampires have blocked the previous actions)? > No - you are dead meat when you play a Wake to try to block the first action of your predator (or even the last action of your prey). >> I hate the idea of changing the card text of a common card that has been >> around since Jyhad. > >I agree; it's not a task to be taken lightly. > So why do it? Please explain to me how the old version was so terribly terribly broken even though it was never "fixed" in VTES. I read the item on DejaNews that you referred me to earlier and I am still completely mystified. If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret the card more strictly rather than change the wording? For example, "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at. * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction card." How difficult is that?

>While we all appreciate your concern, it seems to me that you haven't had a >chance to play errataed WWEF in a tournament environment yet (unless you >held one since your original post on 4/15...). You'll be happy to know that >it still does just fine. > I have been playing in tournaments for several years and I have *never* heard anyone complain that Wake is broken. If anything, I thought that Wake was usually inferior to Forced Awakening. Why be hamstrung by a reduced hand size when you can use Forced Awakening and (possibly) burn 1 blood instead? I hate card text changes especially where there is no need to change the card. With this change to the card text, Wake becomes wallpaper. Anybody who includes Wake in a tournament deck (in preference to Forced Awakening, Rat's Warning, etc.) is just not serious about winning.

Eric Topp wrote: >>I have been playing in tournaments for several years and I have *never* heard anyone complain that Wake is broken. If anything, I thought that Wake was usually inferior to Forced Awakening. Why be hamstrung by a reduced hand size when you can use Forced Awakening and (possibly) burn 1 blood instead?>> Beacause you don't want to burn the one blood. If you are using weenie vampires who want to have the capability to react and not lose too much blood. If you want to manage your defense in such a way that you only are going to be wanting to use one or two Wakes a turn. Not every deck has Wakes in it. Not every deck wants to untap to try and block or react. If you do want to have this capability, you have multiple choices, of which Wake is one of them. Wake has a cost now, which it did not have before. >>I hate card text changes especially where there is no need to change the card.>> Ok. >>With this change to the card text, Wake becomes wallpaper. Anybody who includes Wake in a tournament deck (in preference to Forced Awakening, Rat's Warning, etc.) is just not serious about winning.>> People still use Wake all the time. They just don't use 30 of them and toss them out left and right, because they can. >>Don't be facetious - Aggressive Tactics costs 2 pool and can be burnt by a directed action. The cost of the card gives an indication of how the people who designed and playtested the Sabbat expansion viewed a reduction in hand size.>> But not until you get a turn. If your prey plays AT on you, by your logic, you should be ousted before you get to destroy it. Yes, AT is expensive--that is because you are doing it to someone else. Wake is a choice *you* make before the game even starts. If you are entierly concerened about the effect of the hand size reduction, play with cards that increase your hand size (Elder Library, Dreams) or allow you to cycle (Barrens, Fragment), or don't use Wake. There is always Rat's, Forced, Cat's, Homonculous, Metro Underground, and 2nd Tradition. >>No - you are dead meat when you play a Wake to try to block the first action of your predator (or even the last action of your prey).>> If this is a concern, don't use the Wake. Find a better way to do what you are trying to do. Or accept the loss of a card from your hand. >>So why do it? Please explain to me how the old version was so terribly terribly broken even though it was never "fixed" in VTES. I read the item on DejaNews that you referred me to earlier and I am still completely mystified.>> There has been debate over Wake for years and years and years. It was pretty much the only card in the game that does not have a cost of any sort--you could cycle them freely, put as many as you wanted in a deck with little or no thought about hand jamming on them, as you could play as many as you wanted on someone elses turn. Now it makes you weigh its strengths against its cost. And people still use it. >>If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret the card more strictly rather than change the wording? For example, "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at. * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction card." How difficult is that?>> That is just as much (if not actually much, much more) wording change than the current errata. That, and it changes the card in such a way that someone will doubtlessly decry it is wallpaper. It is, with the above wording, unuseable to stop actions across the table with Eagle's Sight (or those of your prey at your grand prey). That, and it doesn't prevent someone from playing them out of their hand at an unprecidented rate ("oh, you hunt? I Wake and attempt to block with 0 intercept..."). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7f9bga$s9d$1...@black.interact.net.au>, Eric Topp <eric...@interact.net.au> writes > >>So Aggressive Tactics is a game breaker, in your estimation, eh? >> > >Don't be facetious - Aggressive Tactics costs 2 pool and can be burnt by a >directed action. The cost of the card gives an indication of how the people >who designed and playtested the Sabbat expansion viewed a reduction in hand >size. Aggressive Tactics could be permanent. You have no (little, SR) control over Aggressive Tactics being played. Wake with Evening's Freshness is very temporary, especially since you are most likely to play it on your predator's turn. Wake with Evening's Freshness is entirely voluntary. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <19990417105706...@ng-fd1.aol.com>, PDB6 <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes >"Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction > >* Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed or >by the Methuselah that the action is directed at. >* The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction card." > >How difficult is that?>> > >That is just as much (if not actually much, much more) wording change than the >current errata. That, and it changes the card in such a way that someone will >doubtlessly decry it is wallpaper. Not wallpaper, perhaps, but it stops you doing some things that you could do before. For example, I can no longer wake and play Treachery during a vote. I can no longer wake and play Surprise influence during a vote. I can no longer wake and play Ignis Fatuus. Malkavian Rider Clause and Wake is dead if it's a crosstable voter. Foul Blood and Immaculate Vitae cross table would be stopped. Cross table EKN conspiring can't be done. [ quoted text not captured ]

> which Wake is one of them. Wake has a cost now, which it did not have before. I find this and the argument below completely ludicrous. It did have a cost. It cost a slot in your deck. Why put something you aren't even going to use or something you are going to waste in this manner in the deck when you could have put something much more useful in. Sure, it can be cycled at any time, but doing so costs - it cost the card slot that was just *wasted* and it cost you a resource that you could have used effectively in the future. All of this is part of the cost. Now, with the new errata, the cost increase effectively makes it wallpaper. You, LSJ, James Coupe, et al claim that it is not and is in fact still useful. But I have to ask you, how much do you use it now? How much before the errata? If the former is more than the latter, why? > People still use Wake all the time. They just don't use 30 of them and toss > them out left and right, because they can. Again, why even put it in your deck if you are going to do this. That is a card slot completely wasted. And when you are working with limited resources (namely the total number of cards allowed in your deck), you can't afford to be throwing in cards "just so you can cycle them". If that is your mentality, then you are far better of putting something in it's place. Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorrow wrote in message <7fbc9p$8h4$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] I have to agree with Sorrows arguments. If a person were to play 30 wakes just because they can, they have just made a deck thats 30 cards LESS effective. Assuming that your in a tournament setting this could mean that you've a 30 card deck for all practical purposes., and I have yet to see ANY deck thats so effective with 30 cards that it will win more than 1 VP a game, and never a tourney. Even a deck thats reduced to 60 cards this way would be extremely unlikely to do any better. perhaps a study of decks at a tournament would be a good manner to determine the actual effect, hell a study in ANY game setting would do this. Changing a card just because of perceived imbalance is just plain wrong. Personally I doubt that I will ever have a change to even utilize the Wake according to the new errata. Parts of that Michigan crowd, you know. Raille.

