Summon the Serpent agitation

I know we keep having this argument, but i would like to lobby again for StS having its icon changed to a Serpentis icon, and the superior text allowed. Here is the most recent discussion of the matter i could find: Bryant Durrell wrote: > > OK, I'm sure I'm just being without clue, here, but -- Summon the > Serpent has some plain card text (very straightforward) and some > bold card text. But it's not a Discipline card, it just requires > a Follower of Set to play. So when does the bold text kick in? LSJ's reply: Summon the Serpent [AH] - Action (FoS) (2) * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the Serpent. [TOM 960604] My two fang's worth: I'm really not sure why the rules team don't like this change. It's true it could make quite a nice pool-gain engine with Saqqaf, but it wouldn't be THAT much better than Art Scam, and it costs more. At the least, could we have an explanation of why the card shouldn't be changed? Legbiter, on the verge of liquidating his Setite/Giovanni deck in order to create a Setite/Assamite bleed-vote monster and a !Tremere/Giovanni combat monster. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > I know we keep having this argument, but i would like to lobby again for StS > having its icon changed to a Serpentis icon, and the superior text allowed. > Here is the most recent discussion of the matter i could find: Wow. I wasn't aware of the following errata: > * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the > Serpent. [TOM 960604] I think it will take about 0.05 seconds for the MJL rules team to come to consensus that the card should be a Serpentis, rather than a Setite, card. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > I know we keep having this argument, but i would like to lobby again for StS > > having its icon changed to a Serpentis icon, and the superior text allowed. > > Here is the most recent discussion of the matter i could find: > > Wow. I wasn't aware of the following errata: > > > * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the > > Serpent. [TOM 960604] That isn't errata - it is card text. The "superior" is unusable in the absence of a discipline requirement. > I think it will take about 0.05 seconds for the MJL rules team to come > to consensus that the card should be a Serpentis, rather than a > Setite, card. And a similar amount of time to reach a consensus that Concealed Weapon doesn't require Obfuscate, yes? It is this type of errata that the current RT is attempting to minimize. -- 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 [ quoted text not captured ]

>Wow. I wasn't aware of the following errata: >> * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the >> Serpent. [TOM 960604] Unfortunate, isn't it? >I think it will take about 0.05 seconds for the MJL rules team to come >to consensus that the card should be a Serpentis, rather than a >Setite, card. Wow, that long? Come on, Noal, can't you push it through any faster? :p a0

In article <7b6hij$d27$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Wow. I wasn't aware of the following errata: > > > * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the > > Serpent. [TOM 960604] That's not errata. It's clarification. Obviously, you can't be have superior Follower of Set so the superior is meaningless (apart from meaning the quality assurance people are idiots:) > I think it will take about 0.05 seconds for the MJL rules team to come > to consensus that the card should be a Serpentis, rather than a > Setite, card. Don't forget Purity of the Beast. Of course, it will be interesting to see what discipline you choose. What about Disguised Weapon? Obviously, it should have been disciplineless. Oh my God, you're rewriting every card! The end of the world is coming! I encourage all MJL players to quit playing Jyhad entirely! (That's very cynnical sarcasm for the humor impaired.) Gee, so much for minimizing errata, eh? And you obviously can't have a consistent basis for your rulings if don't also errata cards like Concealed Weapon. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > > * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the > > > Serpent. [TOM 960604] > > That isn't errata - it is card text. The "superior" is unusable in > the absence of a discipline requirement. So...let's say that we say that you have to control a Malkavian to play Malkavian Dementia and a Toreador to play Tragic Love Affair and a Brujah to play Brujah Frenzy and a.... After all, it isn't errata. It's card text. :P Changing the symbol from Setite to Serpentis preserves the obvious intent of the card. It is certainly more unobtrusive than removing an entire sentence from the card. > > I think it will take about 0.05 seconds for the MJL rules team to come > > to consensus that the card should be a Serpentis, rather than a > > Setite, card. > > And a similar amount of time to reach a consensus that Concealed > Weapon doesn't require Obfuscate, yes? No. There's no clear cut case for that. Besides, just removing the discipline symbol makes it usable by allies. I'm not sure that's a good idea. > It is this type of errata that the current RT is attempting to minimize. What type of errata? Minimal changes that preserve the obvious intent of a card? If that's the case, why is Soul Burn being looked at to be brought in line with Blood Fury and Rage? Or are you trying to minimize the type of errata that added a superior version to Soul Stealing? I'm beginning to think that you don't like the competition of an organized rules team independant of yours. *grin* Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

>Gee, so much for minimizing errata, eh? And you obviously can't have >a consistent basis for your rulings if don't also errata cards like >Concealed Weapon. It sounds like what he's proposing is the same amount of eratta/ clarification for the card as is already there. That doesn't seem like *more* to me. Also, other than being inferior to Disguised Weapon, there is nothing on Concealed Weapon that would suggest that it _should_ be disciplenless. However, Summon the Serpent has text that does suggest that it should have been a discipline card. Huge differece, IMO. a0

>> > * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the >> > Serpent. [TOM 960604] >That isn't errata - it is card text. The "superior" is unusable in >the absence of a discipline requirement. [snip] >It is this type of errata that the current RT is attempting to minimize. It seems to me that "Misprinted, requires Serpentis instead" (or somesuch. Misprints aren't unknown (see V:tes Asylum HG)) is just as good as * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the Serpent. and that the former makes more sense in light of the fact that the card does have bolded superior text. Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <7b6qpe$lqe$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: LSJ > * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the LSJ > Serpent. [TOM 960604] LSJ > That isn't errata - it is card text. The "superior" is unusable in LSJ> the absence of a discipline requirement. > So...let's say that we say that you have to control a Malkavian to play > Malkavian Dementia and a Toreador to play Tragic Love Affair and a > Brujah to play Brujah Frenzy and a.... > After all, it isn't errata. It's card text. :P And obvious mistakes as the Jyhad versions did not have errata added to them before V:tES came out. > Changing the symbol from Setite to Serpentis preserves the obvious > intent of the card. It is certainly more unobtrusive than removing an > entire sentence from the card. As LSJ stated, the text isn't removed; that would be errata. The clarification from Tom Wylie in 1996 says to "ignore" the superior. LSJ > And a similar amount of time to reach a consensus that Concealed LSJ > Weapon doesn't require Obfuscate, yes? > No. There's no clear cut case for that. Besides, just removing the > discipline symbol makes it usable by allies. I'm not sure that's a > good idea. But obviously, that's the way it was intended. Same argument as Summon the Serpent. LSJ > It is this type of errata that the current RT is attempting to minimize. > What type of errata? Minimal changes that preserve the obvious > intent of a card? If that's the case, why is Soul Burn being looked at > to be brought in line with Blood Fury and Rage? Being looked at and issuing errata are two different things. I highly doubt errata is forthcoming. > Or are you trying to minimize the type of errata that added a superior > version to Soul Stealing? I'd certainly hope that's one of them if you are referring to changing cards for no apparent reason. But Tom Wylie apparently checked with the designers on that one: http://www.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=135939873.1 ] 7) Soul Stealing left off the fact that it can be played as a combat card. ] However, to make things more interesting, we are making this the superior ] version of the ability, which would read "As above, and this card can also ] be played as a combat card." DJNIABT (DejaNews is a beautiful thing:) Of course, Tom Wylie wasn't exactly known for the most consistent thought processes. > I'm beginning to think that you don't like the competition of an > organized rules team independant of yours. *grin* I'll let LSJ answer this one all on his own. I got a good laugh out of it, though. Btw, Noal, I'm still waiting to hear your responses to a couple of my other posts about the MJL's consistency among rulings. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

