HI, all time for me to come out of lurking and flame Mr. LSJ a.k.a "La
Stupido Jackasso' ".
I would like to thank you for not only working for WOTC but actually
attempting to Fuck the game over even worse than they did.
What in your right mind gave you the egotistical god like complex to assume
you thought and only you,knew what was best for this game??
ET
ET wrote in message <35b8e...@ntnews.compusmart.ab.ca>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I would guess that LSJ thought he was allowed to make the rulings
because
WotC empowered him as their official Net Representative and leader of the
Rules Team. In other words, in his right mind, he thought he was allowed to
make positive changes for the game BECAUSE HE WAS ALLOWED TO MAKE
POSITIVE CHANGES TO THE GAME.
The fact that he's literate, polite, well-spoken, and not a ill-bred
moron is
just icing on the cake.
Why don't you go back into your little hole in the ground and stay there
until
you finish learning to speak English and converse in polite society?
-Mark Langsdorf
Jyhad Archivist
http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/
(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS)
"ET" <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes:
>HI, all time for me to come out of lurking and flame Mr. LSJ a.k.a "La
>Stupido Jackasso' ".
>
>I would like to thank you for not only working for WOTC but actually
>attempting to Fuck the game over even worse than they did.
>
>What in your right mind gave you the egotistical god like complex to assume
>you thought and only you,knew what was best for this game??
Gosh, maybe it's the fact that he's played the game and posted about it
pretty much since it's come out and/or that he seems to carry a fair amount
of respect amoungst the Usenet population. Maybe it's the fact that
_someone_ has to make these decisions or they don't get made, which is a
decision in and of itself. But letting such decisions get made by default
is chaotic and likely to be far worse than having some knowledgable,
opionated person do it, however much you might disagree with their opinion.
Just curious - what are _your_ qualifications for being a jackass? (They
must be really good!)
Fred
Actually Fred and Mark I had Respect for LSJ untiul this point so did
everyone in my play group.
They no longer do.
LSJ had every oppurtunity to discuss this with all of yourselves and other
people respected in this news group. Who also have played this game since
its arrival not that that is a valid argument anyway.
What he did was not his JOB if he did his JOB he would not have gotton the
response he did.
And no longer has any respect from me.
I also warned everyone also that this was a Flame so they had the choice to
ignore it!
ET
In article <35bb4...@ntnews.compusmart.ab.ca>,
ET <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
>Actually Fred and Mark I had Respect for LSJ untiul this point so did
>everyone in my play group.
>
>They no longer do.
>
>LSJ had every oppurtunity to discuss this with all of yourselves and other
>people respected in this news group. Who also have played this game since
>its arrival not that that is a valid argument anyway.
You should calm down and think a little bit more rationally. It's my
impression that LSJ followed along on all the discussion that was
going on here, and used that as input.
He should have done more you say? He should have worked everything out
with everyone else, so that they all agree? That doesn't work nearly as
well as you imply, since it's nearly impossible to get any consensus,
and you end up with essentially the same situation: One persons
playtest group making the decisions -- that and a big headache.
There's a reason that CCG companies have never (too my knowledge)
worked out balance, new cards, or errata on the net. It's not constructive,
since you _don't_ get the consensus that is your goal, you have to deal
with a bunch of senseless flames; not to mention that the quality of
your input goes down overall, as quite frankly all opinions on Usenet
are not equally usefull, and many of them are simply crap.
In any event, this last spat of errata has been much more in tune with
the public discussion than _any_ I've seen for _any_ other CCG.
>What he did was not his JOB if he did his JOB he would not have gotton the
>response he did.
That may be be true, at least I don't think he's getting paid. I'm
sure a hell of a lot happier that he's doing it, and not you.
>And no longer has any respect from me.
Yah, imagine how much respect you get here, now. There is a reason
people who blindly flame are looked upon poorly. Now, if you had
simply said that you thought it would have been better if LSJ had asked
for more input, you would have got at least a meaningfull reply,
people would be more agreeable, and you might even _get_ more input
on such things in the future.
As it stands now, you're simply one of the reasons someone in LSJ's
shoes doesn't want to deal with discussing things publicly first.
I'd probably do the same thing in his shoes.
>ET
--
/\ Jasper Phillips
/VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz
j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--.
* http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`
ET wrote:
"Actually Fred and Mark I had Respect for LSJ untiul this point so did everyone
in my play group."
And what a shame it is to lose your respect. I am incredibly tentative about
posting this response, as I certainly would not want to risk the loss of your
respect myself.
"LSJ had every oppurtunity to discuss this with all of yourselves and other
people respected in this news group. Who also have played this game since its
arrival not that that is a valid argument anyway."
The bulk of the new errata is the direct result of years and years of
discussion. LSJ simply did not make up these rulings out of whole cloth--they
came directly from the debate on this newsgroup. The Tomb, TB, Mind Rape, and
RTI fixes are all pretty much identical to at least a few of the proposed fixes
that were beaten to death on this group for the last few years. The WWEF
ruling was the result of some of the very first discussions on this newsgroup
from however many years ago (heck, I think Alan Kwan was a proponent of said
fix...). The Aggro rules and the Vote push rules have been discussed forever,
and harken back to the original intention of the rules. The IG ruling, again,
also harkens back to the original intention of the rules. The 2nd Tradition
ruling was supported by a 3 week, infinitely long thread just before the ruling
came out, as well as the original card wording. The only entirely arbitrary
rulings I can think of are the Rutors Hand fix (which exists to fix a huge
loophole in the rules, and does so pretty elegantly) and Fame (which was well
regarded as a completely busted card from pretty much day one, and although the
current Fame fix is pretty severe, it certainly fixes Fame abuse).
"What he did was not his JOB if he did his JOB he would not have gotton the
response he did."
It certainly was his job. LSJ is the WOTC official net representitive as well
as the head of the rules team. If it wasn't his job to do what he did, I am
hard pressed to think of what his job is to do.
"And no longer has any respect from me."
The horror. The horror.
"I also warned everyone also that this was a Flame so they had the choice to
ignore it!"
Good lord--who wants to ignore such a preposterous flame?
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"I'm a lucky guy to live in my building
They all need buildings to help them along"
-Talking Heads
In article <35bb4...@ntnews.compusmart.ab.ca>,
"ET" <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
> LSJ had every oppurtunity to discuss this with all of yourselves and other
> people respected in this news group. Who also have played this game since
> its arrival not that that is a valid argument anyway.
I hate to say this without knowing who you consider "respected" on the
newsgroup, but I'd have to say that the majority, albeit a slim majority,
agree with the rulings (as a whole) that were made. That doesn't mean they
have nothing against some of them, just that the whole package is a Good
Thing.
> What he did was not his JOB if he did his JOB he would not have gotton the
> response he did.
We don't know what his job is. All we were told was that he was the new
rules team. Rules teams make rulings, errata, and clarifications, so I
don't see how he's not doing his job.
