Question: Reverend Blackwood

Again from the unofficial erratas: Reverend Blackwood · His special does "+1 point of damage", not "an additional point of damage," so it only adds to damage dealing strikes. · All the damage of Burst of Sunlight, including the +1, is aggravated. The damage is only added to the strike (the effect that targets the opposing target), not to any side-effect (environmental) damage. ------------------------- I was under the impression that a ruling was made some time ago stating that the +1 damage also applied to theft of vitaes, but that the extra damage would attain the characteristics of the strike so that a theft of vitae would steal 3 points when performed at superior level by Reverend Blackwood. Is the clarification above correct? Thalles

"The Horror" <tdem...@anhb.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message news:aod7c0$m4p$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au... > I was under the impression that a ruling was made some time ago stating that > the +1 damage also applied to theft of vitaes, but that the extra damage > would attain the characteristics of the strike so that a theft of vitae > would steal 3 points when performed at superior level by Reverend Blackwood. > Is the clarification above correct? No. See an LSJ post below: http://minilien.com/?kGVXeSel8q Only adds damage to damage dealing strikes. No effect to "steal blood" strikes or other strikes. -JTP

Thanks for that. Thalles "John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:lypq9.524362$Ag2.20...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca... [ quoted text not captured ]

The Horror wrote: :: Again from the unofficial erratas: Excuse me but *what exactly do you call unofficial erratas* ?? errata are official. else they are not errata. where did you find all those rubbish text ?

In message <3daa9269$0$15929$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >errata are official. else they are not errata. where did you find all those >rubbish text ? The White Wolf site. Someone, for whatever reason, thought it would be a good idea to include a file compiled by Stone. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/downloads/VtESunofficialERC1.doc Its unusability is monstrous. For instance, woo at the self contradictory: Discipline minion cards that give blood can give allies more life than a vampire of that capacity would have blood... [snip] and thus can gain up to their simulated capacity in blood, which gets turned into life (by card text). Anyone attempting to derive anything from it for their games should have their crack taken away from them immediately. And, as Lasombra says, it should be removed as soon as is humanly possible to prevent players thinking it's useful in any way, shape or form. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D Don't just clap. What's the use of that? EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 You there, gorgeous creature. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D Stop...that...bus!

In message <$XQM764Z...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: > and thus can gain up to their simulated capacity in blood, which > gets turned into life (by card text). Oh, this is also stupidly wrong as well as contradicting the bit that went before it, due to the unhelpful detour into capacity, just in case anyone had any doubts. The simulated capacity of an ally has, and hasn't for *years* (and I mean many years) absolutely no effect on how much life an ally can gain in steal blood or similar, in one go or multiple goes. [ quoted text not captured ]

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3daa9269$0$15929$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] There is a word doc on the WW site that can be downloaded, and I believe this is what the guys are referring to. To be honest, I'd lobby WW to have the whole thing taken down, since it is often delusional gibberish designed to confuse any new player (or old!) as seen by this selection of questions. Who's with me? DH

[ quoted text not captured ] The author has his contact information listed in the document. Perhaps those of you who have found errors in the list would be so kind as to alert the author of them. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In message <3DAAD99A...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >Perhaps those of you who have found errors in the list would be so >kind as to alert the author of them. Why is White Wolf hosting incorrect, mis-informed "errata" for V:TES on its website anyway? Can anyone e-mail them and say "Hey, I think this card works like this" and it can go up? Sounds like a very bad plan indeed. :( It would be nice to think that newbies could go to the White Wolf website, get the rules and not turn up to a tournament to find out that the information on the website was on crack. This is reminiscent of the days of Wizards advertising restricted lists and the like, seemingly at random. [ quoted text not captured ]

> To be honest, I'd lobby WW to have the whole thing taken down, since > it is often delusional gibberish designed to confuse any new player > (or old!) as seen by this selection of questions. I have actually found it to be quite useful. Fair enough, it is riddled with mistakes, but it does explain a lot of the cards quite well. I've been editing that document and updating it for the past few days. New players in my city are going to find it to be an absolutely invaluable tool. After all, mask of 1000 faces always causes confusion. Same thing with timing of events in the untap phase, priscus voting etc. As long as all the official erratas are in the document, and all of the misleading/wrong explanations are fixed, I don't see why people shouldn't be using it. Thalles

In message <aofr0h$uas$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, The Horror <tdem...@anhb.uwa.edu.au> writes: >Fair enough, it is riddled >with mistakes, but it does explain a lot of the cards quite well. Problem: Given it is riddled with mistakes, how do you work out - as someone who may not be completely up to speed on the rules - which are the mistakes and which are useful? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<eoK0UMVz...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <aofr0h$uas$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, The Horror > <tdem...@anhb.uwa.edu.au> writes: > >Fair enough, it is riddled > >with mistakes, but it does explain a lot of the cards quite well. > > Problem: > > Given it is riddled with mistakes, how do you work out - as someone who > may not be completely up to speed on the rules - which are the mistakes > and which are useful? Hello ! Why don't you talk with the author of this document, to correct the mistakes ? You said, and TheLasombra with you: "It's dangerous to let this file on WW site". TheHorror said "It's very useful"... Why don't correct it ? Perhaps a useful and correct document is better than no file ? Kindred SPIRIT a.k.a. Kamel SENNI for the Kine.