Sorrow wrote: >>I find this and the argument below completely ludicrous. It did have a cost. It cost a slot in your deck.>> As every card in the game has this exact same cost, this is not a specific balancing factor to Wake. Every card in the game has a cost of some sort, other than "it costs a slot in your deck". Master cards take up your master phase and often cost pool. Discipline cards require your vampire to have the appropriate discipline to use it, as well as often costing blood. Actions require actions. Equipment has to be equipped and paid for. Even the non discipline cards have a cost--Dodge, Lucky Blow, and Bum's Rush all say "do not replace until after combat", just like Wake did. Sadly, however, this cost on Wake was simply insufficient for the power and effect of the card. Wake became a card that tended to end up in every deck, simply because it could be freely cycled. >>Sure, it can be cycled at any time, but doing so costs - it cost the card slot that was just *wasted* and it cost you a resource that you could have used effectively in the future.>> However, it is likely that the card you just drew to replace it is one that you do need now. The effect of Wake is almost always useful--it effectively allows you to get extra actions out of your vampires. By putting them in your deck, you are given the option of using them, but if you didn't need them at any particular time, you could just ditch them and draw something new for zero cost, which no other cards had the ability to do (except, significantly, pre "no vote push" PA cards used as votes...). By putting Wakes in your deck, you have extra options, but the only trade off you make is that you have fewer card slots total to use. Some decks are very tight and can't spare the slots. Others could, and did. >>All of this is part of the cost.>> And it is the exact same cost that every other card has, and as such, is not a specific cost of Wake. >>Now, with the new errata, the cost increase effectively makes it wallpaper. You, LSJ, James Coupe, et al claim that it is not and is in fact still useful. But I have to ask you, how much do you use it now? How much before the errata? If the former is more than the latter, why?>> I didn't use Wake much before the errata, and I don't use Wake much now. Let me see...Of the 6 active decks I have lying around, two of them use untaping cards. One of them uses 8 Wakes. One of them uses 6 2nd Tradition, 5 Rat's and, 5 Forced. The first one is a weenie bleed deck that has light, permanent intercept and reaction cards--it can't aford to spend the blood it costs to use Forced and doesn't really suffer from the loss of hand size. The second one is a huge vampire intercept deck, and will always be using the Forced to sucessfully block. I suppose if Forced didn't exist, I'd replace them with Wake, but the loss of hand size would not be significant in this deck either. Basically, I use Wake about the same amount now as I did before the errata. Many people tended to put Wake in every deck they built, just 'cause they could (as it cost nothing, and if they didn't need it at a particular instance, they could just freely cycle it). I rarely did. I used Wake in decks that needed Wakes and didn't use Wakes in decks that didn't need Wakes (which is most of my decks). I still do. >>Again, why even put it in your deck if you are going to do this. That is a card slot completely wasted. And when you are working with limited resources (namely the total number of cards allowed in your deck), you can't afford to be throwing in cards "just so you can cycle them".>> Hmm. I guess I'll also avoid sarcasm from now on (oh, wait, that too was sarcastic :-). The point was not that people would fill their decks with Wakes just so they could cycle them. The point was that people could put Wakes in their decks 'cause they might need them but without having to worry about hand jaming on them. Compare pre-errata Wake to, say, Surprise Influence: Both are no discipline reaction cards that provide a significant effect. If you had 3 Wakes in your hand, and you didn't need use them at that point in the game, you could Wake your vampires in reaction to someone doing something across the table and draw three new cards. If some of them were Wakes, you could do it again. If you had 3 SI in your hand, you are stuck with them unless someone calls a vote _and_ you have an untapped vampire to play each one. Thus, given a situation where you really don't need the particular reaction card right now ('cause, say, you really need to draw a Conditioning, as it will allow you to oust your prey on your next turn) and you have a bunch of them in your hand (because they usually are useful, just not right now), the Wakes you can cycle like water to find the card you need. The SI clogs up your hand. The end result of this comparsion of two useful cards? SI rarely sees the light of day, while Wake tends to be put in every deck in the world. Completely due to the comparative opportunity costs. It could be argued that these two cards are very similar in power, yet with very dissimmilar costs. Or it could be argued that SI completely sucks in comparison to Wake, yet SI has a much, much more significant cost than pre-errata Wake. Either case indicates that Wake was undercosted. >>If that is your mentality, then you are far better of putting something in it's place.>> But if you *might* need it, you put it in your deck. Every deck *might* need to use a Wake at some point. However, where every other card in the game that you *might* need to use at some point had a far more significant cost to include in your deck, Wake, apparently, was undercosted. Now it has a significant cost completely in line with the ability it provides you. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7fbc9p$8h4$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> writes >You, LSJ, James Coupe, et al claim that >it is not and is in fact still useful. But I have to ask you, how much do >you >use it now? How much before the errata? If the former is more than the >latter, why? My use of Wake has not changed due to the errata. I find that the errata makes me consider its use carefully, but it does not stop me playing it. I value blood on a minion FAR more than once card I toss away temporarily. As such, for me, I would almost always (I can imagine decks where this would not always be the case, but in my playing style it would normally be the case) prefer to use Wake over Forced. [ quoted text not captured ]

PDB6 wrote in message <19990418105656...@ng126.aol.com>... >Hmm. I guess I'll also avoid sarcasm from now on (oh, wait, that too was >sarcastic :-). The point was not that people would fill their decks with Wakes >just so they could cycle them. The point was that people could put Wakes in >their decks 'cause they might need them but without having to worry about hand >jaming on them. I had a friend who thought that he could cycle wakes like water also. Have you ever seen a hand get kammed with wakes! He was down to a single minion, and would wake to attempt to block every action against he whether or not he wanted to. There were no other cards in his hand at all and ever wake was replaced with, yup you guessed it, another wake! He lost the game. > >But if you *might* need it, you put it in your deck. Every deck *might* need to >use a Wake at some point. However, where every other card in the game that you >*might* need to use at some point had a far more significant cost to include in >your deck, Wake, apparently, was undercosted. Now it has a significant cost >completely in line with the ability it provides you. There's always a need for most cards at some point. You could even find the occasional use for mummify. No, really. >Peter D Bakija >PD...@aol.com

Eric Topp wrote in message <7f9ccl$sd9$1...@black.interact.net.au>... >>While we all appreciate your concern, it seems to me that you haven't had a >>chance to play errataed WWEF in a tournament environment yet (unless you >>held one since your original post on 4/15...). You'll be happy to know >that >>it still does just fine. >> > > >I have been playing in tournaments for several years and I have *never* >heard anyone complain that Wake is broken. If anything, I thought that Wake >was usually inferior to Forced Awakening. Why be hamstrung by a reduced hand >size when you can use Forced Awakening and (possibly) burn 1 blood instead? > Having your hand size reduced by one will "Hamstring" you? I doubt it. You seem like the sort of person who has a good enough grasp on the game to realize that that's an erroneous generalization. Reduced hand size is a trade-off, like any other. >I hate card text changes especially where there is no need to change the >card. I think this is the real resistance you have to hte change, and its completely valid, but entriely a personal thing. > >With this change to the card text, Wake becomes wallpaper. You hate card text changes. I hate posts to newgroups that speak with the voice of Ultimate Authority when thay haven't even tried out the card as errataed. A CCG is typically too complex for anyone to make these broad generalizations, unless they have empirical, first hand, extensive playtest experience. Yeah, if the rewrite said that your hand size was permanently reduced by one, we all could say that it was bad errata. History has shown, though, that the errata list isn't a fixed thing (cf. Return to Innocence, Tomb of Ramses III), but No One has gotten errata reversed/changed by posting stuff like the above, and No One had gotten errata reversed/changed without speaking from a position of experience, either. >Anybody who >includes Wake in a tournament deck (in preference to Forced Awakening, Rat's >Warning, etc.) is just not serious about winning. So speaketh Eric Topp... So Mote It Be. Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver