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP
"Sell crazy somewhere else; we're all stocked up here."
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
"ET" <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes:
> Actually Fred and Mark I had Respect for LSJ untiul this point so did
> everyone in my play group.> They no longer do.>
> LSJ had every oppurtunity to discuss this with all of yourselves and other
> people respected in this news group. Who also have played this game since
> its arrival not that that is a valid argument anyway.
Well... tough.
If you imagine that coming up with rulings for the few problem cards
could have been done "by general consenses" you are living in
dreamland. Even in this newsgroup we have people that think that RtI
and Tomb were "perfectly fine as is", and we also have something like
a zillion different opinions on how to fix them.
I think LSJ did a good job with the new rulings, and on the whole I
like them. A lot. Oh, I don't love *all* of them, but that would be
asking for too much.
Know what? I just ran a tournament with the new rules, with 33 players
(it was cool, I'll post a report later). Know what else? *Nobody*
complained about the new rules, in fact four or five players commented
that the new rules made for more balanced tournament play as compared
to last year's tournament.
You don't like the new rules? Fine. Your play group doesn't like them
either? Fine also. But don't imagine that your opinion applies to
everyone, or that that gives you the right to post infantile flames at
LSJ, who has done more for this game than anyone I know.
So there ;)
//Petri
I think it's important that we try to keep things civil. We need to be
able to disagree on things without the name calling and emotionalism.
By now most of you know that I am in general disagreement with the new
rules "Team", but I don't want any part of a lynch mob mentality. Keep in
mind that LSJ
has been playing this game for a long time, much longer than most of
us.While I encourage anyone to speak their mind, I think it would be more
productive if we could all do it without the mud slinging.
Ernie Wilson
In article <35b8e...@ntnews.compusmart.ab.ca>,
"ET" <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
> HI, all time for me to come out of lurking and flame Mr. LSJ a.k.a "La
> Stupido Jackasso' ".
>
> I would like to thank you for not only working for WOTC but actually
> attempting to Fuck the game over even worse than they did.
>
> What in your right mind gave you the egotistical god like complex to assume
> you thought and only you,knew what was best for this game??
I don't know you and you don't know me. Even more cause to remain polite.
Even if addressing third persons.
While I can perfectly understand your mood, I cannot agree with your
way of expressing it.
Wouldn't it be better to participate in a courtious discussion (even a
heated one) than either be angry lurking or angry shouting out opinions?
What do you think? I am convinced that this will be the most polity answer
you'll get.
-Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Actually Fred and Mark I had Respect for LSJ untiul this point so did
> everyone in my play group.
>
> They no longer do.
>
> LSJ had every oppurtunity to discuss this with all of yourselves and other
> people respected in this news group. Who also have played this game since
> its arrival not that that is a valid argument anyway.
>> What he did was not his JOB if he did his JOB he would not have gotton the
> response he did.
>> And no longer has any respect from me.
>> I also warned everyone also that this was a Flame so they had the choice to
> ignore it!
>
Yes, we had the choice to ignore it... but it's much more fun to jump on the
person who's doing the flaming. Especially when they're flat-out dead wrong.
LSJ created the new rulings based on newsgroup input and on his own
playtesting. In every case he has made a ruling that maintains game balance
and is parallel (or at least close to parallel) to public opinion. LSJ has
also listened to the few rational objections and would have changed things
had there been any consensus. While I don't agree with every ruling he made,
I agree that I am in the minority on those few issues. I won't tell you to
shut up, because you of course have the right to post your opinions. Of
course... along with that goes my right to anonymously mail-bomb you... (I
won't though... well, probably not.)
-Chris
[ quoted text not captured ]
ernie&jeanine wilson wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Bravo, I will unlurk for the moment and second the motion. Our Playgroup is
still getting used to how the new 7/7 rulings work so I havn't made many
comments of late. There is no need to support opinions by denegrating the
opinions of others on the newsgroup. People seem to think that the anonymity
(sp?) of the newsgroup allows them to say whatever they please, no-matter how
inflamatory. I would imagine that these very same people who freely insult
others on the NG would recieve more than a scathing reply if the same things
were said face to face.
So thank you Ernie for injecting a little sense back into the discussions of
late.
Karl
Rotschreck... the Thoughts Betrayed of the Future :)
phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote:
> In article <35bb4...@ntnews.compusmart.ab.ca>,
> ET <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:> >LSJ had every oppurtunity to discuss this with all of yourselves and other
> >people respected in this news group. Who also have played this game since
> >its arrival not that that is a valid argument anyway.
>> You should calm down and think a little bit more rationally. It's my
> impression that LSJ followed along on all the discussion that was
> going on here, and used that as input.
I don't recall anyone, ever, suggesting that Fame work the way that the
7/7 errata has it work.
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)
In article <6q4tdf$ijj$1...@cgl.ucsf.edu>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Following along hardly means he stripped everything from usenet. Not to
mention that I imagine LSJ has an email account as well as a usenet feed,
and so you probably don't see most of what he reads anyway. Most of the
rest of the changes are ones that obviously _have_ been talked about here
(or obvioius extensions thereof), etc.
Anyway, my point: How is this relavent to the discussion at all?
[ quoted text not captured ]
phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote:
> In article <6q4tdf$ijj$1...@cgl.ucsf.edu>,> Eric Pettersen wrote:
> >phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote:
> >> In article <35bb4...@ntnews.compusmart.ab.ca>,
> >> ET <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> >LSJ had every oppurtunity to discuss this with all of yourselves
> >> >and other people respected in this news group. Who also have played
> >> >this game since its arrival not that that is a valid argument anyway.
> >>
> >> You should calm down and think a little bit more rationally. It's my
> >> impression that LSJ followed along on all the discussion that was
> >> going on here, and used that as input.
> >
> >I don't recall anyone, ever, suggesting that Fame work the way that
> >the 7/7 errata has it work.
> >---
>
> Following along hardly means he stripped everything from usenet. Not to
> mention that I imagine LSJ has an email account as well as a usenet
> feed, and so you probably don't see most of what he reads anyway. Most
> of the rest of the changes are ones that obviously _have_ been talked
> about here (or obvioius extensions thereof), etc.
>
> Anyway, my point: How is this relavent to the discussion at all?
By making errata or rulings that haven't been discussed here, it catches
everyone flatfooted. Fame is one. I don't recall anyone mentioning that
Wake trumps Sleeping Mind prior to the ruling. Possibly errataing Wakes
hasn't been discussed in this group for, what, years? If it had been
known that such errata were eminent, perhaps there would have been discussion
of whether there was still a need for such errata, and of possible
alternative fixes.
It is moot now, but it might have been more prudent/courteous for LSJ to
send up a trial balloon in the newgroup for the more radical
errata/rewordings, so that other reasonable alternatives could be discussed.
