Torn signpost question

On VTES-L, Pierre TRAN-VAN writes: > A humble question, as I was reading a Web article about Rush decks : > > Can Torn signpost be combined with Undead Strength to strike for 5 > damage at (at superior)? I thought no, since the 3 damage from Torn > Signpost is done 'as a strike'. If it were played as the VTES card text reads, you'd be right. But it has been ruled/errata'ed to play as the Jyhad text reads - that is, it sets the vampire's hand damage (his strength) to some new amount - 2 or 3 depending on the level of the discipline. [TOM 06-MAR-96] I'll put this on the list for RT review to see if there's any reason to keep this errata. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

LSJ wrote: "If it were played as the VTES card text reads, you'd be right. But it has been ruled/errata'ed to play as the Jyhad text reads - that is, it sets the vampire's hand damage (his strength) to some new amount - 2 or 3 depending on the level of the discipline. [TOM 06-MAR-96] I'll put this on the list for RT review to see if there's any reason to keep this errata." Umm, what? The text on the VTES version of Torn Signpost is poorly worded, ambigious, and in no way clearly indicates that the VTES version of TS works any different than the Jyhad version. The errata on this card is far more of a clarification than a rules change. Next, what possible reason is there to make Torn Signpost work differently than it currently does. It is the very basis of Potence combat. Changing TS to some sort of misbegotten strike card would be like changing Govern the Unaligned to some sort of card where you could not play additional bleed modifiers on top of it, or changing Enhanced Senses into some card that does not allow the addition of further intercept. It changes the fundimentals of the Potence discipline, and hinders it in an unacceptable fashion. Add to this that it would make the fairly rare Fists of Death into such a _far_ superior card than Torn Signpost as to make it a complete necessity for a Potence combat deck, making such decks even _more_ dependent on Rare cards than they already are. Currently, Potence combat decks, if they wish to be as effective as comparative Bleed or Vote decks need an inordinate number of Rare cards, as opposed to the aforementioned Bleed or Vote decks, that thrive solely on commons. Turning Torn Signpost into the card that is possibly implied by the incredibly poorly written VTES text is to doom the Potence combat deck to a fate of only being playable by a a smaller pool of players than it allready is. The possibility of changing Torn Signpost into some sort of strike card is in no way a good idea, and would be nothing but a detriment to the game as a whole. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "She's not playing with a full deck. That girl has no deck. She has a three." -Buffy

On VTES-L, Johnny Tullner writes: > LSJ divulged the following secret data: > > > > > Can Torn signpost be combined with Undead Strength to strike for 5 > > > damage at (at superior)? I thought no, since the 3 damage from Torn > > > Signpost is done 'as a strike'. > > > > If it were played as the VTES card text reads, you'd be right. > > But it has been ruled/errata'ed to play as the Jyhad text reads - > > that is, it sets the vampire's hand damage (his strength) to some > > new amount - 2 or 3 depending on the level of the discipline. > > [TOM 06-MAR-96] > > A question I've had...I think, the way the new VTES vamps are worded, that > have +1 hand damage, that if they use a Torn Signpost they will have 3 or 4 > hand damage. Is that correct? Yes. > > I'll put this on the list for RT review to see if there's any > > reason to keep this errata. > > Are you implying that Torn Signpost may be meant to work as strike-granting? > That seems like a pretty big deal. I'm saying that VTES card text clearly says that Torn Signpost works as a strike-granting effect. It is the errata to the card that makes it work as a strength-setting effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

PDB6 wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > "If it were played as the VTES card text reads, you'd be right. > But it has been ruled/errata'ed to play as the Jyhad text reads - > that is, it sets the vampire's hand damage (his strength) to some > new amount - 2 or 3 depending on the level of the discipline. > [TOM 06-MAR-96] > > I'll put this on the list for RT review to see if there's any > reason to keep this errata." > > Umm, what? > > The text on the VTES version of Torn Signpost is poorly worded, ambigious, and > in no way clearly indicates that the VTES version of TS works any different > than the Jyhad version. The errata on this card is far more of a clarification > than a rules change. The text of the VTES version clearly gives the user a new option for a strike - that is, one that will inflict 2 or 3 hand damage. This is not ambiguous. If you believe that it was an attempt to set the users hand damage to some new amount, then it is certainly poorly worded, for it fails to do that altogether. It does indeed seem that the designers were attempting to clarify the Jyhad version - clarify it so that it was clear that Torn Signpost was granting a strike option, not resetting the vampire's strength. (Which is one way of reading the original Jyhad text). > Next, what possible reason is there to make Torn Signpost work differently than > it currently does. Original intent would be a good reason (if it is true that original intent is not the same as the current errata, which I'm not saying is the case - just that it would be a reason to change). > [many arguments deleted] Woah. First, arguing with such an emotional stance isn't very productive. Second, I agree that potence decks (and straight combat decks in general) are harder to win with than bleed or vote decks. That's due to the nature of combat (in that it doesn't attack your prey's pool directly). Changing TS did't change that, and removing the errata won't change it. You have to take that fact into consideration when building a deck. A pure quietus deck won't win much, either. If the errata to the VTES card was for game balance or to preserve original intent, then it should stay. As it is, though, it was issued (by Tom) without reference to either of these things - indeed without reference to the fact that it was errata at all. That is why it is on the list for the RT to review. Arguments against the errata: original card text could be read the way the VTES clearly reads. Current errata makes TS much more useful than Fists of Death - and so useful that it is a "staple" of any combat deck, in some people's opinion (not mine). Arguments for the errata: original card text could be read the way the errata says, and the current errata is the current errata, and it's not a broken card with the errata. I'm not opposed to keeping the errata. But it is still an issue that should be reviewed by the RT. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <363076...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >PDB6 wrote: > >Arguments against the errata: original card text could be read the >way the VTES clearly reads. Current errata makes TS much more >useful than Fists of Death - and so useful that it is a "staple" >of any combat deck, in some people's opinion (not mine). I honestly don't see how the Jyhad text can be read like the V:tES text at all... they are completely different. Hell, if you followed the V:tES text I'd say that Torn Signpost wasn't even a hand strike. TS at it stands is more usefull than FoD, and you won't use FoD without TS, but FoD is still quite usefull (stackability, etc.). In any event hosing something _because_ it's a staple is silly, especially if the effect is merely to substitute another staple in it's place -- or is someone actually arguing that TS is broken? >Arguments for the errata: original card text could be read the way the >errata says, and the current errata is the current errata, and it's >not a broken card with the errata. The rarity issue here should have some impact as well. Another point would be that the V:tES text is close to wallpaper IMHO, not quite -- but it'd certainly drop right out of all of my decks. It would see some use in Celerity Brujah decks, and that's it (if even there). >I'm not opposed to keeping the errata. But it is still an issue >that should be reviewed by the RT. Hmmm, I suppose. The text on V:tES cards got screwed up so much I in general don't think it's worth much. Why not bring up using the Jyhad text in preference over the V:tES text with the RT? Admitedly I haven't thought through the implications, but off the top of my head I can't think of any V:tES changes I liked (then again, I own mostly Jyhad). -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