"AgentZero" wrote: > It sounds like what he's proposing is the same amount of eratta/ > clarification for the card as is already there. That doesn't seem like > *more* to me. No...but in usual fashion, LSJ will take the high moral ground and defend yet another one of Tom's idiotic rulings and try to say that we are trying to make more errata, when in fact, we are trying to reverse previously made errata (which removing a sentence from card text is) and replace it with a more intuitive and obviously intended errata, namely that the Setite symbol was a misprint. > Also, other than being inferior to Disguised Weapon, there is > nothing on Concealed Weapon that would suggest that it _should_ > be disciplenless. Exactly, but apparently Concealed Weapon is the Oranges of Irrelevence (tm) when we discuss the Apples of Errata that Makes Sense (tm). Here's my statement on Disguised Weapon. For those of you who want to continue to bring it up in the future, bookmark this. I'm only going to say it once. There is no solid evidence that Concealed Weapon is intended to be a disciplineless card. In fact, there's no evidence that it's anything other than one of many major brain farts on the part of the original card designers. Also, in terms of strengthening the card, simply removing the discipline requirement may make the card overpowered...esp. with cards like Crimson Sentinel and so forth. It's my opinion that Concealed Weapon is nothing more than a worn out poster child that everyone brings up when someone brings up possible errata that they don't like. Enough. Drop it already. The horse is dead. Stop beating it. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

>> No. There's no clear cut case for that. Besides, just removing the >> discipline symbol makes it usable by allies. I'm not sure that's a >> good idea. >But obviously, that's the way it was intended. Same argument as >Summon the Serpent. Again other than the fact that it is inferior to DW, there is no argument for intent regarding Concealed Weapon. However, there is a *strong* argument for intent with Summon the Serpent by the simple existance of Superior text. a0

Sorrow wrote: > > >> > * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the > >> > Serpent. [TOM 960604] > >That isn't errata - it is card text. The "superior" is unusable in > >the absence of a discipline requirement. > [snip allusion to Concealed Weapon] > >It is this type of errata that the current RT is attempting to minimize. > > It seems to me that > > "Misprinted, requires Serpentis instead" (or somesuch. Misprints > aren't unknown (see V:tes Asylum HG)) > > is just as good as > > * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the Serpent. It is not. One is errata. One is a clarification that "superior" is meaningless in the absence of a discipline. Errata is issued when needed (see V:TES Asylumn HG). Clarifications are preferred, in the absence of a "need" for errata. > and that the former makes more sense in light of the fact that the > card does have bolded superior text. As much sense as "Concealed Weapon does not require Obf" in light of the fact that CW doesn't have a superior, references the "minion" playing it, etc. See also Purity of the Beast. Much errata could be issued to make things "make more sense". Too much errata is a bad thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:36:29 GMT, "AgentZero" <agen...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >>Gee, so much for minimizing errata, eh? And you obviously can't have >>a consistent basis for your rulings if don't also errata cards like >>Concealed Weapon. > >It sounds like what he's proposing is the same amount of eratta/ >clarification for the card as is already there. That doesn't seem like >*more* to me. >Also, other than being inferior to Disguised Weapon, there is >nothing on Concealed Weapon that would suggest that it _should_ >be disciplenless. However, Summon the Serpent has text that >does suggest that it should have been a discipline card. >Huge differece, IMO. Concealed Weapon has no superior version text at all - consistent with Jyhad disciplineless actions, and I don't believe there is any Jyhad discipline card without SOME sort of superior version. (Horrific Countenance started that trend in DS.) Concealed Weapon provides an 11th Jyhad Obfuscate card, I believe - while all other disciplines had 10 (assuming you convert Blood Rage from a Fortitude to a Thaumaturgy card.) Concealed Weapon provides an identical base effect to Disguised Weapon, except Concealed Weapon has multiple elaborate restrictions on it - no other Jyhad cards match up this closely except for Blood Rage/Blood Fury, and the difference there is in line with "cost/effect": get an extra point of damage BUT it costs you a blood. There is no cost benefit for using Concealed Weapon instead of inferior Disguised Weapon - CW was obviously intended to be a significantly inferior version of DW, and with all the other evidence above it seems quite obvious that CW was simply a misprint and should not have had the OBF symbol. Whether it's a good idea to add errata to the card clarifying the misprint is a different story. The card's "2 pool or 4 damage" restrictions seem carefully designed to exclude a certain subset of cards - the 4 damage restriction looked odd at first until I remembered the 1-pool Bomb with 5R damage, and the RPG Launcher. Of the Jyhad cards remaining, the Ivory Bow and Sengir Dagger are both fairly nasty to have an ally whip out as a surprise, but they -are- unique and can be contested - and allies are fairly fragile anyway. (Most people's concerns seem to revolve around allies using the card, instead of vampires.) But with the plethora of weapons added SINCE Jyhad, and with the misprinted CW in place... well, imagine one of those itsy-bitsy CEL Toreador (or a Renegade Garou) whipping out the Crimson Sentinel (2 pool, note) on you in combat... or maybe Sarah Brando hauling out the Sword of Judgement (also 2 pool). Icky. -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > "AgentZero" wrote: > > It sounds like what he's proposing is the same amount of eratta/ > > clarification for the card as is already there. That doesn't seem like > > *more* to me. > > No...but in usual fashion, LSJ will take the high moral ground and defend > yet another one of Tom's idiotic rulings and try to say that we are trying > to make more errata, when in fact, we are trying to reverse previously > made errata (which removing a sentence from card text is) Tom never issued errata to remove the bolded sentence from the card. If LSJ is saying that the MJL is trying to make more errata than the current RT he is, in this case, exactly correct. There are a lot of people who don't understand clarifications. Clarifications are responses by official individuals on any number of subjects that are properly laid out in the rules or card texts, but that still generate a question. In my experience, most of the questions come from people trying to twist card texts. If you were to remove all of the clarifications, the game and every card in it would still function the exact same way. -- Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

