2nd Tradition

Does 2nd trad. give +2 intercept to an untapping Prince/ Justicar OR does it allow a Prince/ Justicar to both untap AND gain +2 intercept?

In article <3l56ib$7...@NNTP.MsState.Edu> cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: >From: cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) >Subject: 2nd Tradition >Date: 27 Mar 1995 02:06:03 GMT >Does 2nd trad. give +2 intercept to an untapping Prince/ Justicar OR does >it allow a Prince/ Justicar to both untap AND gain +2 intercept? It allows a Prince/Justicar to both untap AND gain +2 intercept. It is only usable by a tapped vampire. (There have been times I wished I could just use it for the intercept but the right prince wasn't tapped.) Its like a Wake for prince/justicars with +2 intercept to make up for the major restriction and it gives a real untap.

cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: >Does 2nd trad. give +2 intercept to an untapping Prince/ Justicar OR does >it allow a Prince/ Justicar to both untap AND gain +2 intercept? Corrected Text: (DTR 11/9/94) >The Second Tradition - Domain: > Should be read as "Prince or Justicar. Only usable by a tapped > vampire. This vampire untaps and attempts to block with +2 intercept." Why they stuck the "Only usable by a tapped" on there is beyond my ken. I can't see how a Prince who has been runing around has a better capability to police his Domain than a Prince who has been patiently waiting. But I'm no Design Team (thank god :-)

[ quoted text not captured ] The locals here (Cupertino CA) say "look, the card says 'usable by' , not 'usable only by' [which some cards DO say]." So they play it as a +2 intercept for princes, no restriction. They don't care if I cite the DTR at them, and I no longer have enough confidence in such rulings to cite them anyway. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > The locals here (Cupertino CA) say "look, the card says 'usable by' , not > 'usable only by' [which some cards DO say]." So they play it as a +2 > intercept for princes, no restriction. They don't care if I cite the DTR > at them, and I no longer have enough confidence in such rulings to cite > them anyway. Hey, Curt, is it something in the water? A typo makes two different versions of a card? Do they play that the Ventrue Justicar card make you Tremere Justicar? Untapping and having +2 intercept is quite powerful. I'm surprised that someone is complaining that you have to be tapped. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

syl...@pitt.edu (Marius Pontmercy) writes >> Hey, Curt, is it something in the water? A typo makes two different versions >> of a card? Do they play that the Ventrue Justicar card make you Tremere >> Justicar? Untapping and having +2 intercept is quite powerful. I'm surprised >> that someone is complaining that you have to be tapped. >In many philosophical systems it is assumed that no mistakes have been made. >If in one place it says "only usable by", and in another (different) place >it says "usable by", there would be a good reason. It takes a while to >realize that this does not work for WOTC because it is quite fallible. :-) But how do we know when it's for real and when it's an oopsie? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)