LSJ wrote: "The text of the VTES version clearly gives the user a new option for a strike - that is, one that will inflict 2 or 3 hand damage. This is not ambiguous. If you believe that it was an attempt to set the users hand damage to some new amount, then it is certainly poorly worded, for it fails to do that altogether." But it is not framed in such a way that this makes sense. All other Strike cards use the template of "Strike:X". The VTES text does not convey this in any way, nor is it clear as to what it means. It is pretty much the only card in the set that uses such bizzare wording, and there is no precident set to clarify such wording. It is worded in such a way to imply two different things, and is clear about neither. "It does indeed seem that the designers were attempting to clarify the Jyhad version - clarify it so that it was clear that Torn Signpost was granting a strike option, not resetting the vampire's strength. (Which is one way of reading the original Jyhad text)." I fail to see how the Jyhad version could be read this way. It very clearly says "Vampire does 2 hand damage for the remainder of combat". This is pretty clear. "Original intent would be a good reason (if it is true that original intent is not the same as the current errata, which I'm not saying is the case - just that it would be a reason to change)." The original intent is pretty clear--it gives a vampire 2 (or 3) hand damage. To attempt to read into the card that it is some sort of Strike option (thereby not allowing other strike options) is to read into the text something that is completely absent. "Woah. First, arguing with such an emotional stance isn't very productive." What emotional stance was I arguing from that wasn't productive? I presented a threefold (twofold?) succinct argument as to why it would be foolish to change Torn Signpost. That is all. No yelling, name calling, whining, anything of the sort. Very straight forward. "Changing TS did't change that, and removing the errata won't change it. You have to take that fact into consideration when building a deck. A pure quietus deck won't win much, either." As you point out, Torn Signpost is often considered a basic element of a Potence deck. Changing it in such a way to reduce this function, again, is like arbirtarily changing all the Govern the Unaligned (Legal Manipulations, Computer Hacking, whatever) type cards to prevent Bleed modifiers from being played on them--you'll have to take it into consideration when building a deck. This is true of any change. It doesn't however, make it necessarily a good idea. "Arguments against the errata: original card text could be read the way the VTES clearly reads. Current errata makes TS much more useful than Fists of Death - and so useful that it is a "staple" of any combat deck, in some people's opinion (not mine)." TS is not much more useful than FoD. FoD is a more limited use card (as it should be, as a Rare), and has a different use (to stack on stuff), but is not inherrently less useful. "Arguments for the errata: original card text could be read the way the errata says, and the current errata is the current errata, and it's not a broken card with the errata." And as you pointed out, original intent is always a good idea. I would (and do) argue that the original intent of the Jyhad card was for it to work the way it does now. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: "I'm saying that VTES card text clearly says that Torn Signpost works as a strike-granting effect. It is the errata to the card that makes it work as a strength-setting effect." And again, I disagree that this is clear. The card says: "This vampire can inflict 2 hand damage as a strike for the remainder of combat." And a vampire without the card can inflict 1 hand damage as a strike for the remainder of combat. And a vampire playing with 3 FoD can inflict 7 hand damage as a strike for the remainder of combat. This does not necessarily mean that the card was attempting to restrict the using vampire to a "Strike: 2 hand damage". Any vampire that has 2 hand damage can inflict 2 hand damage as a strike for the remainder of combat. This is just a dumb semantics argument, true. I simply don't see how the ambigious VTES text is in any way clear about TS being some sort of unprecidented strike gaining effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: : The text of the VTES version clearly gives the user a new option for : a strike - that is, one that will inflict 2 or 3 hand damage. This : is not ambiguous. If you believe that it was an attempt to set the : users hand damage to some new amount, then it is certainly poorly : worded, for it fails to do that altogether. : It does indeed seem that the designers were attempting to clarify the : Jyhad version - clarify it so that it was clear that Torn Signpost was : granting a strike option, not resetting the vampire's strength. (Which : is one way of reading the original Jyhad text). Yeah, and they were apparently attempting to 'clarify' melee weapons with their new template, too. You know, the one that makes it look like melee weapon damage is hand damage. ;-) : > [many arguments deleted] : Woah. First, arguing with such an emotional stance isn't very : productive. Yeah, but it's more fun that way. : Second, I agree that potence decks (and straight combat decks in : general) are harder to win with than bleed or vote decks. That's : due to the nature of combat (in that it doesn't attack your prey's : pool directly). Changing TS did't change that, and removing the : errata won't change it. You have to take that fact into consideration : when building a deck. A pure quietus deck won't win much, either. Removing the errata on TS (ie going to the VTES wording) would make potence combat decks less effective than they are now - just like the "Immortal Grapple now lasts only one round" change did. It might not push them over the edge into unviability, but it would clearly weaken them. Not being able to stack Undead Strength onto a Torn Signpost is a significant change. : If the errata to the VTES card was for game balance or to preserve : original intent, then it should stay. As it is, though, it was : issued (by Tom) without reference to either of these things - indeed : without reference to the fact that it was errata at all. That is : why it is on the list for the RT to review. Tom usually didn't reference any particular reason for errata he issued, did he? : Arguments against the errata: original card text could be read the : way the VTES clearly reads. Current errata makes TS much more : useful than Fists of Death - and so useful that it is a "staple" : of any combat deck, in some people's opinion (not mine). Current errata makes TS very useful to many Potence combat decks. It's 'more useful' than Fists of Death in the sense that you'd rather play a TS than a Fists as your only combat card, but it seems logical that the stackability of Fists is the reason that it costs an additional blood compared to TS. Jyhad text could be read the VTES way, but you'd have to ignore the 'hand' text and it should have 'as a strike' instead. Jyhad text appears to be: "This vampire does 2 hand damage for remainder of the combat. (S) As Above, but vampire does 3 hand damage for the remainder of the combat." Using the words 'hand damage' in Jyhad definitely looks like resetting the vamp's strength, since melee weapons in Jyhad were templated as "2 damage each strike" (Bastard Sword). (Which meant that melee weapons didn't interact well with Torn Signpost, and neither did "2 hand damage" vampires, but that's just the way it was...) : Arguments for the errata: original card text could be read the way the : errata says, and the current errata is the current errata, and it's : not a broken card with the errata. Original card text seems to me to support the errata much more than it supports the VTES card text. (that is, the VTES text appears to me to be a reversal, and the overturning of that by Tom seems like an argument that the VTES text was simply wrong.) : I'm not opposed to keeping the errata. But it is still an issue : that should be reviewed by the RT. I suppose... but not, I think, any more than all other current errata ought to be reviewed by the RT. Josh up where the air is.. fresh and clean...

Right off the bat, I'd like to state that I am in favor of changing Torn Signpost in favor of the VTES text. In fact, that's one of the cards that the Michigan Jyhad League Rules Team (of which I am a member) is taking a look at for this very reason. > LSJ wrote: > "The text of the VTES version clearly gives the user a new option for > a strike - that is, one that will inflict 2 or 3 hand damage. This > is not ambiguous. If you believe that it was an attempt to set the > users hand damage to some new amount, then it is certainly poorly > worded, for it fails to do that altogether." I agree 100% > But it is not framed in such a way that this makes sense. All other Strike > cards use the template of "Strike:X". The VTES text does not convey this in > any way, nor is it clear as to what it means. VTES Card Text: Only usable before range is determined. This vampire can inflict 2 hand damage as a strike for remainder of the combat. Looks like it makes perfect sense to me. This card gives me the option of a hand strike (no melee weapons) with a base hand damage of 2. It also doesn't allow one to use this card in conjuction with another strike. Looks as clear as crystal. > I fail to see how the Jyhad version could be read this way. It very clearly > says "Vampire does 2 hand damage for the remainder of combat". This is pretty > clear. > > The original intent is pretty clear--it gives a vampire 2 (or 3) hand damage. > To attempt to read into the card that it is some sort of Strike option > (thereby not allowing other strike options) is to read into the text something > that is completely absent. Maybe not. Perhaps the card was never intended to be used with a melee weapon. This nonsense about Gangrels marking their territory