Eric Topp wrote: > >So Aggressive Tactics is a game breaker, in your estimation, eh? > > Don't be facetious - Aggressive Tactics costs 2 pool and can be burnt by a > directed action. The cost of the card gives an indication of how the people > who designed and playtested the Sabbat expansion viewed a reduction in hand > size. None of these qualifiers were mentioned in your statement to which I was responding (previously snipped; restored here): Eric Topp wrote: > If you play with six (or less) cards in your hand until your next untap > phase, you are dead meat to any serious tournament deck. You make a blanket statement. I counter it with an example that is covered by the blanket statement. That is not "being facetious". That is pointing out your error. > >And, are you "dead meat" if you use a Wakey on the last action of your > >Predator's minion phase (say, to Deflect that mega-bleed he finishes up > >with after all your untapped vampires have blocked the previous actions)? > > > > No - you are dead meat when you play a Wake to try to block the first action > of your predator (or even the last action of your prey). Ah. More qualifications. Compare that idea of "dead meat" to your original blanket assertion. While I don't agree that you'd be dead meat if you Wake to block the first action of your predator (unless you were dead meat to begin with), let's assume that you would be. You're also "dead meat" if you try to get a bleed through with Form of Mist when the opposing vampire has Immortal Grappled you. So? You'd be better off with a card (more) appropriate to the situation, sure. In your case: Forced Awakening. But saying that Forced Awakening is better in this one case (or even in several or even many cases) is not the same as saying that Wakey is wallpaper because you're "dead meat" if you play it when faced with a "serious tournament deck". > >> I hate the idea of changing the card text of a common card that has been > >> around since Jyhad. > > > >I agree; it's not a task to be taken lightly. > > > > So why do it? Please explain to me how the old version was so terribly > terribly broken even though it was never "fixed" in VTES. I read the item on > DejaNews that you referred me to earlier and I am still completely > mystified. Well, given the lucidity of that post, I'm afraid my attempt at clarification will also fail, but here it goes: * Wake's effect is very useful (basically an "extra" vampire with which to block or react), for no cost other than a temporary reduction in hand size (a cost still not approaching the usefulness of the card). * When not useful at the moment (for whatever reason), the Wake-as-printed could be freely cycled out of your hand (unlike every other card in the game), whenever anyone else takes an action. Such free cycling eliminated even the small cost that the card would have in it's usual use - the hand size reduction was meaningless. > If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a > cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret the > card more strictly rather than change the wording? > > For example, > > "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction > > * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed > or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at. > * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction > card." > > How difficult is that? More difficult than replacing "after combat" with "your next untap". Your proposal is not an "interpretation" - it is changing the wording. And the change is more severe than the current errata. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Topp wrote: > > >It is hardly useless. Sometimes blood on your vampire is more important > >than a card in your hand. When this is true, WwEF is better than > >Forced Awakening. > > > > If you play with six (or less) cards in your hand until your next untap > phase, you are dead meat to any serious tournament deck. Should we then assume that any serious tournament deck that uses Elder Library, granting the controller 1 additional hand size will automatically win? 'Course not. One hand size loss does not make anyone 'dead meat'. -- Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

On Sat, 17 Apr 1999 16:58:32 +1000, "Eric Topp" <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote: >>So Aggressive Tactics is a game breaker, in your estimation, eh? > >Don't be facetious - Aggressive Tactics costs 2 pool and can be burnt by a >directed action. The cost of the card gives an indication of how the people >who designed and playtested the Sabbat expansion viewed a reduction in hand >size. How they viewed an INVOLUNTARY reduction in hand size, that is. Wake is a voluntary reduction in hand size. >>And, are you "dead meat" if you use a Wakey on the last action of your >>Predator's minion phase (say, to Deflect that mega-bleed he finishes up >>with after all your untapped vampires have blocked the previous actions)? > >No - you are dead meat when you play a Wake to try to block the first action >of your predator (or even the last action of your prey). Unless, of course, you happen to have another Wake (or derivant form thereof, such as 2nd tradition) handy, a S:CE untap card for after your block, a Cat's Guidance untap card for after your block, or you cycle through a bunch of cards DURING the block allowing you to draw another one... OR you just happen to have enough pool to survive not blocking anything, which is a perfectly valid tournament-quality deck design. Weenie decks don't block anything and don't even have the benefit of Deflection, usually - are they dead meat just because Antoinette DuChamp throws herself in front of an oncoming train with a Wake? Where are you getting this idea from? =) >>> I hate the idea of changing the card text of a common card that has been >>> around since Jyhad. >> >>I agree; it's not a task to be taken lightly. > >So why do it? Please explain to me how the old version was so terribly >terribly broken even though it was never "fixed" in VTES. I read the item on >DejaNews that you referred me to earlier and I am still completely >mystified. Read my post, also? >If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a >cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret the Not necessarily cross-table - sometimes as a response to their predator's first action because they have no useful cards in hand to match the 4 Wakes they have. So they Wake 3 vampires in hopes of drawing a Deflection. >card more strictly rather than change the wording? > >For example, > >"Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction > >* Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed >or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at. But what if you Wake and play Eagle's Sight? You can't play Eagle's Sight without being untapped, but you have to Wake in order to play Eagle's Sight, but you can't DO that now if you add that errata... and intercept decks need some sort of Wake or they'll fall over like ninepins to a well-timed Misdirection. >* The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction >card." But that's not what the card text says, by strict interpretation -- Card text: "Usable only by a tapped vampire. This vampire can play reaction cards and attempt to block as though untapped until the current action is concluded." It says this vampire "CAN" play, not "MUST", and doesn't solve the problem of people deliberately attempting to block +1 stealth actions and deliberately generating no intercept just to cycle the card. >How difficult is that? It requires a card text change... which is exactly what has already happened. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 17 Apr 1999 17:11:57 +1000, "Eric Topp" <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote: >I have been playing in tournaments for several years and I have *never* >heard anyone complain that Wake is broken. If anything, I thought that Wake >was usually inferior to Forced Awakening. Why be hamstrung by a reduced hand >size when you can use Forced Awakening and (possibly) burn 1 blood instead? Why use Forced Awakening and Deflection, bouncing a bleed for a cost of 2 blood instead of only one? If you build your deck right, six cards is not "hamstrung". Unless you think Rush decks are hamstrung by Bum's Rush making you not replace until after combat. >I hate card text changes especially where there is no need to change the >card. I agree completely. There was a need to change Wake. >With this change to the card text, Wake becomes wallpaper. Anybody who >includes Wake in a tournament deck (in preference to Forced Awakening, Rat's >Warning, etc.) is just not serious about winning. Really? In a recent tournament I played in, the Wake/Deflect combo got me two separate VP's in two separate games, because I tapped out to almost kill my prey, my predator came at me with a big bleed, and I bounced it (for only one blood, unlike Forced Awakening which I could not have played because my vampire only HAD one blood.) It was a perfectly safe thing to do, since my predator could have either bled me for very little (which would not have ousted me), or bled me for lots (which ousted my prey, gained me 6 pool, and ensured that I would survive until my next untap.) Unlike Rat's Warning, I can Wake and play Delaying Tactics to kill nasty, pesky votes - and I pulled THAT off to survive a couple times, as well. I submit that Rat's Warning is no MORE useful than Wake, since while it does actually *untap* the vampire, it provides no defense whatsoever against vote decks. Forced Awakening is only good when you know you -will- be able to block, always a risky proposition since stealth/bleed is at every tournament. Forced Awakening/Deflection is just dumb. (Forced Awakening/Redirection is better, but to be effective you need superior DOM - Wake/Deflect costs the same amount of blood and only requires inferior DOM.) Forced Awakening/Delaying Tactics, or Dread Gaze, etc. costs you a blood you might need later. I don't recommend making blanket statements. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction > > > > * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed > > or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at. > > * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction > > card." > > > > How difficult is that? > > More difficult than replacing "after combat" with "your next untap". > Your proposal is not an "interpretation" - it is changing the wording. > And the change is more severe than the current errata. Hm, I don't want to heat up the discussion (you know, dead horses and the like), but what about replacing "after the current players turn"? I know, it's still abusable, you could cycle 4 wakes in a 5 player game, but IMO, it's rather drastic "during your next untap". Just a thought, Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S. Ray wrote: > the Wake/Deflect combo > got me two separate VP's in two separate games, because I tapped out > to almost kill my prey, my predator came at me with a big bleed, and I > bounced it (for only one blood, unlike Forced Awakening which I could > not have played because my vampire only HAD one blood.) Actually, you could have done the same thing in this case with FA/Deflect: You play Forced Awakening, then play Deflection (costing you one blood, which leaves you empty), then (since you failed to block) you burn one blood. Since you have no blood, you simply fail to burn any. -- LSJ (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 ]

lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote: > Forced Awakening/Deflection is just dumb. > > I don't recommend making blanket statements. Really? You sure fooled me. Noal -- "The time for action is past! Now is the time for senseless bickering!" -Ashleigh Brilliant [ quoted text not captured ]