Mike wrote: > But obviously, that's the way it [Concealed Weapon]was intended. > Same argument as Summon the Serpent. However, in the case of StS, there is no issue of game balance. The same may not be true of CW. I'm still not convinced that CW was intended to be without a discipline. I wouldn't mind playtesting it without the Obf requirement, but I expect that avenues for abuse will become readily apparent. > Of course, Tom Wylie wasn't exactly known for the most consistent thought > processes. ...as his record clearly shows. However, I'll grant you that a rules team, by virtue of being made up of differing viewpoints isn't likely to be as consistent as one individual. > > I'm beginning to think that you don't like the competition of an > > organized rules team independant of yours. *grin* > > I'll let LSJ answer this one all on his own. I got a good laugh out of > it, though. That's good, Mike. It was entirely intended to be tongue-in-cheek. I hope by now Scott knows when to take me seriously and when I'm just giving him shit. I try to make the *grin* emote when I'm not being entirely serious. > Btw, Noal, I'm still waiting to hear your responses to a > couple of my other posts about the MJL's consistency among rulings. Like I've said before, we're a group of five entirely different viewpoints, with a few contributing voices. This keeps one view from being more dominant than the others, hopefully producing a balance. Consistency is a pipe dream since total consensus happens on about 25% of the issues. I could look up which ones were, but Pulled Fangs and VTES agg rules are two that spring to mind. Most of the rulings are usually a 4-1 majority with a few being 3-2 (like the RtI one). If we can't get a simple majority we put it off for later debate. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Tom never issued errata to remove the bolded sentence from the card. If Incorrect. Tom's ruling has already been quoted...by LSJ, no less. > LSJ is saying that the MJL is trying to make more errata than the > current RT he is, in this case, exactly correct. That's bull. If the MJL replaces one errata with another, we are not naking more errata. There is a contradiction on the card. Whether you make a ruling to ignore (which is effectively removing) the superior text or make a ruling that the clan symbol was a misprint and it should be replaced with a Serpentis symbol, you still have issued errata. Play as many word games as you like. Tom's ruling was errata, not a clarification. A clarification only explains a poor wording, it doesn't remove card text entirely. > There are a lot of people who don't understand clarifications. Apparently, you and LSJ happen to be two of them. > Clarifications are responses by official individuals on any number of > subjects that are properly laid out in the rules or card texts, but that > still generate a question. So, a superior version of a clan symbol is "properly laid out"? *snort* > In my experience, most of the questions come > from people trying to twist card texts. Maybe so, but in this case there is a clear contradiction on the card for which errata _must_ be issued. > If you were to remove all of > the clarifications, the game and every card in it would still function > the exact same way. *shrug* So? You either remove text or change the symbol. Without either errata, the card doesn't make sense. It's a lot different than explaining that Torn Signpost sets the base hand damage to 2 or 3. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Also, other than being inferior to Disguised Weapon, there is > > nothing on Concealed Weapon that would suggest that it _should_ > > be disciplenless. > > Exactly, but apparently Concealed Weapon is the Oranges of Irrelevence (tm) > when we discuss the Apples of Errata that Makes Sense (tm). Here's my > statement on Disguised Weapon. For those of you who want to continue to > bring it up in the future, bookmark this. I'm only going to say it once. This sounds pompous, especially since what you are about to say is demonstrably untrue. > There is no solid evidence that Concealed Weapon is intended to be a > disciplineless card. In fact, there's no evidence that it's anything other > than one of many major brain farts on the part of the original card designers. I don't know what you mean by "solid evidence". I think most people consider the accumulated circumstantial evidence to be pretty overwhelming. To me, denying that "Concealed Weapon" was once intended to be disciplineless is a bit like arguing that "Blood Rage" really was supposed to have fortitude. I suspect the reason that one was corrected and the other not, was that with "Blood Rage" people could look up the VTM sourcebooks, and say "See, it says here that Blood Rage is a Thaumaturgy power." Concealed Weapon has no such smoking gun, but.... -- Card concept as evidenced by title and art: One does not need any mystical abilities to hide a gun under one's jacket. A "Concealed Weapon" is not a mystical power from any role-playing game. Rather, it is a pretty common crime in most cities. -- The card uses almost the same text as the inferior version of Disguised Weapon, but replaces the word "vampire" with the word "minion". -- It also *adds* a restriction. The added restriction makes it inferior to the inferior version of Disguised Weapon, just as the added restriction to Lucky Blow makes it inferior to Undead Strength. The apparent concept behind the added restriction is that without mystical powers, it is difficult to conceal large bulky weapons. It is a clumsy, elaborate restriction, that would not have been added to the card without specific reason. If they were not trying to make a less-powerful alternative to Disguised Weapon, then I cannot for the life of me figure what the purpose of such a restriction might be. -- The card does not have a Superior version. Army of Rats is the only other card that does this from the original set, and that is a permanent. -- It's presence raises the number of Obfuscate cards in the set to 11. All other cards in the set had 10. > Also, in terms of strengthening the card, simply removing the discipline > requirement may make the card overpowered...esp. with cards like > Crimson Sentinel and so forth. This is a totally different argument which has nothing to do with the card's original intent. Obviously the original designers did not have Crimson Sentinel in mind at the time. I am no longer advocating for adding errata to make this disciplineless, but I still hold to my opinion that doing so would not make the card overpowered. Both weapons and allies are notoriously underpowered aspects of the game, and desperately need a card like this to make them viable. The Brujah allies in particular desperately need to be able to whip out guns, because otherwise they die in every combat (they probably will anyway), and combat is all they are good for 'cause they certainly don't vote or bleed. Certain weapons are more powerful than others, but this imbalance is a problem with the overpowered weapon, not with the support card that helps *all* weapons. In any event, weapons are so expensive, and so easily hosed by a whole host of combat cards (such as DotB and IG), that even a Concealed Weapon/Crimson Sentinel deck could not possibly be considered broken. If it were so abusable, then why do we not see it abused? There are plenty of vamps with Obfuscate to whip out Crimson Sentinels! IMHO, anyone who thinks concealed weapon is a scary has never tried playing with Disguised Weapon. I am one of the few players I know who uses the card to good effect, but it is OH SO easily hosed, and would be hosed far more often if people expected their opponents to be dumb enough to use weapons in combat. In JOL 91 I recently whipped out a Disguised Assault Rifle which instantly got eaten by a Canine Horde. 5 pool down the drain. Ouch! > It's my opinion that Concealed Weapon is nothing more than a worn out > poster child that everyone brings up when someone brings up possible > errata that they don't like. Enough. Drop it already. The horse is dead. > Stop beating it. Personally, I stopped beating this one long ago. Now that we know there are going to be more cards printed, I would prefer that errata *not* be added to CW. It would be far more fitting, and would minimize errata lists, if a new disciplineless version of "Disguised Weapon" were printed. Preferably, it would have a less clumsy restriction like "no unique weapons" or something similar. (Not, of course that I think it would be overpowered without such a restriction -- just that it is a more elegant than the original restriction, and would mollify those misguided few who think the unique weapons are horridly scary.) Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > Tom never issued errata to remove the bolded sentence from the card. If > > Incorrect. Tom's ruling has already been quoted...by LSJ, no less. Yes, I've seen Tom's words quoted. What you seem to be missing is that Ruling, Errata, and Clarification are not synonyms. There are distinct definitions for these categories. > > > LSJ is saying that the MJL is trying to make more errata than the > > current RT he is, in this case, exactly correct. > > That's bull. If the MJL replaces one errata with another, we are not > naking more errata. There is a contradiction on the card. Whether > you make a ruling to ignore (which is effectively removing) the > superior text or make a ruling that the clan symbol was a misprint > and it should be replaced with a Serpentis symbol, you still have > issued errata. Play as many word games as you like. Tom's ruling > was errata, not a clarification. A clarification only explains a > poor wording, it doesn't remove card text entirely. A clarification does not explain poor wording. You are mistaken. > > There are a lot of people who don't understand clarifications. > > Apparently, you and LSJ happen to be two of them. Go through the clarifications. Do you truly believe that "multiple brainwashes may be played on a vampire" is there to explain poor wording? > > > Clarifications are responses by official individuals on any number of > > subjects that are properly laid out in the rules or card texts, but that > > still generate a question. > > So, a superior version of a clan symbol is "properly laid out"? *snort* > By simply following the rules Summon the Serpent can be played properly. > > In my experience, most of the questions come > > from people trying to twist card texts. > > Maybe so, but in this case there is a clear contradiction on the > card for which errata _must_ be issued. I'll grant that to make the card work as I think they intended they'd need to issue errata. But, the card is still playable as it is now. > > > If you were to remove all of > > the clarifications, the game and every card in it would still function > > the exact same way. > > *shrug* So? > You either remove text or change the symbol. Without > either errata, the card doesn't make sense. It's a lot different > than explaining that Torn Signpost sets the base hand damage to 2 or 3. You are arguing that the card needs errata to function. This isn't true. To have the bolded text available or for the card to function as intended, yes, you'd need errata. The question then becomes, is errata justified to make the card function as intended. [ quoted text not captured ]

For me " Summon the Serpent " must have the symbol of Serpentis without eliminate the advanced power of card. Thoughts of this card without the advanced power, would be one card nearly insignificant. After all the Follower of Set must have some strong card other than Temptation. part.l...@my-dejanews.com ha scritto: > I know we keep having this argument, but i would like to lobby again for StS > having its icon changed to a Serpentis icon, and the superior text allowed. > Here is the most recent discussion of the matter i could find: > > Bryant Durrell wrote: > > > > OK, I'm sure I'm just being without clue, here, but -- Summon the > > Serpent has some plain card text (very straightforward) and some > > bold card text. But it's not a Discipline card, it just requires > > a Follower of Set to play. So when does the bold text kick in? > > LSJ's reply: Summon the Serpent [AH] - Action (FoS) (2) > > * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the > Serpent. [TOM 960604] > > My two fang's worth: I'm really not sure why the rules team don't like this > change. It's true it could make quite a nice pool-gain engine with Saqqaf, > but it wouldn't be THAT much better than Art Scam, and it costs more. At the > least, could we have an explanation of why the card shouldn't be changed? > > Legbiter, on the verge of liquidating his Setite/Giovanni deck in order to > create a Setite/Assamite bleed-vote monster and a !Tremere/Giovanni combat > monster. > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Toraneth wrote: > For me " Summon the Serpent " must have the symbol of Serpentis without > eliminate the advanced power of card. Thoughts of this card without the > advanced power, would be one card nearly insignificant. After all the > Follower of Set must have some strong card other than Temptation. I do not support the idea of errata to replace the Settite symbol. But I do feel that allowing Settites to use either option makes at least as much sense as the current ruling. Same goes for Purity of the Beast. > > LSJ's reply: Summon the Serpent [AH] - Action (FoS) (2) > > > > * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the > > Serpent. [TOM 960604] My problem here is that it could be argued that there is no "superior version text" to ignore. There is simply bold text offering a second option. If this were a card requiring a discipline, then there are rules stating that on such cards such bold text options are usable only by persons with the superior version of the required discipline. That not being the case here, the boldness of the text cannot be assigned any special meaning by referencing the available rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7b6hij$d27$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >> * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the >> Serpent. [TOM 960604] > >I think it will take about 0.05 seconds for the MJL rules team to come >to consensus that the card should be a Serpentis, rather than a >Setite, card. But from card text, you can't use the superior (no such thing as superior setite). The "errata" is merely a clarification, surely? What happened to minimising errata? -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

In article <7b952t$i9o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com writes >> LSJ is saying that the MJL is trying to make more errata than the >> current RT he is, in this case, exactly correct. > >That's bull. If the MJL replaces one errata with another, we are not >naking more errata. You are not replacing an errata. The clarification merely shows that there is no such thing as a Superior Setite, as a lot of people work out anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <781E432F3C6A0EB0.CC1B2DFDDB9F4401.2BB089AC271549EE@library- proxy.airnews.net>, Derek S. Ray <lor...@nospam.nineball.org> writes >Concealed Weapon has no superior version text at all - consistent with >Jyhad disciplineless actions, and I don't believe there is any Jyhad >discipline card without SOME sort of superior version. (Horrific >Countenance started that trend in DS.) It could be easily argued the Concealed Weapon started it in Jyhad. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7b6hij$d27$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > I know we keep having this argument, but i would like to lobby again for StS > > having its icon changed to a Serpentis icon, and the superior text allowed. > > Here is the most recent discussion of the matter i could find: > > Wow. I wasn't aware of the following errata: > > > * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the > > Serpent. [TOM 960604] > > I think it will take about 0.05 seconds for the MJL rules team to come > to consensus that the card should be a Serpentis, rather than a > Setite, card. It really makes sense to change FoS to Serpentis. I would go with you this way. I don't think it would cause that much trouble.... ;) Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7b6nip$ipr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > I know we keep having this argument, but i would like to lobby again for StS > > > having its icon changed to a Serpentis icon, and the superior text allowed. > > > Here is the most recent discussion of the matter i could find: > > > > Wow. I wasn't aware of the following errata: > > > > > * Ignore the superior version text on Summon the > > > Serpent. [TOM 960604] > > That isn't errata - it is card text. The "superior" is unusable in > the absence of a discipline requirement. > > > I think it will take about 0.05 seconds for the MJL rules team to come > > to consensus that the card should be a Serpentis, rather than a > > Setite, card. > > And a similar amount of time to reach a consensus that Concealed > Weapon doesn't require Obfuscate, yes? > > It is this type of errata that the current RT is attempting to minimize. But StS is clearly misprinted; the symbol should be serpentis instead of FoS. With Blythe Candelaria the RT issued errata (she is misprinted), with this card not? That seems not logical. Please explain. Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Derek S. Ray <lor...@nospam.nineball.org> writes > >Concealed Weapon has no superior version text at all - consistent with > >Jyhad disciplineless actions, and I don't believe there is any Jyhad > >discipline card without SOME sort of superior version. (Horrific > >Countenance started that trend in DS.) > > It could be easily argued the Concealed Weapon started it in Jyhad. Note: Army of Rats, printed in Jyhad, has no Superior. -- 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 ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > I think it will take about 0.05 seconds for the MJL rules team to come to > > > consensus that [Summon the Serpent] should be a Serpentis, rather than a > > > Setite, card. > > > > And a similar amount of time to reach a consensus that Concealed > > Weapon doesn't require Obfuscate, yes? > > > > It is this type of errata that the current RT is attempting to minimize. > > But StS is clearly misprinted; the symbol should be serpentis instead of > FoS. With Blythe Candelaria the RT issued errata (she is misprinted), > with this card not? That seems not logical. Please explain. 