Although the answer to this is probably quite obvious I would
nonetheless appreciate a clarification on how to interpret the new
frenzy cards "Devil-Channel...".
Due to the fact that D-C: Throat specifies that it is "played on
this acting vampire" opposed to the other frenzy cards where no such
detail on whom they are played upon is stated, subjective
interpretations are unavoidable? Mainly resulting in arguments on how
Sire's Index Finger influences these cards.
According to card text a minion equipped with ¨"Sires Index
Finger" states that the vampire is "immune to frenzy cards". As I
see it this can be interpreted in two ways.
1) A strict interpretation is that any type of confrontation involving
a frenzy card will render a SIF equipped vampire immune to all effects
caused by the frenzy card, regardless of who the card actually
frenzies. Sort of like being immune to aggravated damage regardless of
who inflicts it? The main argument supporting this type of ruling is
basically due to inconsistency in card texts. None of the other cards,
besides D-C:T, actually specifies who the frenzy targets. Good ruling
should avoid subjective interpretations, in this case figuring out who
is frenzying based on an understanding on what frenzy actually means
and how it affects a vampire. "Knowing" who turns into a mindless
beast based on role-playing experience and therefore simply
"knowing" who the frenzy card is played upon is, as far as I am
concerned, poor VTES ruling.
2) Sires Index Finger gives immunity to all the frenzy cards listed on
the card (Brujah Frenzy, Drawing Out the Beast, Frenzy, Rötschreck and
Terror Frenzy), of course. These cards are ruled as frenzying the
opposing vampire. Devil-Channel cards are ruled as frenzying ones own
vampire and their effect is therefore not limited by a SIF equipped
opponent.
In my opinion both of these interpretations are equally justified, but
no matter which one of these, if any, are "correct", I believe that
a "clarification" is warranted, thereby avoiding all future
discussion/arguments. My playgroup is very reasonable when discussing
rules and interpretations amongst ourselves, but when the seriousness
and beer-drinking of tournaments take hold I know that a "frenzy and
Sires Index Finger"-disagreement can catalyze a never-ending dispute
where all hell brakes loose.
-kenneth
kenneth wrote:
> Although the answer to this is probably quite obvious I would
> nonetheless appreciate a clarification on how to interpret the new
> frenzy cards "Devil-Channel...".
>
> Due to the fact that D-C: Throat specifies that it is "played on
> this acting vampire" opposed to the other frenzy cards where no such
> detail on whom they are played upon is stated, subjective
> interpretations are unavoidable? Mainly resulting in arguments on how
> Sire's Index Finger influences these cards.
>> According to card text a minion equipped with จ"Sires Index> Finger" states that the vampire is "immune to frenzy cards". As I
> see it this can be interpreted in two ways.
>
...
>
> -kenneth
>
IANLSJ, but... I see Sire's Index Finger like this, like all other cards
that grant immunity: it looks where the main effect goes.
Frenzy cards are played on the vampire that is directly affected by
it. Terror Frenzy and Drawing out the Beast on the opposing vampire,
Devil Channels on your own vampire. Some of the Frenzy cards, like
Drawing out the Beast and Devil Channels have side-effects that affect
also the vampire not targeted by the Frenzy card, but those effects
aren't Frenzy cards but rather benefits granted by Frenzy cards.
Thus: Terror Frenzy and Drawing out the Beast target opposing vampire,
Devil Channels target your own vampire. If the opposing vampire has
SIF TF and DotB have no effect. If your own vampire has SIF DCs have
no effect. Clean and simple.
kenneth wrote:
> Although the answer to this is probably quite obvious I would
> nonetheless appreciate a clarification on how to interpret the new
> frenzy cards "Devil-Channel...".
>
> Due to the fact that D-C: Throat specifies that it is "played on
> this acting vampire" opposed to the other frenzy cards where no such
> detail on whom they are played upon is stated, subjective
> interpretations are unavoidable? Mainly resulting in arguments on how
> Sire's Index Finger influences these cards.
>> According to card text a minion equipped with จ"Sires Index> Finger" states that the vampire is "immune to frenzy cards". As I
> see it this can be interpreted in two ways.
>[ quoted text not captured ]
kenneth wrote:
> Although the answer to this is probably quite obvious I would
> nonetheless appreciate a clarification on how to interpret the new
> frenzy cards "Devil-Channel...".
>
> Due to the fact that D-C: Throat specifies that it is "played on
> this acting vampire" opposed to the other frenzy cards where no such
> detail on whom they are played upon is stated, subjective
> interpretations are unavoidable? Mainly resulting in arguments on how
> Sire's Index Finger influences these cards.
>> According to card text a minion equipped with จ"Sires Index> Finger" states that the vampire is "immune to frenzy cards". As I
> see it this can be interpreted in two ways.
>[ quoted text not captured ]
kenneth wrote:
> Although the answer to this is probably quite obvious I would
> nonetheless appreciate a clarification on how to interpret the new
> frenzy cards "Devil-Channel...".
>
> Due to the fact that D-C: Throat specifies that it is "played on
> this acting vampire" opposed to the other frenzy cards where no such
> detail on whom they are played upon is stated, subjective
> interpretations are unavoidable? Mainly resulting in arguments on how
> Sire's Index Finger influences these cards.
The cards for which there would be ambiguity about the target of the
effect use explicit card text to resolve that ambiguity. Cards for
which the target is not ambiguous do not use the extra unnecessary
text.
> According to card text a minion equipped with ¨"Sires Index
> Finger" states that the vampire is "immune to frenzy cards". As I
> see it this can be interpreted in two ways.
>
> 1) A strict interpretation is that any type of confrontation involving
> a frenzy card will render a SIF equipped vampire immune to all effects
> caused by the frenzy card, regardless of who the card actually
> frenzies. Sort of like being immune to aggravated damage regardless of
> who inflicts it? The main argument supporting this type of ruling is
> basically due to inconsistency in card texts. None of the other cards,
> besides D-C:T, actually specifies who the frenzy targets. Good ruling
> should avoid subjective interpretations, in this case figuring out who
> is frenzying based on an understanding on what frenzy actually means
> and how it affects a vampire. "Knowing" who turns into a mindless
> beast based on role-playing experience and therefore simply
> "knowing" who the frenzy card is played upon is, as far as I am
> concerned, poor VTES ruling.
If you play a frenzy card on your own minion (to give yourself a press
or whatnot), then it is played on yourself. If you play it on an
opponent (to prevent him from maneuvering to long or to send him to
torpor), then it is played on the opponent.
> 2) Sires Index Finger gives immunity to all the frenzy cards listed on
> the card (Brujah Frenzy, Drawing Out the Beast, Frenzy, Rötschreck and
> Terror Frenzy), of course. These cards are ruled as frenzying the
> opposing vampire. Devil-Channel cards are ruled as frenzying ones own
> vampire and their effect is therefore not limited by a SIF equipped
> opponent.
SIF gives the bearer immunity to all frenzy cards, by card text.
It also lists the frenzy cards that had been printed in earlier sets
(without the "frenzy" designation).