> cards is not "hamstrung". Unless you think Rush decks are hamstrung > by Bum's Rush making you not replace until after combat. But there is much more cycling available to rush decks making that reduction negligable <sp>. > Really? In a recent tournament I played in, the Wake/Deflect combo > got me two separate VP's in two separate games, because I tapped out > to almost kill my prey, my predator came at me with a big bleed, and I > bounced it (for only one blood, unlike Forced Awakening which I could > not have played because my vampire only HAD one blood.) Actually, you could have. Use Forced Awakening to allow the vamp to play reaction cards, play Deflection paying the only blood the vamp has for it, fail to block and since the vamp has no blood to burn, ignores that effect. In the end, you will have a deflected bleed and a vamp with 0 blood. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:46:49 GMT, dhar...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote: >> Forced Awakening/Deflection is just dumb. >> >> I don't recommend making blanket statements. > >Really? You sure fooled me. Pbltttthfhfftt. I certainly hope nobody would deliberately design a deck that would use Forced Awake/Deflection, considering the number of more useful possibilities out there. ;) Unless it was some twisted variant on Trap/Undead Persistence, where the guys are TRYING to spend blood so they get sent to torpor so they come out of torpor so... you get the idea. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:52:00 -0500, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> cards is not "hamstrung". Unless you think Rush decks are hamstrung >> by Bum's Rush making you not replace until after combat. > >But there is much more cycling available to rush decks making that reduction >negligable <sp>. If you're Waking a vampire in the first place, you had better have some cards ready to chunk out there. If you're PLAYING with Wakes in your deck, you probably -do- have those cards ready, so who's to say that hand cycling (I Wake. I play Eagle's Sight, Spirit's Touch, Enhanced Senses to block your +3 stealth bleed that would oust my grandprey and give you six pool. I now play Earth Meld, untapping my blocker, and play Fast Reaction with a weenie who uses Claws of the Dead to bung your bleeder into torpor. I've effectively emptied my hand, and if you notice, I have an untapped vampire ready to go again, and may even have drawn another Wake.) isn't just as possible with a non-Rush deck? (... Yeah, I actually do have a PRO/AUS deck. works reasonably well.) >> Really? In a recent tournament I played in, the Wake/Deflect combo >> got me two separate VP's in two separate games, because I tapped out >> to almost kill my prey, my predator came at me with a big bleed, and I >> bounced it (for only one blood, unlike Forced Awakening which I could >> not have played because my vampire only HAD one blood.) > >Actually, you could have. Use Forced Awakening to allow the vamp to >play reaction cards, play Deflection paying the only blood the vamp has >for it, fail to block and since the vamp has no blood to burn, ignores that >effect. In the end, you will have a deflected bleed and a vamp with 0 >blood. Hrm. this disturbs me in its possibility. Raises a question: if I say "I don't block", encouraging him to bump the bleed, and THEN FA/Deflect, since I've already failed to block by saying "I don't block", shouldn't I have to burn the blood for FA first, before I can even PLAY the second card? I know that there's only one attempt to block, and so I can't make a SECOND attempt - meaning that any block attempts automatically fail. Hrm. [ quoted text not captured ]

lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote: > "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > >Actually, you could have. Use Forced Awakening to allow the vamp to > >play reaction cards, play Deflection paying the only blood the vamp has > >for it, fail to block and since the vamp has no blood to burn, ignores that > >effect. In the end, you will have a deflected bleed and a vamp with 0 > >blood. > > Hrm. this disturbs me in its possibility. Raises a question: if I > say "I don't block", encouraging him to bump the bleed, and THEN > FA/Deflect, since I've already failed to block by saying "I don't > block", shouldn't I have to burn the blood for FA first, before I can > even PLAY the second card? Good question. After declaring "no block", you still could end up blocking the action in theory - you deflect to your prey who, in turn, deflects back to you. So, to keep things clean, I'd say you only burn the blood when the action begins to resolve (successfully or not). So you could still play the Deflection in your example. -- LSJ (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 ]

"Eric Topp" <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote: > > If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a > cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret > the card more strictly rather than change the wording? > > For example, > > "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction > > * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed > or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at. > * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction > card." I think a more precise change would be: * A Waking vampire must immediately either attempt to block at the current stealth or play a non-Wake reaction card. I think the problem with the current errata is that it penalizes not only decks that abused Wake, but _every_ deck that uses Wake -- when Wake wasn't considered a problem except in abusive decks. A change similar to the above might have been better received, since it is effectively no change for non-abusive decks, but it seems a little late now to adopt it. --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

In article <7folog$h5v$1...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] While I agree in general with you, I don't know if that's a good change, and if it suffices. Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > "Eric Topp" <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote: > > > > If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a > > cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret > > the card more strictly rather than change the wording? > > > > For example, > > > > "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction > > > > * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed > > or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at. > > * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction > > card." > > I think a more precise change would be: > > * A Waking vampire must immediately either attempt to block at the current > stealth or play a non-Wake reaction card. This doesn't fix the problem. The Wake cyclers could easily play a wake during a stealthy action and attempt to block (and satisfy your requirement) but then fail to block. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a >> cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret the >> card more strictly rather than change the wording? >> >> For example, >> >> "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction >> >> * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is non-directed >> or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at. >> * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction >> card." >> >> How difficult is that? > >More difficult than replacing "after combat" with "your next untap". >Your proposal is not an "interpretation" - it is changing the wording. >And the change is more severe than the current errata. > My proposal does *not* change the wording. It is a clarification like the following: Acquired Ventrue Assets [DS] - Master (Gio) (2) * Can be used during any master phase, not just its controller's. Barrens, The - Master: Unique Location * If the Barrens is tapped during a Referendum, you still do not replace the discarded card until after the Referendum. I have never encountered in any game of Jyhad/V:TES a situation in which a player would play Wake when they were not attempting to block or play a reaction card. It was an unspoken assumption by all players that a Wake could not (or should not) be played unless the minion was going to block or react.

>No One had gotten errata reversed/changed >without speaking from a position of experience, either. > OK - I may be over-reacting about the change to Wake but this is not just my opinion. I have been beaten by a lot of different types of decks over the years but never by a deck containing lots of Wakes. I judged a tournament last weekend and heard complaints about several over-powered cards (Form of Mist, Hostile Takeover, 2nd Tradition). I cannot remember seeing anybody play a Wake in the entire tournament. People I spoke to were surprised about the change to Wake and couldn't really see how it could be abused.

