Obedience - "Obey me! Answer my questions!"

I couldn't help but notice the different wording on the Sabbat Obedience. I assume, that's the official wording as that would be the most recent version printed. On the original versions in Jyhad and V:tES, there's wording to the effect that the reacting vampire doesn't tap when using it. The Sabbat version doesn't have that wording. On the other hand, the "Clarifications" web page mentions that, "Obedience itself blocks the action - the reacting vampire does not...". It's not incredibly clear but my interpretation of this is: 1) Obedience is a reaction card which can only be played when a reacting vampire succedes in blocking the acting vampire (and the age limitation is cleared, of course); and, 2) Its effect is to change the situation from an actual block governed by the blocking rules to a reaction which dictates the situation in its card text. Therefore, since the reacting vampire didn't truly block (in the end) but only played a reaction card, it doesn't tap - thus effecting the same result as the more intuitive one on the original card. If this is right, or even if it's wrong, it wouldn't hurt to clarify the clarifications more. The idea of a reaction card that "unblocks" and then "reblocks" (in a different way) the acting vampire is really very subtle. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > > I couldn't help but notice the different wording on the Sabbat > Obedience. I assume, that's the official wording as that would > be the most recent version printed. > > On the original versions in Jyhad and V:tES, there's wording to the > effect that the reacting vampire doesn't tap when using it. The > Sabbat version doesn't have that wording. On the other hand, > the "Clarifications" web page mentions that, "Obedience itself blocks > the action - the reacting vampire does not...". You've got an old version of the clarifications list. That clarification has been removed in favor of the following errata: Obedience is played after a vampire successfully blocks but before the blocker is tapped and combat begins. It cancels combat and (in inferior) untaps the acting minion (while the blocker does not tap). [RTR 06-DEC-1999] http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=557242069 > It's not incredibly clear but my interpretation of this is: > > 1) Obedience is a reaction card which can only be played when a reacting > vampire succedes in blocking the acting vampire (and the age limitation > is cleared, of course); and, Correct. > 2) Its effect is to change the situation from an actual block governed > by the blocking rules to a reaction which dictates the situation in its > card text. Therefore, since the reacting vampire didn't truly block (in > the end) but only played a reaction card, it doesn't tap - thus effecting > the same result as the more intuitive one on the original card. Correct according to the Sabbat text (and the corresponding clarification), but the situation was not intuitive nor manageable (from a consistency standpoint), so the Sabbat version of Obedience was errata'ed to function like the V:TES version. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.geocities.com/vtesrep

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Obedience is played after a vampire successfully blocks but before > the blocker is tapped and combat begins. It cancels combat and (in > inferior) untaps the acting minion (while the blocker does not tap). > [RTR 06-DEC-1999] Does it now explicitly untap the blocker or leave him untapped? The functional difference is whether the vampire remains untapped or not if it was used in conjuction with a WWEF or FA. Noal -- "I don't think that Witchcraft is a real religion." "There ought to be limits to freedom." --George W. Bush Don't vote for a son of a Bush. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Noal McDonald wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Obedience is played after a vampire successfully blocks but before > > the blocker is tapped and combat begins. It cancels combat and (in > > inferior) untaps the acting minion (while the blocker does not tap). > > [RTR 06-DEC-1999] > > Does it now explicitly untap the blocker or leave him untapped? The > functional difference is whether the vampire remains untapped or not if > it was used in conjuction with a WWEF or FA. As stated above: "the blocker does not tap". [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <38CFF1BE...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Noal McDonald wrote: > > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Obedience is played after a vampire successfully blocks but before > > > the blocker is tapped and combat begins. It cancels combat and (in > > > inferior) untaps the acting minion (while the blocker does not tap). > > > [RTR 06-DEC-1999] Vampire A is entering combat with vampire B using Bums Rush (Ambush,...). Can vamppire B play obedience? Or, have vampire B to block this action and then play Ob.? [ quoted text not captured ]

mr_b...@my-deja.com wrote: > > In article <38CFF1BE...@white-wolf.com>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Noal McDonald wrote: > > > > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > Obedience is played after a vampire successfully blocks but > before > > > > the blocker is tapped and combat begins. It cancels combat and > (in > > > > inferior) untaps the acting minion (while the blocker does not > tap). > > > > [RTR 06-DEC-1999] > > Vampire A is entering combat with vampire B using Bums Rush > (Ambush,...). Can vamppire B play obedience? If B is untapped, yes. The ruling/errata above is just describing the change in timing for block-based play of obedience. It doesn't affect how obedience is played by a vampire "about to enter combat" via other methods. [ quoted text not captured ]