As it was, the decisions (as all previous RTRs have been before as well
-- so I'm not trying to pick on LSJ here) were delivered in a
take-it-or-leave-it manner. This RTR is such a major change to the current
game (D actions, agg damage, vote push, major errata to several cards)
that a totally new approach to the RTR process -- issuing an initial
provisional RTR for discussion -- might have been called for (this is
actually similar to method of creation of Internet standards -- the initial
issuance of an RFC [request for comment]). Then after that "provisional"
trial-balloon RTR, LSJ could issue a final RTR that keeps or changes things
as per LSJ's best judgement, but that also discusses why other specific
alternatives were rejected. That might have reduced the "anger level"
somewhat by giving people a feeling that they have some input into the
process at least.
I actually largely favor the 7/7 RTR. My differences with it are largely
quibbles (Fame, Sleeping Mind, agg damage). The true major drawback will
the difficulty of tournament organization at conventions. In this area
(the SF Bay area), getting information as extensive as the 7/7 RTR to
convention attendees before their arrival at the convention is essentially
impossible (if they aren't on the net). Obviously, having people arrive
at a Jyhad tourney with decks built for radically different rules sets
isn't going to be a pleasant experience. We'll just have to see how this
sorts out.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <6q5s55$ijj$4...@cgl.ucsf.edu>,
>
>By making errata or rulings that haven't been discussed here, it catches
>everyone flatfooted. Fame is one. I don't recall anyone mentioning that
>Wake trumps Sleeping Mind prior to the ruling. Possibly errataing Wakes
>hasn't been discussed in this group for, what, years? If it had been
>known that such errata were eminent, perhaps there would have been discussion
>of whether there was still a need for such errata, and of possible
>alternative fixes.
[snip]
Ok, give me a chance to slip my foot in mouth, and I will. ;-)
Let me try to clarify:
My point was refering to my opinion that you didn't see such
a Fame rewording coming as meaningless, since it doesn't mean it wasn't
at some point in the past (I _do_ remember hearing such a solution,
although not recently), or through email.
Anyway, I can see why he didn't go over the details of every fix,
since there's no way everyone is going to agree, it's a whole
lot more work for IMHO no effect -- as many people if not more
would have been upset. Rules, like fiction, are poorly done by comity.
I'm curious about your tournament, is it going to be 4CL?
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 4 Aug 1998, Eric Pettersen wrote:
> I don't recall anyone mentioning that Wake trumps Sleeping Mind prior to
> the ruling.
This one actually makes perfect sense to me, such that I don't even
necessarily consider it errata. It is merely a literal interpretation of
card text. I don't know if I discussed it on the net, but I have always
felt that this should have been the ruling.
the relevant text of Sleeping Mind says that "...tapped minions cannot
block this action."
This essentially takes away from them an ability that they do not have.
Tapped minions cannot normally block actions anyway. I imagine if some
hypothetical vampire had card text stating "this minion can attempt to
block even if tapped" then Sleeping Mind would take that power away.
Otherwise, null effect. It deprives them of the power if they have it,
but does not prevent another card from giving them that power later.
A wake played after Sleeping Mind restores what Sleeping Mind took away
(even if you never had it to begin with--which is always the case
with the current cardset).
Obviously, this is not what the card intended, as the final clause
otherwise becomes pointless with cards currently in print. Still, it is a
perfectly acceptable literal interpretation of what otherwise would be an
overpowered card.
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote:
: On 4 Aug 1998, Eric Pettersen wrote:: > I don't recall anyone mentioning that Wake trumps Sleeping Mind prior to
: > the ruling.: This one actually makes perfect sense to me, such that I don't even
: necessarily consider it errata. It is merely a literal interpretation of
: card text. I don't know if I discussed it on the net, but I have always
: felt that this should have been the ruling.: the relevant text of Sleeping Mind says that "...tapped minions cannot
: block this action.": This essentially takes away from them an ability that they do not have.
: Tapped minions cannot normally block actions anyway. I imagine if some
: hypothetical vampire had card text stating "this minion can attempt to
: block even if tapped" then Sleeping Mind would take that power away.
: Otherwise, null effect. It deprives them of the power if they have it,
: but does not prevent another card from giving them that power later.
[snip]
: Obviously, this is not what the card intended, as the final clause: otherwise becomes pointless with cards currently in print. Still, it is a
: perfectly acceptable literal interpretation of what otherwise would be an
: overpowered card.
This argument assumes that the card was intended to do nothing. I
think the general rule for cards that would do nothing if you read
them a certain way is to assume that they break the rules such that
they do something. (ex: Cat's Guidance, under the current rulings,
is played after the block finishes, which is after combat now, which
is clearly after the blocking vampire taps. However, it doesn't have
card text saying 'playable by a tapped vampire.' Nonetheless, it
is playable by a tapped vampire, because otherwise it would be
useless. At least, if I remember right, this is how LSJ's reasoning
went.)
The inferior of Sleeping Mind is 'Choose a tapped vampire.
The chosen vampire cannot attempt to block this action.' If Sleeping
Mind isn't meant to prevent Wakes/Forced Awakenings from circumventing
it, it is an inherently useless card.
As far as I can see, the only reasonable way to interpret the 7/7
errata to Sleeping Mind is that the RTR felt it was an overpowered
card, and therefore reduced it to wallpaper. (It's clear to me
that the main intent of Sleeping Mind was to circumvent Wakes, since
the only other ability the card has (at superior, 'Vampires may not
untap during this action') applies to only a few cards - Rat's Warning,
Second Tradition being the ones that spring to mind - *and* only
works at superior.)
Josh
didn't really think sleeping mind was overpowered
du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> (ex: Cat's Guidance, under the current rulings,
> is played after the block finishes, which is after combat now, which
> is clearly after the blocking vampire taps. However, it doesn't have
> card text saying 'playable by a tapped vampire.' Nonetheless, it
> is playable by a tapped vampire, because otherwise it would be
> useless. At least, if I remember right, this is how LSJ's reasoning
> went.)
This has nothing to do with the current rulings. Cat's Guidance, inferior,
is useless without the 'usable by a tapped vampire' erratum.
When played by an untapped vampire (as reaction cards generally are), the
'untap this vampire' has no effect. This is true regardless of whether
the card is played before or after combat.
And (the good part): it isn't overpowered if it is allowed to work the
way it was intended.
So errata (a correction) was issued.
> The inferior of Sleeping Mind is 'Choose a tapped vampire.
> The chosen vampire cannot attempt to block this action.' If Sleeping
> Mind isn't meant to prevent Wakes/Forced Awakenings from circumventing
> it, it is an inherently useless card.
>
> As far as I can see, the only reasonable way to interpret the 7/7
> errata to Sleeping Mind is that the RTR felt it was an overpowered
> card, and therefore reduced it to wallpaper.