In article <7frkij$neo$1...@black.interact.net.au>, "Eric Topp" <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote: > >> If the problem was that people were playing Wakes in response to a > >> cross-table action "just" to cycle, wouldn't it be simpler to interpret > the > >> card more strictly rather than change the wording? > >> > >> For example, > >> > >> "Wake with Evening's Freshness - Reaction > >> > >> * Can only be played by the predator or prey if the action is > non-directed > >> or by the Methuselah that the action is directed at. > >> * The reacting vampire must either attempt to block or play a reaction > >> card." > >> > >> How difficult is that? > > > >More difficult than replacing "after combat" with "your next untap". > >Your proposal is not an "interpretation" - it is changing the wording. > >And the change is more severe than the current errata. > > > > My proposal does *not* change the wording. It is a clarification like the > following: > > Acquired Ventrue Assets [DS] - Master (Gio) (2) > * Can be used during any master phase, not just its controller's. > > Barrens, The - Master: Unique Location > * If the Barrens is tapped during a Referendum, you > still do not replace the discarded card until > after the Referendum. No, it is not. The clarifications you cite (and indeed, all clarifications) follow directly from an inspection of actual card text or rulebook text (or previously issued errata to same). That's what "clarification" means in this context. Q: How do the two errata you propose follow from the actual card text? A: they do not. They are additional restrictions beyond what can be "interpretted" from card text. These errata are called addenda - modifications to card text by addition. > I have never encountered in any game of Jyhad/V:TES a situation in which a > player would play Wake when they were not attempting to block or play a > reaction card. It was an unspoken assumption by all players that a Wake > could not (or should not) be played unless the minion was going to block or > react. Unspoken assumption of errata, while fine for an individual play group, is not the best way to handle things on the official level. -- LSJ (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 <7frkij$neo$1...@black.interact.net.au>, Eric Topp <eric...@interact.net.au> writes >I have never encountered in any game of Jyhad/V:TES a situation in which a >player would play Wake when they were not attempting to block or play a >reaction card. It happens quite a lot. Well, happened. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7fsbk8$p8p$1...@black.interact.net.au>, Eric Topp <eric...@interact.net.au> writes >People I spoke >to were surprised about the change to Wake and couldn't really see how it >could be abused. Just because players in the groups you play with don't know how to "abuse" the card, it doesn't mean that there are other people who don't. When Tomb etc. were changed, there were many players who were quite vociferously stating "But *my* group doesn't abuse it, it's not abusive in *my* group." Errata does not exist to cater to groups who don't abuse it, but to try and stop them from ever reaching that situation when someone works out that they can, IMHO. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote in message ... >In article <7fsbk8$p8p$1...@black.interact.net.au>, Eric Topp ><eric...@interact.net.au> writes >>People I spoke >>to were surprised about the change to Wake and couldn't really see how it >>could be abused. > >Just because players in the groups you play with don't know how to >"abuse" the card, it doesn't mean that there are other people who don't. I've played with people who have abused every abusable card printed and put together combos that abused even rather tame cards. I have never had a problem with Wakes being abusable. Try using wakes Vs a Bleed combat deck. Wake. block, go to torpor/get burned, get stuck with a hand full of wakes. Or wake don't block dump a hand full of wakes to clear hand jam. Piss off the rest of the players. Get bum rushed. See above. Since several people use F. Villon, event he rather tame, wake deflection only works a couple times, before you annoy someone and get all the blood stole off your vampire. Cryptic mission also works well in this method. The basic problem with errata for wake, is that we're making ruling to help the novice player. By eliminating the potential of some of these cards these limited experiance played are dog meat in a tournament with the more experianced players. >James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Raille. Can't see it, can't play it, wouldn't be proper.

On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 07:48:22 -0400, "Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >I've played with people who have abused every abusable card printed and put >together combos that abused even rather tame cards. I have never had a >problem with Wakes being abusable. Not "every" abusable card, or they'd have been abusing Wake. >Try using wakes Vs a Bleed combat deck. Wake. block, go to torpor/get >burned, get stuck with a hand full of wakes. Wake and Block is not the abusability issue here. The abusability follows in the example below... >Or wake don't block dump a hand full of wakes to clear hand jam. Piss off >the rest of the players. Get bum rushed. See above. But see, this just doesn't happen in a tournament. The rest of the players look at you and say "Oh, he had a handful of Wakes. Lovely", and go about the business of ousting their prey. The only person who will take any significant action against you is your predator, and he was going to rush you ANYWAY! Nobody else is going to waste time on you. Your prey is going to be VERY concerned, since you just picked up a handful of useful cards for free, but he can't do anything before you act again. >Since several people use F. Villon, event he rather tame, wake deflection >only works a couple times, before you annoy someone and get all the blood >stole off your vampire. Tremere decks are so extremely, extremely rare in a tournament that this line of reasoning is silly - i'm just not going to worry about them. Francois Villon is ALSO extremely rare to see in tournaments, frankly. And guess what - nobody except your prey (target #1) and your predator (ticked because his bleeds are not getting through) are going to care about your wakey/deflecties, and without a Rush deck, they won't be able to do anything about it. The usual method I've seen to deal with W/D is just to take more bleed actions, but make them collectively smaller (two bleeds for 3 instead of one for 6) hoping to use up all his Deflections. >Cryptic mission also works well in this method. See "Tremere Decks". >The basic problem with errata for wake, is that we're making ruling to help >the novice player. By eliminating the potential of some of these cards >these limited experiance played are dog meat in a tournament with the more >experianced players. No, the ruling is made to help ALL players. And you know what? It's good, right, and proper that superior experience is a major factor in deciding who wins games. If you'd like to argue that, may I suggest we just roll dice for the winner, since experience and skill are not fit to decide who wins? [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Topp wrote in message <7fsbk8$p8p$1...@black.interact.net.au>... >>No One had gotten errata reversed/changed >>without speaking from a position of experience, either. >> > >OK - I may be over-reacting about the change to Wake but this is not just my >opinion. I have been beaten by a lot of different types of decks over the >years but never by a deck containing lots of Wakes. > >I judged a tournament last weekend and heard complaints about several >over-powered cards (Form of Mist, Hostile Takeover, 2nd Tradition). I cannot >remember seeing anybody play a Wake in the entire tournament. People I spoke >to were surprised about the change to Wake and couldn't really see how it >could be abused. > In truth, I have yet to see it be thoroughly abused first hand, either. But you also have to understand that the source for errata ranges across the experience of many play groups around the world. There was a _lot_ of debate, particularly before any of the expansions came out, regarding WWEF. The current errata was a reponse to experiences from multiple play groups, along with a comparison to similar cards in the game, and what their opportunity costs were (meaning the combined cost of blood/pool, space in the deck, frequency of usability, etc. everything). There have been a lot of players with on-line access, and the imagination they've had to abuse cards is huge. But that's a good thing, as it results in errata based on lots of playtesting and debate. People like those in your tournament, however, who haven't been a part of that process just see the end result and can only wonder why. I don't blame them, and the only thing I could say is that they're being spared the experience of having someone abuse the card in one of their tournaments. One last thing. This is important, because several people have decided to drop the game or start their own independent leagues because they missed this point. Errata can be changed. I'll say it again. Errata can be changed. No one will try to stop you from discussing/wanting the current errata to be changed because experiences you've had demonstrate that the current errata is either unneccesary or insufficient. You do need to understand the background and reasons for the current errata, and that might involve quite a bit research (yay, Dejanews...), but if the argument for repealing/adding errata is sound, then there's no reason to expect that the errata is going to remain. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S. Ray wrote in message <1834AC9A53ABEB1C.AE5BFF3B...@library-proxy.airnews.ne t>... >On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 07:48:22 -0400, "Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >>The basic problem with errata for wake, is that we're making ruling to help >>the novice player. By eliminating the potential of some of these cards >>these limited experience played are dog meat in a tournament with the more >>experianced players. > >No, the ruling is made to help ALL players. And you know what? It's >good, right, and proper that superior experience is a major factor in >deciding who wins games. If you'd like to argue that, may I suggest >we just roll dice for the winner, since experience and skill are not >fit to decide who wins? > >-- Derek Perhaps you have seen these things. I get to a tournament about once every 4 months and have yet to have ever seen the card become a problem. Occasionally I have found it annoying, but that about it. Maximum effects with wake deflect in a tournament is 45 wake deflects in a perfect world. Say I have 4 vampire out, in ten turns the prey is devoid of any defense, and may be forced to withdraw. Granted I've left my self open to attack, but bleed bounce of my own helps, as does atonement. Small vampire seem too common in tournaments, Most of the players I've encountered look to the end game. They WILL take cross table actions when and if they think it will ultimately help their position. The player who simple focuses on his prey has blinders on and will lose more time than they win. Like I said before the worst case was a gangrel wake deck that had about 30 wake in it. It failed so bad, so many times the player tore the deck apart and refused to play it any longer. Wakes may be annoying but are hardly a game breaker. Good players will look several turns out and act accordingly. even cross table. I have had the fortune to have played against opponents in Indian, Ohio, Michigan, Netherlands and Germany. I've played against probably 30 different people over the last few years. In all that time against all those people I have never seen the card abused. In the Netherlands the player group their is so adamant opposed to the WoTc rules they do not even use VTES backed cards, and only use the printed Jyhad rule book! Do they have internet access? Yes. Thats how I contacted them prior to my trip there. Did I actual go? Ask Michael Beer, a semi regular here on the NG. Perhaps he has seen the card abused, but I have never seen or heard anyone complain until the new rules team ruling. For all the insane chatter stating wake is broken it must be fixed, I say send me a deck, or post it to the list. I'll play it against all comers and see if it really makes a difference. If it does, great you've made you point. If not I'll keep on keeping on. If you DON'T send a deck, then your argument in moot. Put up or shut up. Raille.