In message <1b066664.02101...@posting.google.com>, Kamel SENNI <kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr> writes: >> Given it is riddled with mistakes, how do you work out - as someone who >> may not be completely up to speed on the rules - which are the mistakes >> and which are useful? > >Hello ! >Why don't you talk with the author of this document, to correct the mistakes ? The issue isn't (at least in part) whether the mistakes can be corrected or not; the issue is whether White Wolf should be hosting known wrong or unverified information on their site in the first place. No matter how many disclaimers of "unofficial" are stamped all over it, it soon becomes "it's on the White Wolf site" in the eyes of people who've downloaded it. White Wolf must surely be aware of the massive added credibility hosting it on their site brings. Yet players going to the White Wolf site get to download mis-informed crack. :( One would also point out the obvious errors - due to the fact that cards have been altered in the Camarilla Edition - which have not been touched, and which need no help from anyone to point out because they've been widely publicised. One might note that if the author isn't bothering doing that, it leaves little incentive for others to attempt to fix the rest. >Perhaps a useful and correct document is better than no file ? Quite probably. The current version isn't useful, because of all the crap it contains, however. However, were the author interested in a useful and correct document, why hasn't it been updated for the problems they would already be aware of themselves? [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: > However, were the author interested in a useful and correct document, > why hasn't it been updated for the problems they would already be aware > of themselves? It has been updated and sent to LSJ at the end of August. Stone

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <1b066664.02101...@posting.google.com>, Kamel > SENNI <kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr> writes: > >> Given it is riddled with mistakes, how do you work out - as someone who > >> may not be completely up to speed on the rules - which are the mistakes > >> and which are useful? > > > >Hello ! > >Why don't you talk with the author of this document, to correct the mistakes ? > > The issue isn't (at least in part) whether the mistakes can be corrected > or not; the issue is whether White Wolf should be hosting known wrong or > unverified information on their site in the first place. > > No matter how many disclaimers of "unofficial" are stamped all over it, > it soon becomes "it's on the White Wolf site" in the eyes of people > who've downloaded it. White Wolf must surely be aware of the massive > added credibility hosting it on their site brings. Yet players going to > the White Wolf site get to download mis-informed crack. :( Quite a few people mistake the ELDB, with its errors and (now) omissions, for a WW product. I don't hear anyone clammoring for the ELDB link to be removed from the vtes page. As I recall, people were prone to alerting the author to the errors in that case (back when the author was actively maintaining the product). YMMV. > One would also point out the obvious errors - due to the fact that cards > have been altered in the Camarilla Edition - which have not been > touched, and which need no help from anyone to point out because they've > been widely publicised. One might note that if the author isn't > bothering doing that, it leaves little incentive for others to attempt > to fix the rest. See also ELDB. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] ... with a request for it to be officially reviewed before being uploaded to the web site. If you'd like it to be uploaded as-is, let me know. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3DAD53CB...@white-wolf.com... > ... with a request for it to be officially reviewed before being > uploaded to the web site. > > If you'd like it to be uploaded as-is, let me know. No, it should be uploaded once officially reviewed, if the review is possible. Stone

In message <3DAD52DD...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >Quite a few people mistake the ELDB, with its errors and (now) >omissions, for a WW product. Errors occur, of course; this is true of all things. The ELDB does not, however, present cards in new, intricate and bizarre ways, to fit with someone's ideas of how cards (don't) work. It's also notable that various 'fixes' for ELDB exist, as compiled by various players, which may do well to be included or linked to along with the ELDB. (It's understandable that WW might not want to 'repackage' it, due to author copyright issues etc.) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > James Coupe wrote: > > No matter how many disclaimers of "unofficial" are stamped all over it, > > it soon becomes "it's on the White Wolf site" in the eyes of people > > who've downloaded it. White Wolf must surely be aware of the massive > > added credibility hosting it on their site brings. Yet players going to > > the White Wolf site get to download mis-informed crack. :( > > Quite a few people mistake the ELDB, with its errors and (now) > omissions, for a WW product. I don't hear anyone clammoring for the > ELDB link to be removed from the vtes page. As I recall, people > were prone to alerting the author to the errors in that case (back > when the author was actively maintaining the product). YMMV. ELDB is a utility. This thing is a text document. I think people understand better that a software utility is prone to having textual mistakes. On the other hand, they're going to assume that the value of a Word document is that it contains authoritative words, because there's really not that much else it can do. I agree with James: it seems a poor place to stick an unverified document. Fred

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<LmfRHxbh...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... [ quoted text not captured ] OK with you. I 'm not the author (It's Pierre Stone Tran Van, a very good french referee), but i know him. I know that he possess a updated version of his document. But : It can be ... boring to hear people, and people of reknown, like you or The Lasombra, just say : "It's NOT useful", without trying to help this file to become interesting to newbies... This document have errors, OK... It doesn't have to be on the WW site, OK... BUT : A file of this type IS useful... Without errors, of course, i agree with you... In a few words : try to correct it, because it will help a lot of gamers. Thanx a lot in advance, for you, or the others people interested in that challenge.

>I 'm not the author (It's Pierre Stone Tran Van, a very good french >referee), but i know him. >I know that he possess a updated version of his document. >But : >It can be ... boring to hear people, and people of reknown, like you >or The Lasombra, just say : "It's NOT useful", without trying to help >this file to become interesting to newbies... >This document have errors, OK... >It doesn't have to be on the WW site, OK... >BUT : >A file of this type IS useful... Without errors, of course, i agree >with you... > >In a few words : try to correct it, because it will help a lot of >gamers. >Thanx a lot in advance, for you, or the others people interested in >that challenge. I can't even find it. Was interested in taking a look to see whether I agreed with you or not about its usefulness.

On 16 Oct 2002 18:19:30 GMT, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote: <snip - removed even more things that have nothing to do with Reverend Blackwood, but talking about the "Unofficial" rulings document hosted by White Wolf> >I can't even find it. Was interested in taking a look to see whether I agreed >with you or not about its usefulness. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/downloads/VtESunofficialERC1.doc or start here: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ and scroll down. It is the third item under Utilities, under the heading of Rulings Compilation. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com