Yes, it would be overpowered if errata was issued to make it function
as it was almost certainly intended to function. So no errata was
issued.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings:
http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
[re: cat's guidance]
: This has nothing to do with the current rulings. Cat's Guidance, inferior,: is useless without the 'usable by a tapped vampire' erratum.: When played by an untapped vampire (as reaction cards generally are), the
: 'untap this vampire' has no effect. This is true regardless of whether
: the card is played before or after combat.: And (the good part): it isn't overpowered if it is allowed to work the
: way it was intended.: So errata (a correction) was issued.
Oh, yeah. Good point. (Interesting that it wasn't issued until recently
though.)
[re: sleeping mind]
: Yes, it would be overpowered if errata was issued to make it function: as it was almost certainly intended to function. So no errata was
: issued.
Well, there's an entry in the 7/7 rulings, which says that cards played
after Sleeping Mind are allowed to break the rules that Sleeping Mind
attempts to impose.
The RT's position seems to be that Sleeping Mind, as written,
didn't do anything because cards played later were inherently able
circumvent the 'The chosen [tapped] vampire cannot attempt
to block this action' effect. But it seems to me that, given what
the card says, it is clearly preventing that tapped vampire from
blocking even if it could somehow gain the ability to block (eg
with Wake or Forced Awakening).
The superior, which says that tapped vampires can't block the action,
means to me that even if they somehow have the ability to block
despite being tapped (eg by having used a Wake), they are not allowed
to block. Claiming that Wake's use of the phrase "as if untapped"
gets around this because untapped vamps can block as normal is, in
my opinion, a very dubious line of reasoning. A Woken vampire is
still tapped. Therefore a Woken vamp trying to block *is* a tapped
vampire attempting to block the action, which is what Sleeping Mind
prevents tapped vampires from doing.
The argument that Sleeping Mind's effect is applied only when the
card is played, ie that it removes the ability of tapped vampires
to block, which they couldn't do anyway, seems implausible to me.
The card is an action modifier; hence it modifies the action. It's
at least as logical to claim that it gives the action the attribute
'This action cannot be blocked by tapped vampires.' (at superior)
I have no particular problem with the RT's desire to alter Sleeping
Mind in this fashion, but I feel that it certainly should require at
least a ruling, if not errata. (Which is to say, I feel that the
reasoning presented in the 7/7 rulings is weak and should be altered.)
Josh
always the devil's advocate
phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote:
> Anyway, I can see why he didn't go over the details of every fix, since
> there's no way everyone is going to agree, it's a whole lot more work
> for IMHO no effect -- as many people if not more would have been upset.
> Rules, like fiction, are poorly done by comity.
_More_ people upset? Man, I'd like to see that! He should have done it
for that reason alone. ;-)
I mean, seriously, you feel that giving people some input into the process
before it was finalized would have upset more people? Maybe. Personally,
I'm doubtful, but maybe.
>
> I'm curious about your tournament, is it going to be 4CL?
I don't run the tournaments (though sometimes I help out) -- a friend in
my playgroup does. He ran the tourneys at Manafest and Dundracon this
year. They were NL tourneys. He was going to run one at ConQuest (the
Labor Day con here); now he's "thinking about it" due to the 7/7 rulings.
Again, not really due to their content (though he doesn't like some parts
of the 7/7 rulings) but due to their expansiveness making it difficult to
ensure that people coming to the tourney won't feel blindsided if they
don't have net access.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Eric Pettersen wrote:
>
> phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote:
> > Anyway, I can see why he didn't go over the details of every fix, since
> > there's no way everyone is going to agree, it's a whole lot more work
> > for IMHO no effect -- as many people if not more would have been upset.
> > Rules, like fiction, are poorly done by comity.
>
> _More_ people upset? Man, I'd like to see that! He should have done it
> for that reason alone. ;-)
>
> I mean, seriously, you feel that giving people some input into the process
> before it was finalized would have upset more people? Maybe. Personally,
> I'm doubtful, but maybe.
Right now some people feel as though they should have been asked. They
can at least feel that they are right-minded folk who really would have
set LSJ straight and saved the game. However, if he would have made the
7/7 stuff official after having heard their comments, I am pretty sure
he would have angered more people.
> > I'm curious about your tournament, is it going to be 4CL?
>
> I don't run the tournaments (though sometimes I help out) -- a friend in
> my playgroup does. He ran the tourneys at Manafest and Dundracon this
> year. They were NL tourneys. He was going to run one at ConQuest (the
> Labor Day con here); now he's "thinking about it" due to the 7/7 rulings.
> Again, not really due to their content (though he doesn't like some parts
> of the 7/7 rulings) but due to their expansiveness making it difficult to
> ensure that people coming to the tourney won't feel blindsided if they
> don't have net access.
Our early September tournaments will be run with the pre 7/7 rulings. I
will supply (as I always do) a complete set of rulings, errata, and
Rules Reference Outline to all players. I'll also notify everyone that
the official rules will be used in the next tournament (Halloween).
This is how we always do things. Nothing has changed for us. Let me
also mention that the rulings, errata, and rules reference fit on three
pages of paper when printed front and back, multiple columns and small
type. Not that this is great but the whole errata is about the same
size after the 7/7 changes.
--
Robert Goudie
rrgo...@earthlink.net
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
In article <35C7F63E...@earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie
<rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes
> Let me
>also mention that the rulings, errata, and rules reference fit on three
>pages of paper when printed front and back, multiple columns and small
>type.
Would it be possible to put something like that up on the V:EKN site?
It'd make it much easier for a lot of people to print things out, if
they aren't too hot with doing it themselves in a word processor.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In article <35C7F63E...@earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie
> <rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes
> > Let me
> >also mention that the rulings, errata, and rules reference fit on three
> >pages of paper when printed front and back, multiple columns and small
> >type.
>
> Would it be possible to put something like that up on the V:EKN site?
> It'd make it much easier for a lot of people to print things out, if
> they aren't too hot with doing it themselves in a word processor.
Yes, it would be possible. I am looking to get a program that would let
me create .pdf files. Maybe in about a week.
>
> --
> James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply
>
> Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
> http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
--
Robert Goudie, Chairman rrgo...@earthlink.net
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
_________________________________________________________________
The Official Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Players' Organization
du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> [re: sleeping mind]>
> Well, there's an entry in the 7/7 rulings, which says that cards played
> after Sleeping Mind are allowed to break the rules that Sleeping Mind
> attempts to impose.
>
> The RT's position seems to be that Sleeping Mind, as written,
> didn't do anything because cards played later were inherently able
> circumvent the 'The chosen [tapped] vampire cannot attempt
> to block this action' effect.
The chosen vampire is not prevented from attempting to block the action.
Superior SM doesn't "choose" any vampires. It merely says that tapped
vampires cannot block. Which was true before SM was played.
Wakey allows the vampire to attempt to block "as if untapped", and SM doesn't
prevent untapped vampires from attempting to block.