>> My proposal does *not* change the wording. It is a clarification like the >> following: >> >> Acquired Ventrue Assets [DS] - Master (Gio) (2) >> * Can be used during any master phase, not just its controller's. >> >> Barrens, The - Master: Unique Location >> * If the Barrens is tapped during a Referendum, you >> still do not replace the discarded card until >> after the Referendum. > >No, it is not. The clarifications you cite (and indeed, all clarifications) >follow directly from an inspection of actual card text or rulebook text >(or previously issued errata to same). That's what "clarification" means >in this context. > The card text of Acquired Ventrue Assets says "During each master phase, you may move 1 blood from this card to any Giovanni you control." ie. it does not say in whose master phase. The clarification answers the question "When can I move blood from this card?" Similarly, the card text of The Barrens says "Tap to discard a card from your hand." ie. there is no mention when you replace the card (the rulebook says to immediately replace a card when you "play" a library card) or that you cannot replace the card until after the political action is finished. The clarification answers the question "When do I replace the card that I discarded?" My point is that "an inspection of actual card text or rulebook text" cannot provide definite answers to many rules questions. A complete rulebook that covered all the possible rules questions would be too big to fit in a starter box. Similarly, complete text would not fit on many cards. That is why official clarifications are needed - to answer questions. >Q: How do the two errata you propose follow from the actual card text? >A: they do not. They are additional restrictions beyond what can be > "interpretted" from card text. These errata are called addenda - > modifications to card text by addition. As I have pointed out, the official clarifications are *all* addenda; they exist to supplement the existing rules and card text. My suggested clarification to Wake does not change the card text; it is *not* an erratum ("a mistake in writing or printing" - Macquarie Dictionary). It answers the question "When can I play a Wake?" in a simple and elegant manner.

"Eric Topp" <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote: > > >> My proposal does *not* change the wording. It is a clarification like the > >> following: > >> > >> Acquired Ventrue Assets [DS] - Master (Gio) (2) > >> * Can be used during any master phase, not just its controller's. > >> > >> Barrens, The - Master: Unique Location > >> * If the Barrens is tapped during a Referendum, you > >> still do not replace the discarded card until > >> after the Referendum. > > > >No, it is not. The clarifications you cite (and indeed, all clarifications) > >follow directly from an inspection of actual card text or rulebook text > >(or previously issued errata to same). That's what "clarification" means > >in this context. > > The card text of Acquired Ventrue Assets says "During each master phase, you > may move 1 blood from this card to any Giovanni you control." ie. it does > not say in whose master phase. The clarification answers the question "When > can I move blood from this card?" The card is talking to "you" the controller. It says that "you may move 1 blood from the card" and it limits this activity to "during each master phase". If it had said "during each player's master phase", then it would be different, but it doesn't. So it is limited to your (the player being given the ability) master phase. At worst, this is a ruling (instead of a clarification). It is not errata. > Similarly, the card text of The Barrens says "Tap to discard a card from > your hand." ie. there is no mention when you replace the card (the rulebook > says to immediately replace a card when you "play" a library card) or that > you cannot replace the card until after the political action is finished. > The clarification answers the question "When do I replace the card that I > discarded?" The rulebook states that no cards are replaced during a referendum. Since, as you say, there is no mention on the Barrens as to when you replace the card you discard, you are bound by the standing rule - that is: not during a political action. > My point is that "an inspection of actual card text or rulebook text" cannot > provide definite answers to many rules questions. A complete rulebook that > covered all the possible rules questions would be too big to fit in a > starter box. Similarly, complete text would not fit on many cards. That is > why official clarifications are needed - to answer questions. The resolution of ambiguities is handled by rulings. The explanation of unambiguous portions of the rules is handled by clarification. The *modification* or rules and/or card text is done by errata. What you propose for Wake falls under the third category. > >Q: How do the two errata you propose follow from the actual card text? > >A: they do not. They are additional restrictions beyond what can be > > "interpretted" from card text. These errata are called addenda - > > modifications to card text by addition. > > As I have pointed out, the official clarifications are *all* addenda; they > exist to supplement the existing rules and card text. My suggested They explain the rules and card text - they do not alter them. > clarification to Wake does not change the card text; it is *not* an erratum > ("a mistake in writing or printing" - Macquarie Dictionary). The mistake you are attempting to correct is your perceived omission of some restrictions to Wake's usage. > It answers the > question "When can I play a Wake?" in a simple and elegant manner. By adding rules and/or card text. Altering card text. Errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 17:20:08 -0400, "Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >Granted I've left my self open to attack, but bleed bounce of my own helps, >as does atonement. Small vampire seem too common in tournaments, Not TOO common, but sufficiently common. >Most of the players I've encountered look to the end game. They WILL take >cross table actions when and if they think it will ultimately help their >position. The player who simple focuses on his prey has blinders on and >will lose more time than they win. But players will only go cross-table if they see a threat. A multiple-Wake deck is not an active cross-table threat in the same fashion that a weenie stampede deck is. >Like I said before the worst case was a gangrel wake deck that had about 30 >wake in it. It failed so bad, so many times the player tore the deck apart >and refused to play it any longer. ...you've got to be taking actions and tapping out vampires for Wake to be useful, and Gangrel players will surely discover that Rat's Warning is nifty but can't stop votes. >Wakes may be annoying but are hardly a game breaker. If you can't see how having potentially near-unlimited defense will help ... >Good players will look several turns out and act accordingly. even cross >table. ...only when they perceive an immediate or near-future threat AND if that threat requires previous action. >I have had the fortune to have played against opponents in Indian, Ohio, >Michigan, Netherlands and Germany. I've played against probably 30 >different people over the last few years. In all that time against all >those people I have never seen the card abused. I've played against 30 different people in the last few MONTHS :P Can we get off the stupid "I've been playing this game forever" kick, since both of us (i hope) know how little it REALLY means, and get back on the "arguments with substance" kick? >For all the insane chatter stating wake is broken it must be fixed, I say >send me a deck, or post it to the list. I'll play it against all comers and >see if it really makes a difference. If it does, great you've made you >point. If not I'll keep on keeping on. I think you'll keep on keeping on whether or not I post a deck, but I think I can squeeze a little time in to throw one together. (conveniently, it doesn't have to actually be PHYSICALLY put together.) >Put up or shut up. Those are some mighty big words for someone whose only argument so far has been "IVE NEVER SEEN IT ABUSED!!!!", ya know? [ quoted text not captured ]