is a load of crap. Either way, the VTES version makes more sense to me. > "Woah. First, arguing with such an emotional stance isn't very > productive." > > What emotional stance was I arguing from that wasn't productive? I presented > a threefold (twofold?) succinct argument as to why it would be foolish to change > Torn Signpost. That is all. No yelling, name calling, whining, anything of > the sort. Very straight forward. *whistles innocently* > "Changing TS did't change that, and removing the > errata won't change it. You have to take that fact into consideration > when building a deck. A pure quietus deck won't win much, either." > > As you point out, Torn Signpost is often considered a basic element of a > Potence deck. Changing it in such a way to reduce this function, again, is > like arbirtarily changing all the Govern the Unaligned (Legal Manipulations, > Computer Hacking, whatever) type cards to prevent Bleed modifiers from being > played on them--you'll have to take it into consideration when building a > deck. This is true of any change. It doesn't however, make it necessarily a good > idea. This is primarily why you don't want the errata to change. It will make your "Weenies with Potence" deck less viable in its current state and will require it to be re-worked. A lot of others had the same problems on a grander scale with 7/7. > "Arguments against the errata: original card text could be read the > way the VTES clearly reads. Current errata makes TS much more > useful than Fists of Death - and so useful that it is a "staple" > of any combat deck, in some people's opinion (not mine)." > > TS is not much more useful than FoD. FoD is a more limited use card (as it > should be, as a Rare), and has a different use (to stack on stuff), but is not > inherrently less useful. *raises eyebrow* A stackable card is less usable? With the current errata, using 1 FoD is the same as a TS...but costs a blood. Multiple FoDs can jack the dmg waaay up. Multiple TSs have no extra benefit. If the errata is changed to reflect the VTES wording, you can add Increased Strength to it. As it is, Increased Strength will have no effect with TS unless you come up with a different Potence strike card. > "Arguments for the errata: original card text could be read the way the > errata says, and the current errata is the current errata, and it's > not a broken card with the errata." > > And as you pointed out, original intent is always a good idea. I would (and > do) argue that the original intent of the Jyhad card was for it to work the > way it does now. *shrug* I disagree with this stance and my reasonings have been posted in the past. Noal McDonald Archbishop of Westland, MI -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Joshua Duffin wrote: > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: > : The text of the VTES version clearly gives the user a new option for > : a strike - that is, one that will inflict 2 or 3 hand damage. This > : is not ambiguous. If you believe that it was an attempt to set the > : users hand damage to some new amount, then it is certainly poorly > : worded, for it fails to do that altogether. > > : It does indeed seem that the designers were attempting to clarify the > : Jyhad version - clarify it so that it was clear that Torn Signpost was > : granting a strike option, not resetting the vampire's strength. (Which > : is one way of reading the original Jyhad text). > > Yeah, and they were apparently attempting to 'clarify' melee weapons with > their new template, too. You know, the one that makes it look like melee > weapon damage is hand damage. ;-) Yes - they switched to a template that didn't match the original text, by any interpretation. This is different than the TS case. > : Second, I agree that potence decks (and straight combat decks in > : general) are harder to win with than bleed or vote decks. That's > : due to the nature of combat (in that it doesn't attack your prey's > : pool directly). Changing TS did't change that, and removing the > : errata won't change it. You have to take that fact into consideration > : when building a deck. A pure quietus deck won't win much, either. > > Removing the errata on TS (ie going to the VTES wording) would make > potence combat decks less effective than they are now - just like the > "Immortal Grapple now lasts only one round" change did. It might not > push them over the edge into unviability, but it would clearly weaken > them. Clearly weaken them by a miniscule amount, yes. Obviously, weakening a card will weaken decks that use that card. That wasn't the point being made. > Not being able to stack Undead Strength onto a Torn Signpost is a > significant change. So was allowing Undead Strength to be stacked on a Torn Signpost. But, if it is changed back, at least the change will have been well thought through. > : If the errata to the VTES card was for game balance or to preserve > : original intent, then it should stay. As it is, though, it was > : issued (by Tom) without reference to either of these things - indeed > : without reference to the fact that it was errata at all. That is > : why it is on the list for the RT to review. > > Tom usually didn't reference any particular reason for errata he issued, > did he? He usually identified errata as errata. When he didn't (and when the errata had not already been issued as errata prior), it was usually an indication of a mistake. > : Arguments against the errata: original card text could be read the > : way the VTES clearly reads. Current errata makes TS much more > : useful than Fists of Death - and so useful that it is a "staple" > : of any combat deck, in some people's opinion (not mine). > > Current errata makes TS very useful to many Potence combat decks. It's > 'more useful' than Fists of Death in the sense that you'd rather play > a TS than a Fists as your only combat card, but it seems logical that the > stackability of Fists is the reason that it costs an additional blood > compared to TS. It is "more useful" when viewed in whole, cost included. How many times do you see FoD used at all? > Jyhad text could be read the VTES way, but you'd have to ignore the 'hand' > text and it should have 'as a strike' instead. Jyhad text appears to be: > "This vampire does 2 hand damage for remainder of the combat. (S) As Above, > but vampire does 3 hand damage for the remainder of the combat." You don't have to ignore the "hand" - this new strike deals hand damage. This is true even in the VTES version as printed. The "as a strike" is obviously implied. Or do you suggest that the damage from the Jyhad version would be done even if the vampire Dodged? (certainly a viable interpretation, but just as clearly wrong - just like Read Interpretations (superior) implies a strike) If anything, the Jyhad text seems to be: "This vampire must strike for 2 hand damage for the remainder of combat". The "does" in the Jyhad text being interpretted as a mandatory activity (vs. "can do") - like the "bearer presses at the end of the first round" text on the VTES version of Talbot's Chainsaw. But interpretting "does" as "does with each hand strike" (basically resetting the strength, although not in combination with melee weapons, etc.) or "can do with a strike" (the VTES reading) or "gets" (the current errata to the VTES version) are all reasonable rulings. > Using the words 'hand damage' in Jyhad definitely looks like resetting > the vamp's strength, since melee weapons in Jyhad were templated as "2 > damage each strike" (Bastard Sword). (Which meant that melee weapons > didn't interact well with Torn Signpost, and neither did "2 hand damage" > vampires, but that's just the way it was...) Using "does" instead of "gets" looks like giving a strike ability that inflicts hand damage. If it was intended to alter base hand damage (now called "strength"), and all templates in Jyhad agreed (which they don't), then it certainly should've followed the Drawing Out the Beast's (superior) template and said: "this vampire's hand damage is 2." > : Arguments for the errata: original card text could be read the way the > : errata says, and the current errata is the current errata, and it's > : not a broken card with the errata. > > Original card text seems to me to support the errata much more than it "Seems" is the key there. Which is why it's on the list for RT review. > supports the VTES card text. (that is, the VTES text appears to me to > be a reversal, and the overturning of that by Tom seems like an argument > that the VTES text was simply wrong.) Tom didn't say that he was overturning anything - he may simply have been basing his statement on the old ruling for the Jyhad card. > : I'm not opposed to keeping the errata. But it is still an issue > : that should be reviewed by the RT. > > I suppose... but not, I think, any more than all other current errata > ought to be reviewed by the RT. All "current" errata that changed original intent (as far as can be determined) was reviewed by the RT, or should be. Indeed, it should've been at the time it was issued (and likely was, if it was identified as "errata" at the time). Can anyone provide a reason why the RT *shouldn't* examine the current state of affairs? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: : Joshua Duffin wrote: : > : > Yeah, and they were apparently attempting to 'clarify' melee weapons with : > their new template, too. You know, the one that makes it look like melee : > weapon damage is hand damage. ;-) : Yes - they switched to a template that didn't match the original : text, by any interpretation. This is different than the TS case. Heh heh heh. The new melee weapon template is definitely different from the Jyhad one, but it *could* have been what they 'meant' to do for Jyhad, to the same extent that the VTES Signpost text *could* have been what the Jyhad text was meant to accomplish. (Although I do see your point that Jyhad TS text could have been interpreted in the VTES way, if your thought process went somewhat differently than most people's apparently did.) : Clearly weaken [Potence decks -ed.] by a miniscule amount, yes. : Obviously, weakening a card will weaken decks that use that : card. That wasn't the point being made. Not exactly, but the point Peter was making is that a non-broken strategy using a non-broken card which is already weaker than other strategies shouldn't be burdened with further weakening in the name of 'removing errata'. Sure, (effective) errata would be removed, but the effect on the game environment would be as if new errata were being introduced, since as far as I know, no one has ever really played with the VTES Signpost text. : > Not being able to stack Undead Strength onto a Torn Signpost is a : > significant change. : So was allowing Undead Strength to be stacked on a Torn Signpost. : But, if it is changed back, at least the change will have been : well thought through. Allowing US to be stacked on TS was a significant change from VTES wording, but from the point of view of players, I think it was simply an affirmation of the old Jyhad wording which was generally taken to allow US on TS. : > Tom usually didn't reference any particular reason for errata he issued, : > did he? : He usually identified errata as errata. When he didn't (and when : the errata had not already been issued as errata prior), it was : usually an indication of a mistake. Still, I'm uncomfortable with taking what Tom didn't say as evidence in favor of VTES wordings. : > Current errata makes TS very useful to many Potence combat decks. It's : > 'more useful' than Fists of Death in the sense that you'd rather play : > a TS than a Fists as your only combat card, but it seems logical that the : > stackability of Fists is the reason that it costs an additional blood : > compared to TS. : It is "more useful" when viewed in whole, cost included. : How many times do you see FoD used at all? Not real often at this very moment, but I have played Potence rush decks that used a couple Fists of Death, and I believe Peter (as his Pot rush decks typically are Nosferatu, thus not having additional strikes available) has used more than that. I certainly don't see Fists of Death as wallpaper. Note that in the Jyhad universe, not only was Fists stackable with itself and TS, it also worked for 2 hand damage vamps, which TS did not (unless they had superior Potence). And in a Potence combat deck, the cost of Fists is frequently recoupable by using Taste of Vitae to get the paid blood back. (Which doesn't, I admit, directly reduce the cost of FoD, but it does make FoD a more useful card than you seem to imply.) : > Jyhad text could be read the VTES way, but you'd have to ignore the 'hand' : > text and it should have 'as a strike' instead. Jyhad text appears to be: : > "This vampire does 2 hand damage for remainder of the combat. (S) As Above, : > but vampire does 3 hand damage for the remainder of the combat." : You don't have to ignore the "hand" - this new strike deals hand : damage. This is true even in the VTES version as printed. The "as a : strike" is obviously implied. Or do you suggest that the damage from : the Jyhad version would be done even if the vampire Dodged? : (certainly a viable interpretation, but just as clearly wrong - : just like Read Interpretations (superior) implies a strike) Clearly the vampire will be using its 2/3 hand damage for strikes, yes, but I don't think 'as a strike' is implied per se. (Read Interpretations superior gives a Dodge. There is no such thing as a non-strike Dodge. There was such a thing as 'doing 2 hand damage'; all the 2 hand damage vampires did it.) My interpretation of Jyhad text is that 'does' should be read as 'has', which would clearly have been a resetting of the vamp's base hand damage. (ie, they should have used 'has' but didn't because they weren't thinking quite clearly enough.) : If anything, the Jyhad text seems to be: "This vampire must strike : for 2 hand damage for the remainder of combat". The "does" in : the Jyhad text being interpretted as a mandatory activity (vs. "can : do") - like the "bearer presses at the end of the first round" text : on the VTES version of Talbot's Chainsaw. But interpretting "does" as : "does with each hand strike" (basically resetting the strength, : although not in combination with melee weapons, etc.) or "can do : with a strike" (the VTES reading) or "gets" (the current errata : to the VTES version) are all reasonable rulings. My reading of Jyhad text is that it could have been 'This vampire does [2/3] hand damage (as a strike) for the remainder of the combat.' That is, it could have had reminder text that the vampire was gaining the ability to strike with increased hand damage instead of relying on the players' common-sense reading that the Signpost simply reset the playing vamp's hand damage value. Since they *didn't* put on reminder text, my suggestion is that they expected players to read it in the (natural, to my mind) 'resets hand damage' fashion. (Sketchy, I know.) : > Using the words 'hand damage' in Jyhad definitely looks like resetting : > the vamp's strength, since melee weapons in Jyhad were templated as "2 : > damage each strike" (Bastard Sword). (Which meant that melee weapons : > didn't interact well with Torn Signpost, and neither did "2 hand damage" : > vampires, but that's just the way it was...) : Using "does" instead of "gets" looks like giving a strike ability that : inflicts hand damage. I hate to (be forced to) read so much into the designers' choice of verb... : If it was intended to alter base hand damage (now called "strength"), : and all templates in Jyhad agreed (which they don't), then it certainly : should've followed the Drawing Out the Beast's (superior) template and : said: "this vampire's hand damage is 2." DotB (inferior) says, in the Jyhad version, according to the Fink Rulemonger site, "However, its hand damage is +1." ie, yet another template, this time not using a resetting phrase but an adding phrase. So DotB worked in conjunction with 2-hand-damage vamps in Jyhad, whereas Torn Signpost did not. (And if VTES text becomes law for TS, it would then (again) not work in conjunction with what are now +1 hand damage vamps...) : > supports the VTES card text. (that is, the VTES text appears to me to : > be a reversal, and the overturning of that by Tom seems like an argument : > that the VTES text was simply wrong.) : Tom didn't say that he was overturning anything - he may simply have : been basing his statement on the old ruling for the Jyhad card. Which would be a good thing to base it on. ;-) : All "current" errata that changed original intent (as far as can be : determined) was reviewed by the RT, or should be. Indeed, it should've : been at the time it was issued (and likely was, if it was identified : as "errata" at the time). Okay. I just want Jyhad text to be weighted more heavily for 'original intent' than VTES text, as it is more original. : Can anyone provide a reason why the RT *shouldn't* examine : the current state of affairs? Not me. I mean, it's fine with me if they do examine the situation, as long as they come to the right conclusion. ;-) Josh and of course, I have a lot more faith that this RT will than I would have in the past...

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Right off the bat, I'd like to state that I am in favor of changing Torn > Signpost in favor of the VTES text. In fact, that's one of the cards > that the Michigan Jyhad League Rules Team (of which I am a member) > is taking a look at for this very reason. Why? There is absolutely no reason to change it. Seems to me that some people are looking for something to do, just because there has been no rule changes for about 3 months. What can you possibly have to gain by changing TS, potence has plenty of strike cards as it is, TS is the only one (ok, and FoD) that can increase your base hand damage - why take out a whole aspect of combat that doesn't need to? > VTES Card Text: > Only usable before range is determined. This vampire can inflict 2 hand damage > as a strike for remainder of the combat. > > Looks like it makes perfect sense to me. This card gives me the option > of a hand strike (no melee weapons) with a base hand damage of 2. That's right, and if you don't play TS you have a base hand damage of 1 for the remainder of combat (and all combat thereafter for that matter). > It also doesn't allow one to use this card in conjuction with another > strike. Looks as clear as crystal. I'd hate to see the piece of crystal you're basing this on. Does that mean you can't use US with a normal hand strike?, or are we going to change hand strikes to something else so they are no longer a strike? -- Martin Jamieson "The subtle art of negotiation is being able to say 'nice doggy', over and over, until you can find a big enough stick."