Inferior SM says that the chosen vampire cannot block - so not even wakey
can be used to get around that restriction.
> The superior, which says that tapped vampires can't block the action,
> means to me that even if they somehow have the ability to block
> despite being tapped (eg by having used a Wake), they are not allowed
> to block. Claiming that Wake's use of the phrase "as if untapped"
> gets around this because untapped vamps can block as normal is, in
> my opinion, a very dubious line of reasoning. A Woken vampire is
> still tapped. Therefore a Woken vamp trying to block *is* a tapped
> vampire attempting to block the action, which is what Sleeping Mind
> prevents tapped vampires from doing.
And if you played Wakey to play a Deflection? Would that be a tapped
vampire attempting to play a reaction card (and thus not be allowed
since tapped vampires cannot play reaction cards)?
> The argument that Sleeping Mind's effect is applied only when the
> card is played, ie that it removes the ability of tapped vampires
> to block, which they couldn't do anyway, seems implausible to me.
> The card is an action modifier; hence it modifies the action. It's
> at least as logical to claim that it gives the action the attribute
> 'This action cannot be blocked by tapped vampires.' (at superior)
Plausible, yes. Which is why a ruling was issued.
> I have no particular problem with the RT's desire to alter Sleeping
> Mind in this fashion, but I feel that it certainly should require at
> least a ruling, if not errata. (Which is to say, I feel that the
> reasoning presented in the 7/7 rulings is weak and should be altered.)
A ruling was issued.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
: The chosen vampire is not prevented from attempting to block the action.: Superior SM doesn't "choose" any vampires. It merely says that tapped
: vampires cannot block. Which was true before SM was played.: Wakey allows the vampire to attempt to block "as if untapped", and SM doesn't
: prevent untapped vampires from attempting to block.: Inferior SM says that the chosen vampire cannot block - so not even wakey
: can be used to get around that restriction.
Ah, true. I hadn't realized that, but yes, inferior SM is still useful.
(Though Seduction would probably be a better idea.)
: > The superior, which says that tapped vampires can't block the action,: > means to me that even if they somehow have the ability to block
: > despite being tapped (eg by having used a Wake), they are not allowed
: > to block. Claiming that Wake's use of the phrase "as if untapped"
: > gets around this because untapped vamps can block as normal is, in
: > my opinion, a very dubious line of reasoning. A Woken vampire is
: > still tapped. Therefore a Woken vamp trying to block *is* a tapped
: > vampire attempting to block the action, which is what Sleeping Mind
: > prevents tapped vampires from doing.: And if you played Wakey to play a Deflection? Would that be a tapped
: vampire attempting to play a reaction card (and thus not be allowed
: since tapped vampires cannot play reaction cards)?
No; that's what Wake says you're allowed to do. My argument here
is that Sleeping Mind, as an action modifier, gives that action the
property of not being blockable by tapped vampires, even if they
would otherwise be able to block the action.
: > I have no particular problem with the RT's desire to alter Sleeping: > Mind in this fashion, but I feel that it certainly should require at
: > least a ruling, if not errata. (Which is to say, I feel that the
: > reasoning presented in the 7/7 rulings is weak and should be altered.): A ruling was issued.
Well, yes. I just didn't like the reasoning that arrived at it. ;-)
Josh
making a nuisance of myself
du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
> : > The superior, which says that tapped vampires can't block the action,
> : > means to me that even if they somehow have the ability to block
> : > despite being tapped (eg by having used a Wake), they are not allowed
> : > to block. Claiming that Wake's use of the phrase "as if untapped"
> : > gets around this because untapped vamps can block as normal is, in
> : > my opinion, a very dubious line of reasoning. A Woken vampire is
> : > still tapped. Therefore a Woken vamp trying to block *is* a tapped
> : > vampire attempting to block the action, which is what Sleeping Mind
> : > prevents tapped vampires from doing.
>
> : And if you played Wakey to play a Deflection? Would that be a tapped
> : vampire attempting to play a reaction card (and thus not be allowed
> : since tapped vampires cannot play reaction cards)?
>
> No; that's what Wake says you're allowed to do.
Right - that's what it does - it gets around the restrictions of what
a tapped vampire cannot do. This is a parallel of the reason a tapped
vampire can Wake and block even after superior SM is played.
> My argument here
> is that Sleeping Mind, as an action modifier, gives that action the
> property of not being blockable by tapped vampires, even if they
> would otherwise be able to block the action.
Which is true in general.
Sleeping Mind (superior) states this rule. That changes nothing, since the
rule is a general rule, given in the rulebook.
*If* SM gives the action the property of not being blockable by tapped
vampires, and a vampire uses a Wakey to attempt to block "as if untapped",
then he can attempt to block, unless he could not have attempted to
block even if he was untapped (due to a Seduction, Blood Bond, Videotape,
or whatever). Since he is not attempting to block "as if untapped", then
the restriction against blocking while tapped doesn't apply, since he is
performing as if he is not tapped.
> : > I have no particular problem with the RT's desire to alter Sleeping
> : > Mind in this fashion, but I feel that it certainly should require at
> : > least a ruling, if not errata. (Which is to say, I feel that the
> : > reasoning presented in the 7/7 rulings is weak and should be altered.)
>
> : A ruling was issued.
>
> Well, yes. I just didn't like the reasoning that arrived at it. ;-)
If errata had been necessary to achieve balance, it would have been issued.
However, the situation was ambiguous enough to allow a ruling to suffice.
[ quoted text not captured ]
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
> or whatever). Since he is not attempting to block "as if untapped", then
^^^
scratch out the "not" part. sorry.
> the restriction against blocking while tapped doesn't apply, since he is
> performing as if he is not tapped.
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
[I wrote]
: > My argument here: > is that Sleeping Mind, as an action modifier, gives that action the
: > property of not being blockable by tapped vampires, even if they
: > would otherwise be able to block the action.: Which is true in general.: Sleeping Mind (superior) states this rule. That changes nothing, since the
: rule is a general rule, given in the rulebook.
I think the rule in the rulebook is essentially 'Only untapped vampires
can be declared as blockers.' I don't think that's the same as 'Tapped
vampires may not block.'
Your interpretation seems to be that Wake with Evening's Freshness uses
the phrase 'as though untapped' in a very meaningful way. That is, it's
not just describing how it is that the Waking vamp could be able to
do stuff while tapped; it's actually giving the vamp the property
'as though untapped' until the end of the action. Wake could have said
simply 'Usable only by a tapped vampire. This vampire can play reaction
cards and attempt to block until the current action is concluded." In
that case, it wouldn't override Sleeping Mind. Right?
But that's not exactly how I'm approaching it...