1) Blythe's errata came directly from the designers of the Blythe card who noticed immediately that the card had been misprinted. 2) Blythe, as printed, is over-powered. It is the latter point that the current RT is interested in. The first point is listed only to clarify who issued what errata (a point that seems to be an obstacle to the "logic" or, rather "consistency", perception). If StS was/is not overpowered (like Summon the Serpent, Concealed Weapon, etc.) and doesn't warrant errata for other reasons, then no errata is issued. In addition, even if Blythe was not overpowered before her errata, the errata would not necessarily be removed, since it has been around so long and does not, itself, cause more problems (cf. the Torn Signpost errata). [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Derek S. Ray writes > >Concealed Weapon has no superior version text at all - consistent with > >Jyhad disciplineless actions, and I don't believe there is any Jyhad > >discipline card without SOME sort of superior version. (Horrific > >Countenance started that trend in DS.) > > It could be easily argued the Concealed Weapon started it in Jyhad. You're both wrong. Army of Rats. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > In article <7b6nip$ipr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > And a similar amount of time to reach a consensus that Concealed > > Weapon doesn't require Obfuscate, yes? > > > > It is this type of errata that the current RT is attempting to minimize. > > But StS is clearly misprinted; the symbol should be serpentis instead of > FoS. With Blythe Candelaria the RT issued errata (she is misprinted), > with this card not? That seems not logical. Please explain. The Settite symbol on Summon the Serpent is arguably not a misprint. Whenever a new discipline is introduced, the set has *always* provided 10 cards for that discipline. Since Serpentis has 10 cards, and Summon the Serpent would have made 11, it stands to reason that Summon the Serpent was not meant to be a Serpentis card. Also, the Settite symbol is arguably more fitting. Using this card implies you need to bring a vampire with Serpentis into play. This need makes more sense if you do not necessarily already have such a vampire in play. My understanding is that it was originally written as a Serpentis card, but then the design team changed its mind and decided to make it a Settite card. However, they neglected to remove the second option or consolidate the two options into one. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > "AgentZero" wrote: > > It sounds like what he's proposing is the same amount of eratta/ > > clarification for the card as is already there. That doesn't seem like > > *more* to me. > > No...but in usual fashion, LSJ will take the high moral ground and defend > yet another one of Tom's idiotic rulings and try to say that we are trying > to make more errata, when in fact, we are trying to reverse previously > made errata (which removing a sentence from card text is) and replace it > with a more intuitive and obviously intended errata, namely that the Setite > symbol was a misprint. Like the MJL tried to reverse the previously made (D)-symbol-grants-omnidirectability errata in favor of the obviously intended and intutive _rulebook_text_ (not errata)? Oh, wait, that was the current RT. The MJL wants to keep that errata (and the errata that goes with with regarding all the "missing" (D) symbols). Your complaints about the current RT are starting(?) to ring hollow. To be clear: no errata has ever existed for Summon the Serpent, idiotic or otherwise. If you can figure out some way to have "superior Follower of Setness", feel free to use the superior. As Tom knew, and the current RT knows, and most other players know, there is no such concept as "superior clan", so the "superior" portion of a clan-based (or non-discpline-based in general) minion card is extraneous. Since there is no mechanism for using the superior text, the superior text can safely be ignored. There is a distinct difference between ignoring an unusable part of card text and removing text (usable or not) - the latter is errata, the former is not (it's not even a ruling). If you do not agree, feel free not to ignore the text (ignoring the clarification - which changes nothing). Use it if you can (i.e., if you get "superior Settiteness"). You get the same results. Such is the nature of clarifications. -- 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 ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > "AgentZero" wrote: > > It sounds like what he's proposing is the same amount of eratta/ > > clarification for the card as is already there. That doesn't seem like > > *more* to me. > > No...but in usual fashion, LSJ will take the high moral ground and defend > yet another one of Tom's idiotic rulings and try to say that we are trying > to make more errata, when in fact, we are trying to reverse previously > made errata (which removing a sentence from card text is) and replace it > with a more intuitive and obviously intended errata, namely that the Setite > symbol was a misprint. To be clear: no erratum has ever existed for Summon the Serpent, idiotic or otherwise. If you can figure out some way to have "superior Follower of Setness", feel free to use the superior. As Tom knew, and the current RT knows, and most other players know, there is no such concept as "superior clan", so the "superior" portion of a clan-based (or non-discpline-based in general) minion card is extraneous. Since there is no mechanism for using the superior text, the superior text can safely be ignored. There is a clear difference between ignoring an unusable part of [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7be4vs$dba$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > Derek S. Ray writes > > >Concealed Weapon has no superior version text at all - consistent with > > >Jyhad disciplineless actions, and I don't believe there is any Jyhad > > >discipline card without SOME sort of superior version. (Horrific > > >Countenance started that trend in DS.) > > > > It could be easily argued the Concealed Weapon started it in Jyhad. > > You're both wrong. Army of Rats. And Rampage. (The 'no-superior' discipline card is clearly as old as Jyhad. Why it was ever developed, who knows...) Josh [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > Like the MJL tried to reverse the previously made > (D)-symbol-grants-omnidirectability errata in favor of the obviously > intended and intutive _rulebook_text_ (not errata)? > > Oh, wait, that was the current RT. The MJL wants to keep that errata > (and the errata that goes with with regarding all the "missing" > (D) symbols). Your complaints about the current RT are starting(?) to > ring hollow. What the hell are you talking about? First off, as a group of organized players we have the right to determine for ourselves what rules we play by. There seems to be a belief that MJL wants to erradicate all errata. While that would be nice, it's simply not possible. The measuring stick that I use (and I cannot speak for the other 4 MJL RT members, but I think they would largely agree) for errata is: 1) Does it increase the understanding of the game? 2) Does it increase the enjoyment of the game? This may result in errata that LSJ & co. may not see as needed, but our players are our concern and if they want to institute that a rule that when a player gets a VP he has to do the hokey pokey, than by god, let's dance. As for some of my complaints about the RT, some are ringing quite true. However, I'd prefer to refrain from starting a flame war as people seem to be losing their objectivity lately. I think it would be best for all concerned that I not take this opportunity to shoot my mouth off. > To be clear: no errata has ever existed for Summon the Serpent, idiotic > or otherwise. If you can figure out some way to have "superior Follower > of Setness", feel free to use the superior. Whether you call it clarification or not, instructing people to ignore text (effectively removing it) _is_ errata as far as I am concerned. Changing the icon is a relatively cosmetic change compared to the one currently used. > There is a distinct difference between ignoring an unusable part of > card text and removing text (usable or not) - the latter is errata, > the former is not (it's not even a ruling). There is little difference in the result of the two. One is effectively the same as the other. Either way, if we replace your "clarification" with errata as minor as this, I doubt the world will come to an end. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 01 Mar 1999 16:09:22 GMT, jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: >In article <7be4vs$dba$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: >> James Coupe wrote: >> > Derek S. Ray writes >> > >Concealed Weapon has no superior version text at all - consistent with >> > >Jyhad disciplineless actions, and I don't believe there is any Jyhad >> > >discipline card without SOME sort of superior version. (Horrific >> > >Countenance started that trend in DS.) >> > >> > It could be easily argued the Concealed Weapon started it in Jyhad. >> >> You're both wrong. Army of Rats. > >And Rampage. (The 'no-superior' discipline card is clearly as old as >Jyhad. Why it was ever developed, who knows...) Does Horrific Countenance really NEED a superior form? =) Same for Army of Rats and Rampage, really. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7behne$p78$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > Like the MJL tried to reverse the previously made > > (D)-symbol-grants-omnidirectability errata in favor of the obviously > > intended and intutive _rulebook_text_ (not errata)? > > > > Oh, wait, that was the current RT. The MJL wants to keep that errata > > (and the errata that goes with with regarding all the "missing" > > (D) symbols). Your complaints about the current RT are starting(?) to > > ring hollow. > > What the hell are you talking about? First off, as a group of organized > players we have the right to determine for ourselves what rules we play > by. I don't think he ever said any differently. However, if you wish to criticize the official RT, you should expect criticizm coming at the MJL RT. If you don't want that and your thoughts regarding rulings and such are strictly from a MJL point of view, perhaps you should stop bringing up the differences between MJL and the official rules except when posting tournament announcements, keeping the MJL specific things to the MJL mailing list. > The measuring stick that I use (and I cannot speak for the other 4 MJL RT > members, but I think they would largely agree) for errata is: > 1) Does it increase the understanding of the game? For Summon the Serpent, this is obviously no. You cannot have superior Follower of Setness as LSJ put it. So obviously, the superior text of the card is useless and can be ignored. How much understanding increase does there have to be? Obviously, getting rid of stealth and intercept would make the game more easy to understand, but I don't think any of us want to see that go. The game is inherently complex which for most people is one of its strengths. And what may be simple to one person (like the difference between a clarification and an errata ;) might be complex to someone else. > 2) Does it increase the enjoyment of the game? From who's point of view? It would seem apparent that the MJL is geared towards the enjoyment of the player of cards rather than the targets of cards - Mind Rape, Pulled Fangs. Of course, this is assuming that everyone's basis for enjoyment is the same. For me, I have fun when everyone plays to win and there isn't an element of cheese. > This may result in errata that LSJ & co. may not see as needed, but our > players are our concern and if they want to institute that a rule that when > a player gets a VP he has to do the hokey pokey, than by god, let's dance. All of this makes for incredibly inconsistent rulings which make it impossible for people to intuitively figure out what a ruling might be without actually seeing it. For people who've run tournaments, we know how hard it is to remember all the rulings and errata. At least with the official, a person can get a general feel for what an appropriate ruling might be. > As for some of my complaints about the RT, some are ringing quite true. > However, I'd prefer to refrain from starting a flame war as people seem to be > losing their objectivity lately. I think it would be best for all concerned > that I not take this opportunity to shoot my mouth off. Awwww, come on, Noal. You've shown yourself to be pretty resilient to flames. Or are you just saying that you have nothing of value to say on the topic? ;) > Whether you call it clarification or not, instructing people to ignore text > (effectively removing it) _is_ errata as far as I am concerned. Here, Noal, try this. Pretend that the clarification isn't there. What do you do with the superior text of Summon the Serpent? If you're with a bunch of friends, you might say that it should be Serpentis. But if you go by strict card text and game rules, obviously the superior card text is worthless. In other words, you ignore it. > Changing the icon is a relatively cosmetic change compared to the one > currently used. You simply don't understand the point, do you? See above. LSJ > There is a distinct difference between ignoring an unusable part of LSJ > card text and removing text (usable or not) - the latter is errata, LSJ > the former is not (it's not even a ruling). > There is little difference in the result of the two. One is effectively > the same as the other. Clarifications can all be safely ignored. Look at the card text on Blood to Water. Someone (might have been you) talked about how they always had to explain punctuation and grammar to people who thought it could burn vampires. Obviously, that's not the case. Or Brainwash has a clarification that transfers include putting blood on or taking blood off. That can be figured out from the rulebook, but obviously some people needed it explained. Does Brainwash need this clarification to function that way, disallowing putting blood on or taking off? No, just as you can't have superior Follower of Setness. > Either way, if we replace your "clarification" with errata as minor > as this, I doubt the world will come to an end. I foresee Setite decks dominating the MJL tournament scene for several years to come. You're making a big mistake. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7behne$p78$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: [snip] [Noal wrote] > As for some of my complaints about the RT, some are ringing quite true. > However, I'd prefer to refrain from starting a flame war as people seem to be > losing their objectivity lately. I think it would be best for all concerned > that > I not take this opportunity to shoot my mouth off. Your complaints about the RT are irrelevant, aren't they? Everybody who likes the RT rulings has a right to determine what rules they want to play by... Everybody who doesn't is free to come up with their own ideas. ;-) ;-) ;-) > > To be clear: no errata has ever existed for Summon the Serpent, idiotic > > or otherwise. If you can figure out some way to have "superior Follower > > of Setness", feel free to use the superior. > > Whether you call it clarification or not, instructing people to ignore text > (effectively removing it) _is_ errata as far as I am concerned. Changing > the icon is a relatively cosmetic change compared to the one currently > used. I don't really think so. Or at least, ignoring the superior in a card that doesn't use a discipline is not a *bigger* change than making the card require a discipline where it didn't before. Compare to Purity of the Beast (from the same set): It has a printed superior version (+3 hand damage instead of +2), but no discipline symbol. Would you say that it's relatively cosmetic to assign it to a discipline, as compared to the existing clarification that it has no discipline and therefore the superior text should be ignored? > > There is a distinct difference between ignoring an unusable part of > > card text and removing text (usable or not) - the latter is errata, > > the former is not (it's not even a ruling). > > There is little difference in the result of the two. One is effectively > the same as the other. Either way, if we replace your "clarification" > with errata as minor as this, I doubt the world will come to an end. I agree that the results are probably equally comprehensible either way. And of course the world wouldn't end. Wouldn't end if you errataed Werewolf Pack to be useful either. But there's no reason I can see to overturn the interpretation with two years' standing, since it's just as good as the other. Josh [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal> 1) Does it increase the understanding of the game? Mike> For Summon the Serpent, this is obviously no. Personally, I disagree. For most people that I play with, changing it to a Serpentis card is more intuitive than removing text. Noal> As for some of my complaints about the RT, some are ringing quite true. Noal> However, I'd