>>For all the insane chatter stating wake is broken it must be fixed, I say >>send me a deck, or post it to the list. I'll play it against all comers and >>see if it really makes a difference. If it does, great you've made you >>point. If not I'll keep on keeping on. > >I think you'll keep on keeping on whether or not I post a deck, but I >think I can squeeze a little time in to throw one together. >(conveniently, it doesn't have to actually be PHYSICALLY put >together.) And even more conveniently, the Elder Library Deck Builder (insert shameless plug for David Davila here) lets me churn something out in about 15-20 minutes that I can wander back and post, without having to actually have my cards. whee! Disclaimer: This deck assumes a non-errata'd Wake with Evening's Freshness that replaces after combat, not after untap. This is a 15-minute special, so I'm sure the proportions on some cards are slightly off a bit. The 15 claws may be too many, but you'll likely be stopping a LOT of your predator's actions (and maybe even some of your prey's, if you're lucky). The concept is pretty basic - load up your vampires as the equipment arrives, bleed and if they block you, poke their eye out. This deck is VERY equipment heavy, but despite starting out slowly forwards, certainly shouldn't suffer much on its defense (freely cyclable Wake enables me to include a wopping 20). Pack Tactics is there to help deal some with heavy sneak & bleed - for voters, of course, you only require the basic +1 intercept, and there should be lots of that around. Smiling Jack is a last-minute throwin - you'd have to look at the table and decide whether incurring everyone's wrath is worth it - although you -do- have the Wakes to defend him, if everyone gangs up on you it could be risky. =) And people will be coming after the steal-me-please Rack anyway. Crypt: (12 cards) 2 Anastasia Grey (Gangrel, 3, an pt) 1 Caitlin (Gangrel Antitribu, 5, PT AN do au, Bishop) 1 Camille Devereaux (Gangrel, 5, an PT FO) 1 Chandler Hungerford (Gangrel, 3, PT) 1 Daliyah (Nosferatu, 3, PT ob) 1 Mirembe Kabbada (Gangrel, 5, PT SE an) 1 Monique (Gangrel Antitribu, 5, an fo pt au) 1 Ricki Van Demsi (Gangrel, 3, fo pt) 1 Roman Alexander (Gangrel, 4, an fo pt) 1 Sadie (Gangrel Antitribu, 2, pt) 1 Salbatore Bokkengro (Ravnos, 4, CH fo pt) Avg. Crypt: 3.75 Best: 12 Worst: 20 Library: (89 cards) Masters: 8 Blood Doll 2 KRCG News Radio 1 Smiling Jack the Anarch 2 Rack, The Actions: 10 Computer Hacking 3 J. S. Simmons, Esq. 3 Tasha Morgan 5 Laptop Computer 3 Mr. Winthrop 5 Raven Spy 5 Sport Bike Reactions: 20 Wake with Evening's Freshness 5 Pack Tactics Combat: 15 Claws of the Dead 5 Form of the Ghost [ quoted text not captured ]

lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote: > >>For all the insane chatter stating wake is broken it must be fixed, I say > >>send me a deck, or post it to the list. I'll play it against all comers and > >>see if it really makes a difference. If it does, great you've made you > >>point. If not I'll keep on keeping on. > > > >I think you'll keep on keeping on whether or not I post a deck, but I > >think I can squeeze a little time in to throw one together. > >(conveniently, it doesn't have to actually be PHYSICALLY put > >together.) > > And even more conveniently, the Elder Library Deck Builder (insert > shameless plug for David Davila here) lets me churn something out in > about 15-20 minutes that I can wander back and post, without having to > actually have my cards. whee! > > Disclaimer: This deck assumes a non-errata'd Wake with Evening's > Freshness that replaces after combat, not after untap. [Snip deck]. I should point out that Wake was not errata'ed because it produced broken decks. It was errata'ed because it itself was broken - Players put 4-8 copies of wake into (nearly) every deck because it was (almost) always useful and had no drawbacks. That last point being the problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote in message <7g50pm$8pv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >I should point out that Wake was not errata'ed because it produced >broken decks. It was errata'ed because it itself was broken - Players >put 4-8 copies of wake into (nearly) every deck because it was >(almost) always useful and had no drawbacks. > >That last point being the problem. So if I understand this correctly the card was changed because A) people put 4-8 copies into their decks and B) it could be discarded freely I have to say that the 4-8 added cards is a minor point, you can't use than as cause to alter cards, there are a few thousand other cards that I could place into a deck in quantities of 4-8 that might annoy the rest of the table/players. The ability to discard them freely usually means that the deck is/was poorly designed. I, don't know about everyone else, try to build decks so that I don't every need to discard. There are exceptions, but its what I shoot for. A discarded/dumped card is a wasted card. Raille

Derek S. Ray wrote in message ... Got the deck. Will start giving it someplaying time. Comments to be sent later. Raille

Raille wrote: > > LSJ wrote in message <7g50pm$8pv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > >I should point out that Wake was not errata'ed because it produced > >broken decks. It was errata'ed because it itself was broken - Players > >put 4-8 copies of wake into (nearly) every deck because it was > >(almost) always useful and had no drawbacks. > > > >That last point being the problem. > > So if I understand this correctly the card was changed because > A) people put 4-8 copies into their decks > and > B) it could be discarded freely No: because was unbalanced. The effect was too good for its cost (which was basically zero). As has been said many times already in this thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: >>So if I understand this correctly the card was changed because A) people put 4-8 copies into their decks and B) it could be discarded freely>> The card was changed, simply, because it was too good. Jyhad is a game of strict cost and effect controls. Cards that do not fit in to this strict cost and effect structure are either too good or weak. It was decided that there was no point in fixing cards that were too weak (which is why cards like Chainsaw and Concealed Weapon were never changed), but cards that were too good were fixed. As a result, cards like ToR, Zip Gun, and Immortal Grapple were errataed. Wake With Evenings Freshness was a card that was too good, for reasons explained at depth by many in this thread (please go back and read my comparison between WWEF and Surprise Influence up in this thread somewhere). As a result of being arguably too good (and said arguments were accepted by the ruling team), WWEF was errataed into a card that had a cost more in line with its effect. >>I have to say that the 4-8 added cards is a minor point, you can't use than as cause to alter cards, there are a few thousand other cards that I could place into a deck in quantities of 4-8 that might annoy the rest of the table/players.>> Again, the card was too good for what it cost. Thus it was changed. Its effect was not sufficiently balanced by its cost. The card was not changed due to 4-8 cards being in every deck (this was an illustration of the fact that the card was too good). It was changed as the result of literal *years* of discussion and playtesting. WWEF was simply too good for what it cost. Thus, its cost was increased. >>The ability to discard them freely usually means that the deck is/was poorly designed.>> Ahh, yes. Good, old hyperpole. Nothing beats hyperbole. >>I, don't know about everyone else, try to build decks so that I don't every need to discard. There are exceptions, but its what I shoot for. A discarded/dumped card is a wasted card.>> Anyway, how difficult it is for a given card to be cycled is a built in cost of cards in Jyhad (remebering that cost to effect ratio is the bread and butter of this game). For example, one of the sticky points of building the "overpowered" (a common claim, along with "boring" and "cheesy") Malkavian S+B deck is that stealth can't be freely cycled. If no one blocks you, your stealth cards do nothing but clog up your hand, and thus you have to discard them. If stealth cards could be freely cycled (i.e. played when not needed), they too would be too good and need a fixing. Again, please compare WWEF to Surprise Influence. SI has a *much* higher opportunity cost, is far more difficult to cycle, and has a far greater cost in general (you need to have an untapped vampire for each SI you play). For two cards that are both non-disciplanary reactions, their cost to effect ratio is completely out of balance, indicating that one of them is wrong. Given that no one ever complained about SI, and people spent years complaining (and disecting and making viable arguments) about WWEF, it was accepted to be the one that was wrong. As a result, it was errataed to make its cost more in line with its effect. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I dunno, Marge. Trying is the first step towards failure." -Homer