: *If* SM gives the action the property of not being blockable by tapped
: vampires, and a vampire uses a Wakey to attempt to block "as if untapped",
: then he can attempt to block, unless he could not have attempted to: block even if he was untapped (due to a Seduction, Blood Bond, Videotape,: or whatever). Since he is attempting to block "as if untapped", then
: the restriction against blocking while tapped doesn't apply, since he is: performing as if he is not tapped.
To me, it seems that a Waking vampire (although it is allowed to do
things that normally only untapped vampires can do) is still
undeniably a tapped vampire. It can block and play reaction cards
'as though untapped', but it has not *actually* become untapped. When
the game looks at the Waking vampire and examines its attributes,
it is 'tapped', not 'untapped.'
Therefore, if SM gave the action the property 'unblockable by tapped
vampires', a Waking vampire would still be unable to block, because
the unblockability only cares about the actual status of the vampire
that wants to block - it doesn't care if the vampire can do things
as if it had the opposite status.
: > Well, yes. I just didn't like the reasoning that arrived at it. ;-): If errata had been necessary to achieve balance, it would have been issued.
: However, the situation was ambiguous enough to allow a ruling to suffice.
Probably so.
Josh
what do you mean, the horse is dead?
du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
> : > My argument here
> : > is that Sleeping Mind, as an action modifier, gives that action the
> : > property of not being blockable by tapped vampires, even if they
> : > would otherwise be able to block the action.
>
> : Which is true in general.
>
> : Sleeping Mind (superior) states this rule. That changes nothing, since the
> : rule is a general rule, given in the rulebook.
>
> I think the rule in the rulebook is essentially 'Only untapped vampires
> can be declared as blockers.' I don't think that's the same as 'Tapped
> vampires may not block.'
OK. "Only X may do Y" is equivalent to "NotX cannot do Y" in my book,
and "untapped" is exactly "not tapped". But whichever. If it's vague,
the ruling serves to clarify the ambiguity.
> Your interpretation seems to be that Wake with Evening's Freshness uses
> the phrase 'as though untapped' in a very meaningful way. That is, it's
> not just describing how it is that the Waking vamp could be able to
> do stuff while tapped; it's actually giving the vamp the property
> 'as though untapped' until the end of the action.
No, just inasfar as "us[ing] reaction cards and attempt[ing] to block" are
concerned (card text).
> Wake could have said
> simply 'Usable only by a tapped vampire. This vampire can play reaction
> cards and attempt to block until the current action is concluded." In
> that case, it wouldn't override Sleeping Mind. Right?
Possibly.
> But that's not exactly how I'm approaching it...
>
> : *If* SM gives the action the property of not being blockable by tapped
> : vampires, and a vampire uses a Wakey to attempt to block "as if untapped",
> : then he can attempt to block, unless he could not have attempted to
> : block even if he was untapped (due to a Seduction, Blood Bond, Videotape,
> : or whatever). Since he is attempting to block "as if untapped", then
> : the restriction against blocking while tapped doesn't apply, since he is
> : performing as if he is not tapped.
>
> To me, it seems that a Waking vampire (although it is allowed to do
> things that normally only untapped vampires can do) is still
> undeniably a tapped vampire. It can block and play reaction cards
> 'as though untapped', but it has not *actually* become untapped. When
> the game looks at the Waking vampire and examines its attributes,
> it is 'tapped', not 'untapped.'
A tapped vampire is not untapped. And an untapped vampire is not tapped.
"tapped" and "untapped" are two mutually exclusive states.
Since the vampire can "attempt to block as though untapped", and he could
attempt to block if he were untapped (Sleeping Mind doesn't restrict the
block attempts of untapped vampires), then he can attempt to block.
He is not a tapped vampire attempting to block.
He's a vampire attempting to block as though untapped.
As far as the block attempt is concerned, he's operating exactly as
he would if he were untapped. That is: not tapped.
> Therefore, if SM gave the action the property 'unblockable by tapped
> vampires', a Waking vampire would still be unable to block, because
> the unblockability only cares about the actual status of the vampire
> that wants to block - it doesn't care if the vampire can do things
> as if it had the opposite status.
Possibly.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
: du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
: >
: > I think the rule in the rulebook is essentially 'Only untapped vampires: > can be declared as blockers.' I don't think that's the same as 'Tapped
: > vampires may not block.': OK. "Only X may do Y" is equivalent to "NotX cannot do Y" in my book,
: and "untapped" is exactly "not tapped". But whichever. If it's vague,
: the ruling serves to clarify the ambiguity.
"Only X may do Y" is basically equivalent to 'NotX cannot do Y." What
I'm trying to get at is that the wording disparities here don't lend
themselves to such direct equivalencies. Sleeping Mind's text "tapped
minions cannot block this action" is not an exact restatement (even
in reverse) of 'To block, declare one of your untapped vampires as
blocking and tap him' (which is what the VTES rulebook seems to say).
I agree that 'untapped' is the same as 'not tapped'. I think where
I'm having trouble is with 'as though' and exactly how blocking works.
This is why I think that Sleeping Mind's superior is trying to look
at the tapped/untapped status of any minion that might want to block,
at the moment at which they want to block. (That is, since the
"tapped minions cannot block" text is not a direct rulebook quote,
and since it is not parenthetical, it seems to me that it must be
meaningful, and this is what it looks like it means.)
: A tapped vampire is not untapped. And an untapped vampire is not tapped.: "tapped" and "untapped" are two mutually exclusive states.
Yes, exactly.
: Since the vampire can "attempt to block as though untapped", and he could: attempt to block if he were untapped (Sleeping Mind doesn't restrict the
: block attempts of untapped vampires), then he can attempt to block.: He is not a tapped vampire attempting to block.
: He's a vampire attempting to block as though untapped.
This doesn't sound at all like it follows from what you said about
tapped vs. untapped above. As far as I can see, the tapped state of
the waking vampire has in no way been altered to untapped. What has
happened is that Wake is breaking the rules about tapped vampires being
able to block or play reaction cards - it is saying that this Waking
vampire can block or play reactions as though it were untapped.
So it seems to me that Sleeping Mind should still be able to see that
the vampire is actually tapped, and would then prohibit him from blocking.
Sure, the Waking vampire could attempt to block if he were untapped.
But the Waking vampire is not an untapped vampire. He is
a vampire who can block as though untapped. The only way I can see
the Sleeping Mind failing is if Wake's 'as though untapped' property
is so broad that cards looking at the Waking vampire think that it
is actually untapped. And I don't think Wake should be read
that way.
: As far as the block attempt is concerned, he's operating exactly as: he would if he were untapped. That is: not tapped.
So are you saying that, when you want to Wake and block, you should
physically untap the vampire card, declare the block, and then tap
the card? I would find that disturbing. (I don't think that's where
you're going with this, but it could be. It's always seemed to me
that a Waking vampire was operating very differently from how he
would if he were in fact untapped.)