prefer to refrain from starting a flame war as people seem to Noal> be losing their objectivity lately. I think it would be best for all Noal> concerned that I not take this opportunity to shoot my mouth off. Mike> Awwww, come on, Noal. You've shown yourself to be pretty resilient to MIke> flames. Or are you just saying that you have nothing of value to say Mike> on the topic? ;) Whether or not it's of value, I can't see that personal complaints about LSJ would be even slightly constructive...especially, when both of us already appear to be getting irritated with each other. I'd just prefer to excercise a bit of discretion for once. It's one thing to take public issue with rulings, but it's an entirely different manner to take public issue with an individual. I don't believe this is the place for it. Noal> Either way, if we replace your "clarification" with errata as minor Noal> as this, I doubt the world will come to an end. Mike> I foresee Setite decks dominating the MJL tournament scene for Mike> several years to come. You're making a big mistake. Since we're using the original Golden Rule and seeing how that even if we change Summon the Serpent to a Serpentis card it's still fairly insignificant in cost vs. effect (2 blood cost to get 1 pool and a vampire at superior) I don't see how this will be the case. Before deciding what is and what isn't a big mistake, you may want to actually play in a MJL tournament before passing judgement. *grin* Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7bf1ga$7uo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > Noal> 1) Does it increase the understanding of the game? > > Mike> For Summon the Serpent, this is obviously no. > > Personally, I disagree. For most people that I play with, changing it to > a Serpentis card is more intuitive than removing text. There's no intuition involved. There's simply no construct in the rules for being superior in a clan. I think the problem you are having is with reading the card for exactly what it says; you seem to be trying to read into it. This is extreme theory here so no one bite my head off for it. The same crowd that tries to read things into cards is the same crowd that usually finds broken aspects of cards or loopholes in the rules. They are interested in power through cards rather than through overall strategy. These same people really like the as-written versions of Thoughts Betrayed, ToRIII, and RtI. When these obvious cards open for abuse have their potential for abuse removed, these people become quite upset. As most MJL members apparently didn't like the re-writes period, there was a great amount of dissent. So then it correlates directly to whether they just read the strict card text of SoS or try to read something into it. Hence, the confusion, and therefore, clarification. > Mike> Awwww, come on, Noal. You've shown yourself to be pretty resilient to > MIke> flames. Or are you just saying that you have nothing of value to say > Mike> on the topic? ;) > > Whether or not it's of value, I can't see that personal complaints about LSJ > would be even slightly constructive...especially, when both of us already > appear to be getting irritated with each other. And frustration almost never results in constructive input. Frustration is what leads most critics to fault LSJ rather than deal with it and move on. > Noal> Either way, if we replace your "clarification" with errata as minor > Noal> as this, I doubt the world will come to an end. > > Mike> I foresee Setite decks dominating the MJL tournament scene for > Mike> several years to come. You're making a big mistake. > > Since we're using the original Golden Rule and seeing how that even if we > change Summon the Serpent to a Serpentis card it's still fairly insignificant > in cost vs. effect (2 blood cost to get 1 pool and a vampire at superior) I > don't see how this will be the case. Before deciding what is and what isn't > a big mistake, you may want to actually play in a MJL tournament before > passing judgement. *grin* When responding to suspected sarcasm, it's best to be clear. My bit was sarcasm, but yours doesn't quite push the boundaries of reality enough to make me thing it was sarcasm for sure. Feeling long winded tonight, [ quoted text not captured ]

> This is extreme theory here so no one bite my head off for it. SNAP!!!! Chomp, chomp. The same > crowd that tries to read things into cards is the same crowd that usually > finds broken aspects of cards or loopholes in the rules. They are interested > in power through cards rather than through overall strategy. These same > people really like the as-written versions of Thoughts Betrayed, ToRIII, > and RtI. When these obvious cards open for abuse have their potential > for abuse removed, these people become quite upset. As most MJL members > apparently didn't like the re-writes period, there was a great amount > of dissent. So then it correlates directly to whether they just read the > strict card text of SoS or try to read something into it. Hence, the > confusion, and therefore, clarification. > Excellent, nice to see a bit of VENOM back on the NG after all these months of being relatively nice to each other. If i were in a venomous mood i might respond by saying that the people who like neutering cards that in some ill- defined manner are said to be "broken" or "abusive" are approximately as uncreative as they are unscientific. But i am feeling pretty mellow after eating Mike's head, so i won't. However, having started this thread i'm pleased to see so many people going on record as being heartily opposed to errata of all sorts. So am i. Let's all remember that we agree about this as a PRINCIPLE and try to apply it consistently in future, shall we? And now i will build my Setite deck with StS as a FoS card. Course, that won't stop me playing it the way I think it should be played if i go to Michigan ...... Legbiter, Prince of Wessex, Complacently Slow-Minded Minion of Chaos and Entropy, Grand Loophole-Finder And Principal Abuser of Cards to the Court of King Scott, and Ceremonial Chucker of White Phosphorous Grenades into the Limpid Petrol of the NewsGroup. [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > > Personally, I disagree. For most people that I play with, changing it to > > a Serpentis card is more intuitive than removing text. > > There's no intuition involved. There's simply no construct in the rules > for being superior in a clan. I think the problem you are having is with > reading the card for exactly what it says; you seem to be trying to > read into it. When I read the card exactly as printed, I see a superior text. Since the text mentions the Serpentis discipline, it is a natural change to realize that the card _should_ be a Serpentis card. This is different from the Embrace the Beast (?) card where superior text exists, but there is no clear frame of reference to determine a discipline. By card text, one could infer that it should be Animalism or Potence, but that would be largely baseless speculation. > This is extreme theory here so no one bite my head off for it. The same > crowd that tries to read things into cards is the same crowd that usually > finds broken aspects of cards or loopholes in the rules. They are interested > in power through cards rather than through overall strategy. These same > people really like the as-written versions of Thoughts Betrayed, ToRIII, > and RtI. When these obvious cards open for abuse have their potential > for abuse removed, these people become quite upset. As most MJL members > apparently didn't like the re-writes period, there was a great amount > of dissent. So then it correlates directly to whether they just read the > strict card text of SoS or try to read something into it. Hence, the > confusion, and therefore, clarification. This entire paragraph is based on a fallacy. "As most MJL members apparently didn't like the re-writes [of Thoughts Betrayed, ToRIII and RtI] period, there was a great amount of dissent." The WotC errata for Thoughts Betrayed is used by the MJL and it was agreed my a majority that it was an appropriate fix. With the 7/7 ToRIII and RtI errata, we felt that the errata went too far from original card text. Since then, we have issued our own errata on RtI and new errata has been issued for ToRIII which was also adopted by MJL. The changing of StS from a Setite card to a Serpentis card isn't going to have a huge effect on the game and most people prefer it to removing the superior text. Since you must either ignore or remove the superior text or change the icon, I'd rather go with a popular change. After all, my first priority is that everyone in the MJL still enjoys the game. After all, the 7/7 errata threatened to end play in Michigan altogether. As I've read in other postings, a lot of other play groups did end because of it. > When responding to suspected sarcasm, it's best to be clear. My bit was > sarcasm, but yours doesn't quite push the boundaries of reality enough > to make me thing it was sarcasm for sure. Well, the bulk of it was a serious reply, the last line was toungue-in-cheek. Notice the *grin* that was at the end of it. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7bgrr1$pks$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: Me > There's no intuition involved. There's simply no construct in the rules Me > for being superior in a clan. I think the problem you are having is with Me > reading the card for exactly what it says; you seem to be trying to Me > read into it. > When I read the card exactly as printed, I see a superior text. Since the > text mentions the Serpentis discipline, it is a natural change to realize > that the card _should_ be a Serpentis card. Really? That's weird, because when I first saw the card, I thought they must have forgotten to remove the superior text from a card that was originally a discipline based card, rather than a clan based card. So I just ignored the superior text because there's no rule construct for being superior FoS. Both require some sort of interpretation of what the card was supposed to be, but unlike yours, mine doesn't require any errata but does require clarification for the people who think it should have been Serpentis. > This is different from the > Embrace the Beast (?) card where superior text exists, but there is no > clear frame of reference to determine a discipline. By card text, one > could infer that it should be Animalism or Potence, but that would be > largely baseless speculation. Unless, like one of the disciplineless CW arguments states, some discipline doesn't have as many cards as another discipline in the set. The same analysis, btw, makes StS a FoS, not Serpentis, card. But I'll be the first to admit that this isn't a compelling argument. > This entire paragraph is based on a fallacy. That's why it was extreme theory as I really had no idea how close it might be to reality at all. :) > The changing of StS from a Setite card to a Serpentis card isn't going to have > a huge effect on the game and most people prefer it to removing the superior > text. Since you must either ignore or remove the superior text or change the > icon, I'd rather go with a popular change. That's fine, but once again, you don't have to remove any text to make the official way work. You've never stated a counter to how you become a superior Follower of Set. No interpretation is required - the superior is just useless. > After all, my first priority is > that everyone in the MJL still enjoys the game. After all, the 7/7 errata > threatened to end play in Michigan altogether. As I've read in other > postings, a lot of other play groups did end because of it. And like you said in a previous response to LSJ, I'll leave out my comments out on what I think about the people that just quit playing because of the summer's rulings. > Well, the bulk of it was a serious reply, the last line was toungue-in-cheek. > Notice the *grin* that was at the end of it. Which was the only thing that made me think it was probably sarcasm. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7bdco4$q4m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at writes > With Blythe Candelaria the RT issued errata (she is misprinted), >with this card not? The previous RT issued errata. The current RT did not. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > With Blythe Candelaria the RT issued errata (she is misprinted), > >with this card not? > The previous RT issued errata. The current RT did not. Errata is errata regardless who issued it. The card was misprinted and errata was issued. StS is obviously misprinted so following "Blythe Candelaria"s example, StS should be errata'd to fix the mistake as well. IMO (as if it counted) a0 --- I told the priest - don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. He had the balls to come, the gall to die and then forgive us. No, I don't wonder why, I wonder what he thought it would get us -- Concrete Blonde [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7bjkr9$6lh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Errata is errata regardless who issued it. The card was misprinted > and errata was issued. StS is obviously misprinted so following > "Blythe Candelaria"s example, StS should be errata'd to fix the > mistake as well. > IMO (as if it counted) What you fail to realise is that it's perfectly possible that the superior text is the misprint, not the clan symbol. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > > With Blythe Candelaria the RT issued errata (she is misprinted), > > >with this card not? > > The previous RT issued errata. The current RT did not. > > Errata is errata regardless who issued it. The card was misprinted > and errata was issued. StS is obviously misprinted so following > "Blythe Candelaria"s example, StS should be errata'd to fix the > mistake as well. It was obviously misprinted, yes. Either with the wrong symbol or with superfluous (superior) card text. Just as Purity of the Beast was obviously misprinted (either by omitting a discipline symbol or with superfluous card text). The "solution" for these two (like the "solution" for Concealed Weapon and, until V:TES was printed, the "solution" for Blood Rage) is to "play as printed", not to issue errata. I do not know the reason why errata was issued for Blythe but not for others. Perhaps it is because the designers recognized the misprint on Blythe whereas they recognize that "play as written" achieves the intended result for StS. Perhaps it was because the RT felt that Blythe's misprint was "too powerful". Perhaps something else. -- 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 ]

>> Errata is errata regardless who issued it. The card was misprinted >> and errata was issued. StS is obviously misprinted so following >> "Blythe Candelaria"s example, StS should be errata'd to fix the >> mistake as well. >> IMO (as if it counted) >What you fail to realise is that it's perfectly possible that the >superior text is the misprint, not the clan symbol. While what you say, Mike, may be true, I find it easier to see how the clan symbol a misprint. I can't recall (not that there isn't, I just can't recall) another card that requires a clan to play but references a discipline in it's text. On the subject of discipline, I also find it hard to believe that they would restrict this card to just FoS when it does reference Serpentis in the text. There are vamps of other clans that have Serpentis as one of their disciplines and there may be some yet to come. So as printed, they are unable to use the card because they are not FoS. No, I find it easier to believe that the clan symbol was misprinted and not the superior text. Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <7bju8m$def$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > I can't recall (not that there isn't, I just can't > recall) another card that requires a clan to play but references a > discipline in it's text. Tremere Convocation would be one. Requires a Tremere, but benefits all Tremere and all vampires with Thaumaturgy. > On the subject of discipline, I also find it hard > to believe that they would restrict this card to just FoS when it does > reference Serpentis in the text. There are vamps of other clans that > have Serpentis as one of their disciplines and there may be some > yet to come. So as printed, they are unable to use the card because > they are not FoS. Think of it as the Followers of Set being able to more easily influence anyone who uses the Serpentis discipline. Non-FoS Serpentis users may not be quite as versed on corrupting others to their will. > No, I find it easier to believe that the clan symbol was misprinted and > not the superior text. I think, also, that if the card were Serpentis, Serpentis would have more cards than Quietus, the other new discipline from the AH expansion. I seem to remember someone pointing that out. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7bjkr9$6lh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com writes >> > With Blythe Candelaria the RT issued errata (she is misprinted), >> >with this card not? >> The previous RT issued errata. The current RT did not. > >Errata is errata regardless who issued it. You fail to see the point being made. The previous RT issued errata for it, because they felt it necessary to do so in that case. The current RT may, or may not, have done so. They have chosen not to do so. Errata is errata is errata. One team's priorities are not another's. [ quoted text not captured ]