In article <70qe8k$ot4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: >*whistles innocently* > >> "Changing TS did't change that, and removing the >> errata won't change it. You have to take that fact into consideration >> when building a deck. A pure quietus deck won't win much, either." >> >> As you point out, Torn Signpost is often considered a basic element of a >> Potence deck. Changing it in such a way to reduce this function, again, is >> like arbirtarily changing all the Govern the Unaligned (Legal Manipulations, >> Computer Hacking, whatever) type cards to prevent Bleed modifiers from being >> played on them--you'll have to take it into consideration when building a >> deck. This is true of any change. It doesn't however, make it necessarily a >> good idea. > >This is primarily why you don't want the errata to change. It will make your >"Weenies with Potence" deck less viable in its current state and will require >it to be re-worked. A lot of others had the same problems on a grander scale >with 7/7. Now, there is no need to be jumping to personal attacks. I think you're doing Peter quite a diservice, especially considering that his points are valid. The big 7/7 changes were made to fix cards that were broken -- this is _absolutely_ no comparison with weakening a card that's not broken (or are you actually arguing TS is broken?). Notice for example that Peter was for the Pulled Fangs fix, the old version of which was most usefull for weenie potence decks. I would also point out that many of the people arguing _for_ 7/7 played just the kinds of decks that the broken cards abused. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36312958...@student.uq.edu.au>, Martin Jamieson <s32...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote: >Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> Right off the bat, I'd like to state that I am in favor of changing Torn >> Signpost in favor of the VTES text. In fact, that's one of the cards >> that the Michigan Jyhad League Rules Team (of which I am a member) >> is taking a look at for this very reason. > >Why? There is absolutely no reason to change it. Seems to me that some >people are looking for something to do, just because there has been no >rule changes for about 3 months. What can you possibly have to gain by >changing TS, potence has plenty of strike cards as it is, TS is the only >one (ok, and FoD) that can increase your base hand damage - why take out >a whole aspect of combat that doesn't need to? On a tangent, this is the point that I think most of the people foretelling a indefinite cycle of culling the most commonly used cards missed. I definitly feel that errata (or counter errata, whatever) that doesn't fix broken cards shouldn't be done (all my moanings about fixing wallpaper are really just house rules). "Fixing" Tornsignpost is _way_ below the level of a fix that does _any_ good for the game. And as far as I can see is essentially just a fix for it's own sake. If you have trouble with it, just think of the V:tES card as a typo. Many cards in V:tES seem to have had gratuitous and superflous text changes, so I really don't have _any_ trouble buying this. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3630B4...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: [Talking about TS] >Clearly weaken them by a miniscule amount, yes. >Obviously, weakening a card will weaken decks that use that >card. That wasn't the point being made. You've run into a bit of a paradox. If, as you say elsewhere, TS if far superior to FoD, how is it that forcing decks to use FoD instead of TS will only weaken them by a miniscule amount? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <363077...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >On VTES-L, Johnny Tullner writes: >> >> Are you implying that Torn Signpost may be meant to work as strike-granting? >> That seems like a pretty big deal. > >I'm saying that VTES card text clearly says that Torn Signpost works >as a strike-granting effect. It is the errata to the card that makes >it work as a strength-setting effect. Um, didn't you agree earlier that the V:tES text can easily be read either way? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3630B4...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > Can anyone provide a reason why the RT *shouldn't* examine > the current state of affairs? What follows is the most useful arguments for not changing TS to agree with V:tES text...while these will probably not be sufficient to keep the RT from reviewing it, I think that these points should be considered; just trying to cull the best arguments from the thread... Josh wrote: :LSJ (?) wrote : If it was intended to alter base hand damage (now called "strength"), : and all templates in Jyhad agreed (which they don't), then it certainly : should've followed the Drawing Out the Beast's (superior) template and : said: "this vampire's hand damage is 2." “DotB (inferior) says, in the Jyhad version, according to the Fink Rulemonger site, "However, its hand damage is +1." ie, yet another template, this time not using a resetting phrase but an adding phrase. So DotB worked in conjunction with 2-hand-damage vamps in Jyhad, whereas Torn Signpost did not. (And if VTES text becomes law forTS, it would then (again) not work in conjunction with what are now +1 hand damage vamps...)” It seems (to me, at least) that there would also be a need for additional erratta which, while not prohibitive (...sigh...SFB...), would certainly be intimidating. At the very least, it seems mention would have to be made on how TS would interact with weapon strikes...Bastard Sword for example. Would TS now be a separate strike, or would hand damage modifiers from weapons be allowed? (This isn't intuitive for me at least.) Since it would say something something along the lines of Strike at 2/3 hand damage, would you also have to say, "this vampire may strike with hand or melee weapon" or...what? (Can't think of how to conclude that sentence effectively, sorry...) Also, you might need to clarify how +1 hand damage (and Lazvernius, of course...) interact with it. It would probably be likely that they strike at 2/3 + hand damage bonus, but it might not be the natural line of thinking for everyone... Peter Bajika wrote: “As you point out, Torn Signpost is often considered a basic element of a Potence deck. Changing it in such a way to reduce this function, again, is like arbirtarily changing all the Govern the Unaligned (Legal Manipulations, Computer Hacking, whatever) type cards to prevent Bleed modifiers from being played on them--you'll have to take it into consideration when building a deck. This is true of any change. It doesn't however, make it necessarily a good idea.” I think that Peter has a point that TS is a lot like an action modifier for a combat deck. Conditioning to be precise. +2/3 bleed vs. +2/3 damage. Someone (arrgh...Caitiff/Pander (?) newsletter a little while back) argued that there is little effective difference between pool and the blood on your vampires. The argument re: weakening combat vs. other strategies is not necessarily highly useful in and of itself, but as is, combat does not need to be "brought back in to line" with the other strategies, at least not by weakening one of the standard combat decks (Pot rush). Xian "you can just ignore it....and let hand jam sort them out." -Jasper Phillips [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: "Clearly weaken them by a miniscule amount, yes. Obviously, weakening a card will weaken decks that use that card. That wasn't the point being made." However, given the idea that the VTES version of the card is not completely clear in terms of how the card works (I know you disagree here, but go with it), and we have no reason to believe that the VTES wording was changed because TS was too powerful, then there is no good reason to change the card to make it weaker, if this is why it would be changed (from the way the Jyhad version works). "It is "more useful" when viewed in whole, cost included. How many times do you see FoD used at all?" FoD is used all the time. The reason it isn't seen that much is because it is Rare, and thus hard to get. The Brujah don't need to use FoD, as they have Celerity. However, the Nosferatu, Giovanni, and Lasombra need to stack FoD on top of TS to be able to compete with the Brujah in terms of combat effectiveness. If you are playing the Brujah, you don't need FoD. Otherwise you do. If TS is changed from the way it currently works, this will become even more apparent. Regardless, "It'll make FoD get used more often" (as is the implication here, although I don't really think that you support this view in any way) is not a justification for changing Torn Signpost. What cards would you need to change to have, say, Psychic Veil used more often? "The "as a strike" is obviously implied. Or do you suggest that the damage from the Jyhad version would be done even if the vampire Dodged? (certainly a viable interpretation, but just as clearly wrong -just like Read Interpretations (superior) implies a strike)" And again, I fail to see how the "as a strike" implication of this card precludes the use of Undead Strength to augment this strike. A vampire with a default hand damage of 1 can strike for 1 hand damage, just as if he had 2 hand damage from TS and could strike for 2 hand damage. This does not, however, prevent him from using US as well, becasue the 1 hand damage from the default strike does not lock him into using this "strike" only. Only cards that say "Strike:X" do this, or weapons by defenition. Torn Signpost is neither. "If it was intended to alter base hand damage (now called "strength"), and all templates in Jyhad agreed (which they don't), then it certainly should've followed the Drawing Out the Beast's (superior) template and said: "this vampire's hand damage is 2."" This is correct. However, it doesn't follow _any_ template. There is plenty of evidence to make the card slide either way. I believe the strongest evidence is that the Jyhad version stands on one end of the spectrum and we were given no indication that TS was intentionally changed for any reason with the VTES wording. "All "current" errata that changed original intent (as far as can be determined) was reviewed by the RT, or should be. Indeed, it should've been at the time it was issued (and likely was, if it was identified as "errata" at the time)." But the errata (?) on the VTES card was changing _back_ to original intent. The VTES wording arguably (I don't deny this) changes the way TS works from the Jyhad version. However, there was no evidence given that this was done intentionally. Look at all the other cards/effects that were changed between Jyhad and VTES: -2 Damage/Hand Damage was changed to +1 damage on melee weapons/vampires. -2 Bleed was changed to +1 bleed on vampires (and Pulse) -Chainsaw and MotSB were omitted from the set. -Paralyze was removed and Stake reworded. All of these were changed for very specific and explained reasons. Torn Signpost was not. Heck, remember the issue of The Duelist that came out around this time? It had a card by card description of every changed card in the set. Torn Signpost wasn't even on this list. Can you give me some other examples of cards that were substantially changed in effect between the Jyhad and VTES version that was not explained by rules adjustments? [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal wrote: "VTES Card Text: Only usable before range is determined. This vampire can inflict 2 hand damage as a strike for remainder of the combat. Looks like it makes perfect sense to me. This card gives me the option of a hand strike (no melee weapons) with a base hand damage of 2. It also doesn't allow one to use this card in conjuction with another strike. Looks as clear as crystal." And I disagree that it is "clear as crystal". It says that a vampire can inflict 2 hand damage as a strike. A vampire with 1 hand damage can inflict 1 hand damage as a strike. A vampire using 2 FoD can inflict 5 hand damage as a strike. Neither of these two conditions prevent the striking vampire from also using Undead Strength to augment this strike. VTES TS is worded in an ambiguous way--it does not specifically say that this 2 hand damage strike is necessarily a "Strike:X" that precludes other hand damage increasing strikes. It also does not say that it isn't. Thus, it is unclear as to what was meant by the goofy wording. LSJ's stance is that the VTES wording clearly states one thing. My stance is that the VTES wording does not clearly state this thing, and as such, when looked at in light of the far clearer Jyhad wording and its effect on the game environment as a whole should be read to work in the same way as the Jyhad wording does. "Maybe not. Perhaps the card was never intended to be used with a melee weapon. This nonsense about Gangrels marking their territory is a load of crap. Either way, the VTES version makes more sense to me." The melee weapon aspect of this card is so much less an issue than its use as a basic building block of an entire strategy. It gives you a bigger hand damage, and melee weapons do damage based on your hand damage. FoD does the same thing. Do you disagree that FoD should make melee weapons do more damage also? If not, is this just because Torn Signpost is called "Torn Signpost" and has a picture of a signpost where FoD does not? "This is primarily why you don't want the errata to change. It will make your "Weenies with Potence" deck less viable in its current state and will require it to be re-worked. A lot of others had the same problems on a grander scale with 7/7." No, this is not primarily why I don't want this to change. I don't think TS should be changed because: A) It will weaken Potence decks as a whole for no good reason. B) It will increase the dependeance of Potence decks on Rare cards. C) I don't believe that the VTES wording is clear enough to make a definitive statement as to what the editor who chose to re-write the VTES version was trying to do. As this is the case, and we have no definitive statements from the designers as to why the wording was changed, I don't think that there is any reason to assume that they intentonally meant to change the way the card works. As to my personal feelings on the subject, making Pulled Fangs do non aggro damage also made my various combat decks much weaker, yet I am a great supporter of this change. "*raises eyebrow* A stackable card is less usable? With the current errata, using 1 FoD is the same as a TS...but costs a blood. Multiple FoDs can jack the dmg waaay up" I'm not quite sure who you are arging with here. My statement that you wrote this in response to was saying "FoD is not inherrently less useful than TS", as LSJ claimed that it was. [ quoted text not captured ]

phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > In article <363077...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > >On VTES-L, Johnny Tullner writes: > >> > >> Are you implying that Torn Signpost may be meant to work as strike-granting? > >> That seems like a pretty big deal. > > > >I'm saying that VTES card text clearly says that Torn Signpost works > >as a strike-granting effect. It is the errata to the card that makes > >it work as a strength-setting effect. > > Um, didn't you agree earlier that the V:tES text can easily be read > either way? Not that I'm aware of - but you're welcome to check: http://www.dejanews.com If I did say that, then I was clearly mistaken (or possibly just being polite - you know how I get) :-) -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> >This is primarily why you don't want the errata to change. It will make your > >"Weenies with Potence" deck less viable in its current state and will require > >it to be re-worked. A lot of others had the same problems on a grander scale > >with 7/7. > > Now, there is no need to be jumping to personal attacks. I think you're > doing Peter quite a diservice, especially considering that his points > are valid. That was not a personal attack, Jasper. It was an obserrvation. All of his points are based on the effects that the change in errata would have on an all Potence deck. Since Peter is well known for his Potence Weenies deck it is a logical conclusion. Either way, I disagree that Peter's points are valid for the reasons I've already stated. > The big 7/7 changes were made to fix cards that were broken -- > this is _absolutely_ no comparison with weakening a card that's not broken > (or are you actually arguing TS is broken?). I never said that TS is broken in it's current state. However, the errata should be consistent with printed text whenever possible and reasonable. As it stands, the errata for TS is not...and I will almost always argue for card text. > I would also point out that many of the people arguing _for_ 7/7 played > just the kinds of decks that the broken cards abused. And many people who argued against 7/7 did not use those cards. Myself, for example. However, this has nothing to do with my mention of 7/7. My point was that 7/7 had a dramatic impact on deck construction, therefore arguments based on deck construction are moot. Noal McDonald Anarch Troublemaker of Westland, MI -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > In article <3630B4...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > [Talking about TS] > > >Clearly weaken them by a miniscule amount, yes. > >Obviously, weakening a card will weaken decks that use that > >card. That wasn't the point being made. > > You've run into a bit of a paradox. If, as you say elsewhere, TS > if far superior to FoD, how is it that forcing decks to use FoD > instead of TS will only weaken them by a miniscule amount? I do not suggest that decks should be forced to use FoD. If you are just using TS (no weapons, no Undead Strength, etc., just Blurs and presses, etc.), then there is no change - this is a (some would say "the") use TS was designed for. If you are using Undead Strength, the you can use (and indeed, should have been using) Increased Strength instead of Torn Signpost. If you are using weapons (unlikely in a potence-based deck), then you can use either FoD or a combination of Increased Strength and Undead Strength. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Right off the bat, I'd like to state that I am in favor of changing Torn > > Signpost in favor of the VTES text. In fact, that's one of the cards > > that the Michigan Jyhad League Rules Team (of which I am a member) > > is taking a look at for this very reason. > > Why? There is absolutely no reason to change it. Current errata is not consistent with card text. That's reason enough for me. > TS is the only > one (ok, and FoD) that can increase your base hand damage - why take out > a whole aspect of combat that doesn't need to? Torn Signpost (current errata), Fists of Death, Death of My Consience, Ritual Challenge, Brujah Debate, Gangrel Revel, Vial of Garou Blood, Depravity, Shadow of the Wolf (for 2nd strike), Uncontrollable Rage, Art of Pain, Body Arsenal, Fire in the Blood and Horrid Form all raise the base hand damage of a vampire. Changing TS will not "take out a whole aspect of combat." > I'd hate to see the piece of crystal you're basing this on. Does that > mean you can't use US with a normal hand strike?, or are we going to > change hand strikes to something else so they are no longer a strike? Undead Strength is not a modifier to hand damage. It is a strike card. You can't stack strike cards on top of other strikes. By VTES card text of Torn Signpost, the 2 (or 3) hand damage is the strike itself...and not a normal hand strike. Noal McDonald Muddled Vampire Hunter of Westland, MI -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> "*raises eyebrow* A stackable card is less usable? With the current errata, > using 1 FoD is the same as a TS...but costs a blood. Multiple FoDs can jack > the dmg waaay up" > > I'm not quite sure who you are arging with here. My statement that you wrote > this in response to was saying "FoD is not inherrently less useful than TS", > as LSJ claimed that it was. In this case, Peter, I was agreeing with you. I was asserting that LSJ was incorrect in his statement. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

PDB6 wrote: > LSJ wrote: > "All "current" errata that changed original intent (as far as can be > determined) was reviewed by the RT, or should be. Indeed, it should've been at > the time it was issued (and likely was, if it was identified as "errata" at the > time)." > > But the errata (?) on the VTES card was changing _back_ to original intent. > The VTES wording arguably (I don't deny this) changes the way TS works from the > Jyhad version. However, there was no evidence given that this was done > intentionally. Look at all the other cards/effects that were changed between > Jyhad and VTES: > > -2 Damage/Hand Damage was changed to +1 damage on melee weapons/vampires. > -2 Bleed was changed to +1 bleed on vampires (and Pulse) > -Chainsaw and MotSB were omitted from the set. > -Paralyze was removed and Stake reworded. > > All of these were changed for very specific and explained reasons. Torn > Signpost was not. Heck, remember the issue of The Duelist that came out around > this time? It had a card by card description of every changed card in the set. > Torn Signpost wasn't even on this list. Right. Meaning that the card text of the VTES version was not viewed as a change from the Jyhad version. Either because the new text was how the designers (distinct from the RT) "knew" the card to function, or because of an oversight. > Can you give me some other examples of cards that were substantially changed in > effect between the Jyhad and VTES version that was not explained by rules > adjustments? Well, so far the "argument" is that TS was not substantially changed from the Jyhad to the VTES version - merely clarified and requiring a substantial change to the was TS had been ruled to work (such that errata was required to keep it functioning the way the Jyhad version had been ruled to work). But, to give you some examples the other way (where Jyhad text was changed in VTES text to give different functionality not already implemented by rulings and not cited as "changes" in Tom's article in the Duelist): Many locations and retainers are now restricted to "vampires" where the Jyhad versions could benefit allies as well. Archon - changed "pool" to "blood". Brujah Frenzy - the other minion must be untapped; BF taps that other minion. Cat Burglary - inferior is not a directed action. (This doesn't really count, I suppose, since the card designers were probably just attempting to conform with the then-current errata on (D)). Ritual of the Bitter Rose (acting combatant only) - this was an attempt to clarify the Jyhad text that ended up limiting the functionality rather severely. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: : That was not a personal attack, Jasper. It was an obserrvation. All of his : points are based on the effects that the change in errata would have on an : all Potence deck. Since Peter is well known for his Potence Weenies deck : it is a logical conclusion. Either way, I disagree that Peter's points are : valid for the reasons I've already stated. No, the best point is based on what he (and I) consider to be the original intent of the card. Game-environment effects *are* important as well though - especially in cases where 'broken' cards or decks are involved, but also in more general game-balance ways. If it's accepted that Torn Signpost is not a broken card, and that Potence combat decks are not overpowered under the current errata, then for the sake of continuity the errata should stand unless there is substantial evidence that the original intent strongly demands a reversal of the errata. Just because I supported the 7/7 changes doesn't mean that I support all proposed changes to the current environment. I do believe that if it's not broken it shouldn't be fixed - which I thought was your position as well, but now it seems that you are just as much an idealist as I am, except that your ideal seems to be 'card text' where mine is 'game balance'. ;-) : I never said that TS is broken in it's current state. However, the errata : should be consistent with printed text whenever possible and reasonable. : As it stands, the errata for TS is not...and I will almost always argue for : card text. What about arguing for not changing the rules from what people are used to? This errata has existed for I think upwards of two years, and was effectively in place for the year or more between the release of Jyhad and the release of the VTES edition. What about melee weapons? Not only the VTES melee weapons but also the Ancient Hearts and Sabbat ones seemed to imply that they gave the bearer a 'strength' bonus rather than the ability to strike with the weapons for weapon damage. I think you'd agree that later card text was not better in that case? And if the VTES/etc text authors couldn't write melee weapon text properly, how can we expect that they wrote Signpost text properly? It seems to me that the text writers had no concept of 'strength' guiding them in their attempts to reword card involving 'hand damage', and it led them to make bad changes to Jyhad wordings. : And many people who argued against 7/7 did not use those cards. Myself, : for example. However, this has nothing to do with my mention of 7/7. My : point was that 7/7 had a dramatic impact on deck construction, therefore : arguments based on deck construction are moot. No, I don't think they are. It seems that the argument that 'changes should not be made if they substantially alter the playability of existing decks' is not a useful one. But the argument that 'non-overpowered decks should not be weakened unnecessarily' seems like a good one to me. Josh 'don't be too sure of that.. what makes you sure of that..'