: > Therefore, if SM gave the action the property 'unblockable by tapped: > vampires', a Waking vampire would still be unable to block, because
: > the unblockability only cares about the actual status of the vampire
: > that wants to block - it doesn't care if the vampire can do things
: > as if it had the opposite status.: Possibly.
As long as SM is examining the actual tapped/untapped status, and Wake
doesn't change actual tapped/untapped-ness, I can't see how it could
be otherwise.
Josh
flogging the mule
In article <6qq39a$r...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin
<du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> writes
>The only way I can see
>the Sleeping Mind failing is if Wake's 'as though untapped' property
>is so broad that cards looking at the Waking vampire think that it
>is actually untapped. And I don't think Wake should be read
>that way.
Card Title: Change of Target
Blood/Pool: n/a
Clan/Discip.: n/a
Card Type: Action modifier
Card Text: Only usable when this acting minion is blocked.
Untap the acting and blocking minions and cancel
the current action and combat. If you do a second
action with this minion this turn, it cannot be the same
action.
Artist: Dan Frazier
Rarity: Uncommon
Change of Target - Action Modifier
* Will not untap a blocker who was tapped before the
block. [RTR 960708]
If it does make the vampire untapped, how does it interact with the
above card and ruling. The vampire plays Wake and becomes "untapped".
THEN the vampire blocks. So would a vampire playing Wake untap from a
Change of Target?
And, if Wake is making a vampire untapped so that it can break The
Sleeping Mind's rules, exactly how does it break *this* part of the
text?
Card Title: Sleeping Mind, The
Blood/Pool: 1 blood
Clan/Discip.: Dominate
Card Type: Action Modifier
Card Text: Only usable when the acting vampire's action is
announced. Choose a tapped vampire. The chosen
vampire cannot attempt to block this action.
(S) Only usable when the acting vampire's action is
announced. Minions cannot untap during this action,
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^
and tapped minions cannot block this action.
[ quoted text not captured ]
du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
> : du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> This is why I think that Sleeping Mind's superior is trying to look
> at the tapped/untapped status of any minion that might want to block,
> at the moment at which they want to block.
Yes, it is. But the text fails to do that unambiguously. So, for
balance, the ambiguity was resolved contrary to probably card intent.
>As far as I can see, the tapped state of
> the waking vampire has in no way been altered to untapped.
It has for purposes of blocking and playing reaction cards.
> What has
> happened is that Wake is breaking the rules about tapped vampires being
> able to block or play reaction cards - it is saying that this Waking
> vampire can block or play reactions as though it were untapped.
So, for blocking and playing reaction cards, the vampire is treated the
same as he would be if he were untapped.
> So it seems to me that Sleeping Mind should still be able to see that
> the vampire is actually tapped, and would then prohibit him from blocking.
Since the vampire could block if he were untapped, he can block with
the use of a Wakey, which allows him to attempt to block as if he
were untapped.
Sleeping Mind isn't choosing all tapped vampires and making them incapable
of blocking. It is saying that tapped vampires cannot block. Which is
true in general. And the Woken vampire is blocking as if untapped, which
Sleeping Mind doesn't restrict.
> Sure, the Waking vampire could attempt to block if he were untapped.
> But the Waking vampire is not an untapped vampire.
For purposes of blocking and playing reaction cards, he is.
> He is
> a vampire who can block as though untapped. The only way I can see> the Sleeping Mind failing is if Wake's 'as though untapped' property
> is so broad that cards looking at the Waking vampire think that it
> is actually untapped. And I don't think Wake should be read
> that way.
Sleeping Mind isn't "looking at" the Woken Vampire. If it was, then
things might be different.
The woken vampire is trying to block. Tapped vampires cannot block
(by both the rules and Sleeping Mind), but the woken vampire is
trying to block "as if untapped". Since he could attempt to block
if he had been untapped, he can attempt to block via Wakey.
> : As far as the block attempt is concerned, he's operating exactly as
> : he would if he were untapped. That is: not tapped.
>
> So are you saying that, when you want to Wake and block, you should
> physically untap the vampire card, declare the block, and then tap
> the card? I would find that disturbing. (I don't think that's where
> you're going with this, but it could be. It's always seemed to me
> that a Waking vampire was operating very differently from how he
> would if he were in fact untapped.)
No. I'm saying for purposes of blocking and playing reaction cards, the
woken vampire operates in the same manner that he would if he were
actully an untapped vampire (card text).
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <6qq39a$r...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin
> <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> writes> >The only way I can see
> >the Sleeping Mind failing is if Wake's 'as though untapped' property
> >is so broad that cards looking at the Waking vampire think that it
> >is actually untapped. And I don't think Wake should be read
> >that way.
>> Card Title: Change of Target
> Blood/Pool: n/a
> Clan/Discip.: n/a
> Card Type: Action modifier
> Card Text: Only usable when this acting minion is blocked.
> Untap the acting and blocking minions and cancel
> the current action and combat. If you do a second
> action with this minion this turn, it cannot be the same
> action.
> Artist: Dan Frazier
> Rarity: Uncommon
>
> Change of Target - Action Modifier
>
> * Will not untap a blocker who was tapped before the
> block. [RTR 960708]
>
> If it does make the vampire untapped,
It (Wakey) doesn't, except for blocking and playing reaction cards.
> how does it interact with the
> above card and ruling. The vampire plays Wake and becomes "untapped".
> THEN the vampire blocks.
The vampire Wakes then attempts to block "as if untapped".
> So would a vampire playing Wake untap from a
> Change of Target?
No, since the vampire was tapped before the block, attempted to block
as if untapped, and so is not untapped by Change of Target.
The quoted statement "cards looking at the Waking vampire think that it
is actually untapped" is not the official interpretation.
> And, if Wake is making a vampire untapped so that it can break The
> Sleeping Mind's rules, exactly how does it break *this* part of the
> text?
>
> Card Title: Sleeping Mind, The
> Blood/Pool: 1 blood
> Clan/Discip.: Dominate
> Card Type: Action Modifier
> Card Text: Only usable when the acting vampire's action is
> announced. Choose a tapped vampire. The chosen
> vampire cannot attempt to block this action.
> (S) Only usable when the acting vampire's action is
> announced. Minions cannot untap during this action,
> ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^
> and tapped minions cannot block this action.
It doesn't. The woken vampire doesn't untap - he merely is able to block
as if he were untapped (card text).
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
: du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:: > This is why I think that Sleeping Mind's superior is trying to look
: > at the tapped/untapped status of any minion that might want to block,
: > at the moment at which they want to block.: Yes, it is. But the text fails to do that unambiguously. So, for
: balance, the ambiguity was resolved contrary to probably card intent.
Ah. So you're saying that it doesn't look at all.