PDB6 wrote in message <19990428093009...@ng126.aol.com>... >Again, the card was too good for what it cost. Thus it was changed. Its effect >was not sufficiently balanced by its cost. The card was not changed due to 4-8 >cards being in every deck (this was an illustration of the fact that the card >was too good). It was changed as the result of literal *years* of discussion >and playtesting. WWEF was simply too good for what it cost. Thus, its cost was >increased. >snip< [ quoted text not captured ] If wake is so powerful that it needs to be errata'd to correct it why not Forced awakening. If you have a vampire who is tapped and at zero blood they can use the forced awakening to attempt to block every action taken by either the prey or predator. With the ruling on wake, All I really need to do is load up of forced awakenings, use what I need then DUMP the rest. A 1 or 2 cap vampire can do this with nearly 100% effectiveness. There is really little difference between the two cards, and the ability to replace the FA is vastly superior to the original do not replace till after combat of the wake. Please explain to be who the new change to wake compares to the Forced awakening. All it seems to have done is take a card marginalized by FA and weaken it, to the point of exclusion. Face it there are so many decks that use Vampire filling tactics that even the nominal cost of 1 blood if you fail to block is moot. Raille

In article <7g9fb2$gq3$1...@east44.supernews.com>, "Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote: > If you have a vampire who is tapped and at zero blood they can use the > forced awakening to attempt to block every action taken by either the prey > or predator. With the ruling on wake, All I really need to do is load up of > forced awakenings, use what I need then DUMP the rest. A 1 or 2 cap vampire > can do this with nearly 100% effectiveness. If you're actually blocking actions, what about the combat? Otherwise, you're basically throwing away a 1 or 2 pool investment along with the transfer time. > There is really little difference between the two cards, and the ability to > replace the FA is vastly superior to the original do not replace till after > combat of the wake. In decks where you actually want to and try to block, FA is at least somewhat better than WwEF. In decks where you are deflecting or playing other non-blocking oriented reaction cards, WwEF is at least somewhat better than FA. > All it seems to have done is take a card marginalized by FA and weaken it, > to the point of exclusion. Face it there are so many decks that use Vampire > filling tactics that even the nominal cost of 1 blood if you fail to block > is moot. What if you never plan to block? Also, that 1 blood loss could be one less pool you get from a Minion Tap or a Blood Doll. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ V:EKN Prince of Urbana-Champaign Editor of the Fragment of the Book of Nod [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: >>If wake is so powerful that it needs to be errata'd to correct it why not Forced awakening.>> Hmm. You seem to be missing the point. Wake was errataed because is was too good for what it cost (as has been explained, at length, in this here thread). Its cost (do not replace until after combat) was deemed not sufficient for the effect it gave. When compared to similar cards (like Surprise Influence, for instance), the complete lack of opportunity cost, the complete lack of any other cost other than the almost completely moot "dnrtac" cost, unprecidented ability to cycle, and extreme usefulness of the card it was too good. Game crushingly too good? No, but too good, and consequently needed fixing. Forced Awakening, on the other hand, does not need errata, as it has been veiwed as having a sufficient cost for its ability and can't be freely cycled like water. >>If you have a vampire who is tapped and at zero blood they can use the forced awakening to attempt to block every action taken by either the prey or predator.>> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If you have a vampire with zero blood who succeeds at blocking, he is probably going to torpor. Is that not cost enough? >>With the ruling on wake, All I really need to do is load up of forced awakenings, use what I need then DUMP the rest. A 1 or 2 cap vampire can do this with nearly 100% effectiveness.>> Again, you simply aren't making yourself clear. If you mean "dump" like you could freely "dump" WWEF before the errata, your vampires will run out of blood awfully quickly. If you mean "dump" like discard at the end of your turn, then you are doing the same thing with FA that you could be doing with any other card, and isn't a particular advantage or disadvantage of FA. >>There is really little difference between the two cards, and the ability to replace the FA is vastly superior to the original do not replace till after combat of the wake.>> Unless you are using it to Deflect, in which case your vampires lose blood quickly. Or you are using it to play Delaying Tactics, which now costs a blood. Or using it to play any reaction card you care to think of--it now costs you a blood. In decks that can, and will, use FA to reliably block, you use FA instaed of WWEF. In decks where you want to use the untap ability to react (deflect, Telepathic Counter, Delaying Tactics, whatever), the WWEF is better, as it doesn't cost your vampires blood to use. >>Please explain to be who the new change to wake compares to the Forced awakening. All it seems to have done is take a card marginalized by FA and weaken it, to the point of exclusion.>> I believe this has been done sufficiently. To reiterate--using WWEF in a deck that wishes to use it for reaction cards is a better idea than using the FA, due to the blood cost involved. If you can, and will, reliably block with the FA, use the FA. >>Face it there are so many decks that use Vampire filling tactics that even the nominal cost of 1 blood if you fail to block is moot.>> Yup. And there are just as many decks for which the nominal cost of one blood for failing to block is just not good. You are playing with small vampires and want the ability to Delaying Tactics and/or Telepathic Counter. Losing a blood every time you do this with a FA will severely compromise your offense, as well as your ability to benefit from Blood Dolls. Or, you are playing a traditional Ventrue deck with Deflections. If the Deflection costs you 2 everytime you use it (due to the FA cost), you will run out of blood _very_ quickly. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >>If you have a vampire who is tapped and at zero blood they can use the > forced awakening to attempt to block every action taken by either the prey > or predator.>> > > I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If you have a vampire with zero blood > who succeeds at blocking, he is probably going to torpor. Is that not cost > enough? > > >>With the ruling on wake, All I really need to do is load up of forced > awakenings, use what I need then DUMP the rest. A 1 or 2 cap vampire can do > this with nearly 100% effectiveness.>> > > Again, you simply aren't making yourself clear. If you mean "dump" like you > could freely "dump" WWEF before the errata, your vampires will run out of blood > awfully quickly. If you mean "dump" like discard at the end of your turn, then > you are doing the same thing with FA that you could be doing with any other > card, and isn't a particular advantage or disadvantage of FA. Isn't there a ruling concerning vamps with 0 blood failing to block with Forced Awakening: they fail to burn the blood as well and no real harm is done? (I think I'm getting this right. Someone please correct me if I'm not)I think he's meaning that, based on that ruling, if he had a vampire with 0 blood, he could cycle a lot of FA cards without losing the blood. Don't get me wrong though, I'm on the side that believed WWEF to be in need of change. p.

On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:47:30 -0600, Patrick Harris <alp...@alpinetaxi.com> wrote: >Isn't there a ruling concerning vamps with 0 blood failing to block with Forced >Awakening: they fail to burn the blood as well and no real harm is done? (I think >I'm getting this right. Someone please correct me if I'm not)I think he's meaning >that, based on that ruling, if he had a vampire with 0 blood, he could cycle a lot >of FA cards without losing the blood. A vampire may not play multiples of the same Reaction card on the same action. So if he has one vampire with 0 blood, he can cycle one FA per action taken by another Methuselah as long as he fails to block - if he successfully blocks he's probably going to get bunged into torpor. ;) Much easier (and safer) to cycle cards off of multiple vampires on your predator's first action - since you probably have 3 or 4 vampires out, you can toss 3 or 4 Wakes per action. If you did this with FA, EACH vampire would burn a blood or be at zero - not an acceptable solution, IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

> A vampire may not play multiples of the same Reaction card on the same action. So if > he has one vampire with 0 blood, he can cycle one FA per action taken by another > Methuselah as long as he fails to block - if he successfully blocks he's probably > going to get bunged into torpor. ;) Much easier (and safer) to cycle cards off of > multiple vampires on your predator's first action - since you probably have 3 or 4 > vampires out, you can toss 3 or 4 Wakes per action. If you did this with FA, EACH > vampire would burn a blood or be at zero - not an acceptable solution, IMO. Yep. Duh. Sheesh. *looks in his own ass for his head* p.