In article <71216f$924$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > "*raises eyebrow* A stackable card is less usable? With the current errata, > > using 1 FoD is the same as a TS...but costs a blood. Multiple FoDs can jack > > the dmg waaay up" > > > > I'm not quite sure who you are arging with here. My statement that you wrote > > this in response to was saying "FoD is not inherrently less useful than TS", > > as LSJ claimed that it was. > > In this case, Peter, I was agreeing with you. I was asserting that LSJ was > incorrect in his statement. Aw, and I was just getting used to out being in agreement. :-) Actually, though, the statement you assert was incorrect was one that I merely stated as "some people's opinion" - an opinion that, as I went on to state, I do not share. It was a paraphrase of Peter's position that "[Torn Signpost] is the very basis of Potence combat" and that removing the errata would change "the fundimentals of the Potence discipline" and would "doom the Potence combat deck to a fate of only being playable by a a smaller pool of players than it allready is." I took this to mean that Peter held the view that TS was much more useful than the card with the most similar effect (to the errata'ed TS): FoD. Otherwise, in my thinking, his statements would have been erroneous. But he corrected me - that it is not really his view that TS is much more useful. I do not know how this fits in with his other statements, however. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> Just because I supported the 7/7 changes doesn't mean that I support all > proposed changes to the current environment. I do believe that if it's > not broken it shouldn't be fixed - which I thought was your position as > well, but now it seems that you are just as much an idealist as I am, > except that your ideal seems to be 'card text' where mine is 'game balance'. > ;-) *grin* An astute observation....and an accurate one. I'm loathe to call any card "broken". I will agree that RtI and Thoughts Betrayed in their original form were not well thought out...and as a result, I don't use them in any of my decks. The fix to RtI seemed to me a whole lot of needless text. It looks like what we're going to do with RtI in Michigan is prohibit all Action Modifiers with RtI. We'll see how it works out....although, I don't expect we'll see it being used very often since using RtI in Michigan is almost universally despised. Esp. after I did a Setite deck that stole vampires and then used them to RtI with Horrific Countenance and Day Op. It was sick and rude. On the other hand, the fix to Thoughts Betrayed is a minor change to the card text and most of the people on the Michigan Rules Team was happy with it...including myself. Essentially, I would prefer that any "fixes" be as close to the original text of the card as possible. It cuts down on confusion when helping a new player to design a new deck. > : I never said that TS is broken in it's current state. However, the errata > : should be consistent with printed text whenever possible and reasonable. > : As it stands, the errata for TS is not...and I will almost always argue for > : card text. > > What about arguing for not changing the rules from what people are used > to? This errata has existed for I think upwards of two years, and was > effectively in place for the year or more between the release of Jyhad and > the release of the VTES edition. If I argued for not changing the rules on that basis, I'd be arguing every piece of errata that comes out. Fortunately, I have too much of a life to start doing that. > What about melee weapons? Not only the VTES melee weapons but also the > Ancient Hearts and Sabbat ones seemed to imply that they gave the bearer > a 'strength' bonus rather than the ability to strike with the weapons for > weapon damage. While it may be taken to imply that, common sense would dictate otherwise. The VTES wording was written so that a Bastard Sword would not do 2 damage even if you pumped up your base hand damage (as an example). > I think you'd agree that later card text was not > better in that case? Quite the contrary. They had to word it as correctly as possible in as little space as possible. I think they did fine in that regard and I see no problem with it. It's often very difficult to get the spirit of the card perfectly worded in such a small space....esp. with us hen-pecking rules lawyers putting the magnifying glass to it looking for loopholes to abuse the hell out of. > It seems that the argument that 'changes should > not be made if they substantially alter the playability of existing decks' > is not a useful one. But the argument that 'non-overpowered decks should not > be weakened unnecessarily' seems like a good one to me. The problem with that is that I can build a 'non-overpowered deck' with Thoughts Betrayed. Can I use that as an argument to call for it to return to original card text? Sure....but nobody would listen, nor would I expect them to. Noal McDonald Sabbat Inquisitor of Westland, Mi -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <71200e$7l5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: >> In article <3630B4...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >> >> [Talking about TS] >> >> >Clearly weaken them by a miniscule amount, yes. >> >Obviously, weakening a card will weaken decks that use that >> >card. That wasn't the point being made. >> >> You've run into a bit of a paradox. If, as you say elsewhere, TS >> if far superior to FoD, how is it that forcing decks to use FoD >> instead of TS will only weaken them by a miniscule amount? > >I do not suggest that decks should be forced to use FoD. Indirectly, using the V:tES wording does just that though... >If you are just using TS (no weapons, no Undead Strength, etc., just >Blurs and presses, etc.), then there is no change - this is a (some >would say "the") use TS was designed for. > >If you are using Undead Strength, the you can use (and indeed, should have >been using) Increased Strength instead of Torn Signpost. This isn't really true in my experience, and I use Increased Strength more than anyone else who's posted rush decks I believe. Not being able to use IS effectively without US is a weakness, and as such even if you want to stack damage you'd use a sizeable proportion of TS (in it's original form). In short just switching IS in for TS doesn't cut it, and you will indeed be forced to use FoD. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal wrote: "That was not a personal attack, Jasper. It was an obserrvation. All of his points are based on the effects that the change in errata would have on an all Potence deck. Since Peter is well known for his Potence Weenies deck it is a logical conclusion. Either way, I disagree that Peter's points are valid for the reasons I've already stated." And your disagreement with my points has nothing to do with my motives. My motives for being involved in this discussion are not at issue, and you bringing them up has just as little to do with the issue. Sure, I will personally be affected, in some way, if TS is changed. So? All arguments are fueled in some way by self interest, otherwise there is no incentive to debate. You have just as much to gain and lose as I do by the result of this debate. You seek some sort of card text purity or card logic. How is that any less of a selfish motive than mine? It isn't. It is a motive for debate. That is all. How will this change affect me personally? Very little, I'm sure, and as such, isn't really that strong of a motive to spend this much effort debating this subject. Yeah, ok, I'll have to swap out my Torn Signposts for Fists of Death and Increased Strength. My deck will probably work just fine, but then I own 6 Fists of Death. James Coupe (for example, as we were just discussing this sort of thing in regards to his Pot deck), on the other hand, does not own 6 FoD, and as such, will suffer a far greater degredation in Pot deck ability. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: "It was a paraphrase of Peter's position that "[Torn Signpost] is the very basis of Potence combat" and that removing the errata would change "the fundimentals of the Potence discipline" and would "doom the Potence combat deck to a fate of only being playable by a a smaller pool of players than it allready is." Correct. Torn Signpost (as it currently exists) is, in fact, the basis of Potence (Immortal Grapple augmented) combat. If TS were changed to some sort of strike card, it would drastically alter Potence combat. I'm not claiming this would be the end of the world, but it would be a unnessecary change. Yes, the Potence deck still would have Increased Strength and Fists of Death available, both of which are in some ways less effective than TS (not in all ways, but enough that such decks would be somewhat less effective). The point at hand is that this change is not a necessary one for game balance reasons and very similar to if Govern the Unaligned was changed such that you could not play action modifiers in conjustion with it (assuming that there were only two other cards that had similar effects to GtUA, one that was Rare and one that was far more conditional in use). As that is not a desireable change, I fail to see why changing TS is. "I took this to mean that Peter held the view that TS was much more useful than the card with the most similar effect (to the errata'ed TS): FoD. Otherwise, in my thinking, his statements would have been erroneous." In terms of cost for effect, Torn Signpost is no more effective than Fists of Death. In terms of a Potence based IG combat deck, TS is a bit more utilitarian, as it costs no blood, although FoD is still used to stack on top of TS, and as such, used as well. This is a very similar situation to a bleed deck deciding between Govern and Conditioning. Neither is inherrently more effective for bleeding than the other one, but rather than using 12 of one, it is more likely that you would use 6 of each, for the stackability. "But he corrected me - that it is not really his view that TS is much more useful. I do not know how this fits in with his other statements, however." It doesn't change them at all. My threefold argument still is thus: 1) Changing TS is an unneeded weakening (however slight) of Potence decks. 2) Changing TS requires Pot decks to have even a greater reliance on Rare cards than it already has. 3) Neither the card text nor any other designer based evidence support any sort of change to TS. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: "Right. Meaning that the card text of the VTES version was not viewed as a change from the Jyhad version. Either because the new text was how the designers (distinct from the RT) "knew" the card to function, or because of an oversight." Ok. Then if the VTES version of TS is was not supposed to be a change from the Jyhad version, then the card should be working the way that it is now (i.e. the "erattaed" way). Assuming that the Jyhad wording meant "this vampire has 2 hand damage" (which is what I assume it means), and there was no deliberate change in the way the card works between the Jyhad and VTES version, the the VTES TS is, as I have maintained all along, a very poorly written "clarification" of the Jyhad ruling that makes no sense. Sadly, however, I am pretty certain that your assertion from the above statement is that the original way TS was supposed to work was in the way that is possibly implied by the VTES wording, and as such, the VTES version is a less poorly written clarification than I would have you all believe. As the Jyhad version seems to make much more sense (in terms of actual verbiage) than the VTES version (IMO), I can only assume that the Jyhad version is the correct one, and that, if, in fact the VTES version was not a deliberate change, then the VTES version is a poorly written clarification that doesn't work. As such, the Jyhad wording should take precidence, as the VTES version makes no sense. [ quoted text not captured ]

> And your disagreement with my points has nothing to do with my motives. My > motives for being involved in this discussion are not at issue, and you > bringing them up has just as little to do with the issue. Agreed. I misspoke. My intention was not to say that you shouldn't debate the issue because of personal self-interest, nor was it a condemnation of your motives. It was simply a statement that the effect that changing the errata has on deck construction has little relevance in my opinion...and that has a lot to do with the issue. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: [I wrote] : > Just because I supported the 7/7 changes doesn't mean that I support all : > proposed changes to the current environment. I do believe that if it's : > not broken it shouldn't be fixed - which I thought was your position as : > well, but now it seems that you are just as much an idealist as I am, : > except that your ideal seems to be 'card text' where mine is 'game balance' . : > ;-) : *grin* An astute observation....and an accurate one. I'm loathe to call : any card "broken". I will agree that RtI and Thoughts Betrayed in their : original form were not well thought out...and as a result, I don't use them : in any of my decks. That's a strange way of thinking to me. From my point of view, if there's something wrong (not well thought out, whatever) with a game I like, I'd like to have it fixed. Simply leaving the 'broken' cards out of my decks (or even out of the decks of everyone I play with) isn't as satisfying (because it doesn't solve the problem, it just ignores it). : The fix to RtI seemed to me a whole lot of needless text. It looks like what : we're going to do with RtI in Michigan is prohibit all Action Modifiers with : RtI. We'll see how it works out....although, I don't expect we'll see it : being used very often since using RtI in Michigan is almost universally : despised. Esp. after I did a Setite deck that stole vampires and then used : them to RtI with Horrific Countenance and Day Op. It was sick and rude. I don't like the 7/7 RTI fix that much myself; I would have preferred something reducing the bleed bonus or making it harder to get through (or both). : On the other hand, the fix to Thoughts Betrayed is a minor change to the : card text and most of the people on the Michigan Rules Team was happy : with it...including myself. : Essentially, I would prefer that any "fixes" be as close to the original text : of the card as possible. It cuts down on confusion when helping a new : player to design a new deck. Well, that's not something I'm completely opposed to. I just think that, when fixes are necessary, game balance should very much take precedence over card text. : > What about arguing for not changing the rules from what people are used : > to? This errata has existed for I think upwards of two years, and was : > effectively in place for the year or more between the release of Jyhad and : > the release of the VTES edition. : If I argued for not changing the rules on that basis, I'd be arguing every : piece of errata that comes out. Fortunately, I have too much of a life to : start doing that. Well, my point here is that I don't think it's helpful in terms of simplicity to change TS to a VTES-text-based operation, since I think everyone playing the game is 'used to' having it work the way it does - as a strength-increasing effect, not a strike-creating effect. That is, I see 'returning' to VTES text as an effective proliferation of errata, since the current errata is so entrenched and widespread. : > What about melee weapons? Not only the VTES melee weapons but also the : > Ancient Hearts and Sabbat ones seemed to imply that they gave the bearer : > a 'strength' bonus rather than the ability to strike with the weapons for : > weapon damage. : While it may be taken to imply that, common sense would dictate otherwise. : The VTES wording was written so that a Bastard Sword would not do 2 damage : even if you pumped up your base hand damage (as an example). Not sure what you're saying here. The VTES wording on Bastard Sword is: "Melee Weapon Minion with this weapon inflicts +1 hand damage with each strike." The problem is that it doesn't specify that you are striking with the Bastard Sword when doing your +1 hand damage on each strike. 'Common sense' can't be taken for granted in card games, especially when wordings aren't actually clear... : > I think you'd agree that later card text was not : > better in that case? : Quite the contrary. They had to word it as correctly as possible in as little : space as possible. I think they did fine in that regard and I see no problem : with it. It's often very difficult to get the spirit of the card perfectly : worded in such a small space....esp. with us hen-pecking rules lawyers : putting the magnifying glass to it looking for loopholes to abuse the hell out : of. I think they could have done a lot better, since people were actually asking whether you could Wolf Claws a Bang Nakh or Bastard Sword strike. They could have said, for example, "Bearer may strike with Bang Nakh for hand damage +2." And I don't think the people who were confused by the unclear template were rules lawyers looking for loopholes, I think they were people who just couldn't figure out how melee weapons were supposed to work because they weren't written clearly. : > is not a useful one. But the argument that 'non-overpowered decks should no t : > be weakened unnecessarily' seems like a good one to me. : The problem with that is that I can build a 'non-overpowered deck' with : Thoughts Betrayed. Can I use that as an argument to call for it to return to : original card text? Sure....but nobody would listen, nor would I expect them : to. That's a good point. What I really mean, I suppose, is that non-overpowered cards shouldn't be weakened unnecessarily, which would then avoid weakening non-overpowered decks. Josh wood eye... wood eye... (note - posting this via dejanews cause it looks like the newton.ruph.cornell.edu server doesn't like me anymore) [ quoted text not captured ]