[lots of stuff snipped because it's all clear to me now... uh, sorta]
: > a vampire who can block as though untapped. The only way I can see: > the Sleeping Mind failing is if Wake's 'as though untapped' property
: > is so broad that cards looking at the Waking vampire think that it
: > is actually untapped. And I don't think Wake should be read
: > that way.: Sleeping Mind isn't "looking at" the Woken Vampire. If it was, then
: things might be different.: The woken vampire is trying to block. Tapped vampires cannot block
: (by both the rules and Sleeping Mind), but the woken vampire is: trying to block "as if untapped". Since he could attempt to block: if he had been untapped, he can attempt to block via Wakey.
I think this is the heart of what I was not getting. I've been
assuming that there is a system of interaction for all cards in
Jyhad; that they basically do things by looking at their own properties,
the properties of other cards, and the properties of effects (actions,
etc) and then modifying or altering those properties. So I figured
that Sleeping Mind produced its superior effect by giving the action
it modified the property "Cannot be blocked by tapped vampires." Then,
that meant that if a Waking vampire tried to block, the action would
look at him and say, "No, you're a tapped vampire, you can't block
this action."
You seem to be saying that it doesn't work that way at all. Can I
ask what the underlying mechanisms are for how Jyhad works? Or is
it currently set up as sort of a results-based system,
with the Rules Outline as a guide to how things are supposed to
work out?
Josh
has much less of an idea of how jyhad works than he thought
LSJ wrote:
> du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
> > : du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> > This is why I think that Sleeping Mind's superior is trying to look
> > at the tapped/untapped status of any minion that might want to block,
> > at the moment at which they want to block.
>
> Yes, it is. But the text fails to do that unambiguously. So, for
> balance, the ambiguity was resolved contrary to probably card intent.
>> >As far as I can see, the tapped state of
> > the waking vampire has in no way been altered to untapped.
>> It has for purposes of blocking and playing reaction cards.
Excuse me for interupting here but isn't the sleeping mind playedbefore the wake?
Yes? The card resolves fully before another
can be played. correct? So the waking vamp has been excuded
from blocking "before" the wake is played? Therefore wake or no
wake it can't block.
At least thats the way it looks to me
Eric
>
>
du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:> : Sleeping Mind isn't "looking at" the Woken Vampire. If it was, then
> : things might be different.
>
> : The woken vampire is trying to block. Tapped vampires cannot block
> : (by both the rules and Sleeping Mind), but the woken vampire is
> : trying to block "as if untapped". Since he could attempt to block
> : if he had been untapped, he can attempt to block via Wakey.
>
> I think this is the heart of what I was not getting. I've been
> assuming that there is a system of interaction for all cards in
> Jyhad; that they basically do things by looking at their own properties,
> the properties of other cards, and the properties of effects (actions,
> etc) and then modifying or altering those properties. So I figured
> that Sleeping Mind produced its superior effect by giving the action
> it modified the property "Cannot be blocked by tapped vampires."
Which it already had, by the rules on blocking.
> Then,
> that meant that if a Waking vampire tried to block, the action would
> look at him and say, "No, you're a tapped vampire, you can't block
> this action."
The action would "look at him", for purposes of deciding if he could
block, as an untapped vampire, since Wakey causes him to be treated as
untapped for purposes of blocking, and say "you can block".
> You seem to be saying that it doesn't work that way at all. Can I
> ask what the underlying mechanisms are for how Jyhad works? Or is
> it currently set up as sort of a results-based system,
> with the Rules Outline as a guide to how things are supposed to
> work out?
Not to be snide, but it's just a base-rules-plus-card-text system.
I'm afraid there is no better answer (or I fail to understand your
question).
The Rules Outline is modelled after the base rules. The Outline
doesn't supercede or correct the actual rules in any way (except
to follow existsing errata issued on the base rules, of course).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Eric Freeman <eric...@uswest.net> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> > >As far as I can see, the tapped state of
> > > the waking vampire has in no way been altered to untapped.
> >
> > It has for purposes of blocking and playing reaction cards.
>
> Excuse me for interupting here but isn't the sleeping mind playedbefore the
wake?
Yes.
> Yes? The card resolves fully before another
> can be played. correct?
Yes.
> So the waking vamp has been excuded
> from blocking "before" the wake is played? Therefore wake or no
> wake it can't block.
1) There is no "waking vamp" before wake is played.
2) Tapped minions have been excluded from blocking this action.
This exclusion is (redundantly) added "before" the wake can be
played. Redundant, since this restriction is true even for actions
which are not modified by superior Sleeping Mind.
Any of those tapped vampires who could've blocked the action
had they been untapped can use Wakey to attempt to block, since
Wakey explicitly allows the reacting vampire to "attempt to block
as though [he were] untapped" (card text).
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote:
: du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:: >
: > I think this is the heart of what I was not getting. I've been: > assuming that there is a system of interaction for all cards in
: > Jyhad; that they basically do things by looking at their own properties,
: > the properties of other cards, and the properties of effects (actions,
: > etc) and then modifying or altering those properties. So I figured
: > that Sleeping Mind produced its superior effect by giving the action
: > it modified the property "Cannot be blocked by tapped vampires.": Which it already had, by the rules on blocking.
My view was that the rules on blocking define what vampires may
be declared as blockers under normal conditions. If Sleeping Mind added
to its action the property 'Cannot be blocked by tapped vampires',
that would impose an additional qualification that a vampire that wanted
to block would have to meet. (My take on it was that this property
would care about the true state of the vampire card that wanted to
block, rather than whether the vampire had the ability to block 'as
though untapped.')
: > Then,: > that meant that if a Waking vampire tried to block, the action would
: > look at him and say, "No, you're a tapped vampire, you can't block
: > this action.": The action would "look at him", for purposes of deciding if he could
: block, as an untapped vampire, since Wakey causes him to be treated as
: untapped for purposes of blocking, and say "you can block".
To me, it seems that the action doesn't 'look at him' at all. Instead
the controlling methuselah says, 'This vampire wants to block. Since
he's got a Wake that says he can block as though untapped, Sleeping Mind
can't tell that he's actually tapped. Too bad for Sleeping Mind.'
In other words, the action 'gets fooled' because it doesn't actually
check the vampire's attributes.
: > You seem to be saying that it doesn't work that way at all. Can I: > ask what the underlying mechanisms are for how Jyhad works? Or is
: > it currently set up as sort of a results-based system,
: > with the Rules Outline as a guide to how things are supposed to
: > work out?: Not to be snide, but it's just a base-rules-plus-card-text system.
: I'm afraid there is no better answer (or I fail to understand your
: question).: The Rules Outline is modelled after the base rules. The Outline
: doesn't supercede or correct the actual rules in any way (except
: to follow existsing errata issued on the base rules, of course).
I guess what I was looking for is a better way of thinking about
how cards produce the effects they do. Base rules plus card text
seems to essentially describe what happens, but not how or why it
happens. In other words, there appears to be no rhyme or reason to
the way cards interact, because there is no underlying system that
describes how they're supposed to interact.
Josh
can't always get what he wants