Why the commotion over the allies ruling? It seems very simple to me.
If an ally you control plays a card, then the effects of that card
treats your ally as a vampire, for the resolution of the card against
that ally. Very simple. If you play BoS, you WILL take 1 aggravated
damage, RAGARDLESS of what the rules say. This is not inconsistent
with anything else. You are still an ally. You still ignore
aggravated damage from any other source, you still ignore Rotschreck,
but if you chose to play a card with gives you aggravated damage,
sends you to torpor, burns you, etc., you suffer the consequences that
a vampire suffers. The end result? Talaq should not play BoS. Not
cannot, just should not. Forget the argument about allies in torpor,
forget the inconsistencies about allies becoming vampires. The point
of the ruling (IMNSHO) is that, for there to be consistency in how
allies play, they must be considered vampires in carrying out the
results of their actions. Does this cause some problems? Of course,
but they also existed before the ruling. For example, an ally plays
Rampage, can a vampire with Memories of Mortality block the action?
OF COURSE NOT. The acting minion is still an ally. But for the
resolution of the action card, not as it affects reacting minions, but
as it affects the ally, the ally is treated as a vampire.
There are plenty of aspects of this ruling which require
clarification, and that is FINE. The point of clarification is to
help us understand the logical consistency that makes up the ruling.
So I propose this. Instead of bitching about the ruling, ask
questions. For example:
Say minion A performs action B that requires discipline C. Minion X
has ability D that allows him to play cards that require discipline C.
What are the consequence of the action if:
Vampire attempts to block minion A.
Ally attempts to block minion A.
Action B requires the acting vampire to do X. Is the acting minion
(vampire) required to do X.
etc.
These are the questions that need to be asked, not all this knee jerk
criticism.
Happy Hunting. :-)
> There are plenty of aspects of this ruling which require
> clarification, and that is FINE. The point of clarification is to
> help us understand the logical consistency that makes up the ruling.
> So I propose this. Instead of bitching about the ruling, ask
> questions.
I heartily agree. There's certainly going to be a few absurd things
that happen, but allies 'as vampire' rulings of the past were already
sketchy. I remember seeing the debates when LSJ was making rulings
about Herald of Topheth and Charming Lobby, and when he was shown an
actual example of the inconsistency, rather than just complaints that
there was one, he let us know that he was going to the rules team for
a revision. That's probably where this one came from, and as far as I
can see, it's an unbreakable ruling. A little silly, allowing allies
to go to torpor, but only inconsistent with the RPG, not with the rest
of the CCG. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is (I think) the first time the
ruling has been so *simple*, and made so much *sense*. An ally using a
card "as a vampire" is treated "as a vampire" by that card and all
rules pertaining to that card, and treated like an ally by all other
cards.
Some cards will now do silly things to allies like sending them to
torpor, but some cards already did silly things like letting
Huitzipochtli (with a skill card) die to Call the Great Beast and
inherit the Soul Gem from himself. One could just as easily argue that
merely *having* the fortitude discipline should allow a vampire to
prevent the damage, that a Methuselah shouldn't have to play a card to
convince the poor schmuk that he should activate his powers, but if
the game were played like that it would be hugely broken or have to be
severely altered to keep it fair.
Lactamaeon.
"lactamaeon" <newq...@rose-hulman.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:786c1f73.0205...@posting.google.com...
> > There are plenty of aspects of this ruling which require
> > clarification, and that is FINE.
Fine ? do you like tons-of-prnited-paper
to be able to play this (otherwise beatiful) game?
> The point of clarification is to
> > help us understand the logical consistency that makes up the ruling.
> > So I propose this. Instead of bitching about the ruling, ask
> > questions.
Actual "ruling" says:
X (ally) playing Y (card) as it is Z (vampire)
is considered Z by Y.
but for all the rest of the alphabet (cards - A, B, C, D etc.)
X is still X, even while it plays Y as Z.
This is a classical logic expression.
But it is years light away form the common sense
a game like v:tes needs to be understandable
by the majority of players.
Common sense would say:
since we (all the rest of the alphabet)
are the majority of the letters, we consider anyway
X as Z when X plays Y as Z
OR
X is still X ALSO for Y (as it is for us)
and the RT ruling sucks since we don't
need more and more exceptions for our game.
> I heartily agree. There's certainly going to be a few absurd things
> that happen, but allies 'as vampire' rulings of the past were already
> sketchy. I remember seeing the debates when LSJ was making rulings
> about Herald of Topheth and Charming Lobby, and when he was shown an
> actual example of the inconsistency, rather than just complaints that
> there was one, he let us know that he was going to the rules team for
> a revision.> That's probably where this one came from, and as far as I
> can see, it's an unbreakable ruling. A little silly, allowing allies
> to go to torpor, but only inconsistent with the RPG, not with the rest
> of the CCG. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is (I think) the first time the
> ruling has been so *simple*, and made so much *sense*.
Reading the above i'm sure, the common sense has died.
> An ally using a
> card "as a vampire" is treated "as a vampire" by that card and all
> rules pertaining to that card, and treated like an ally by all other
> cards.
Yes, yes, let's have a tons of other issues that will be born form such
nonsense.
What about a vampire playing cards as an ally ?
(under the grandest trick?).
Have you an idea of how much clarifications
such rulings would need?
> Some cards will now do silly things to allies like sending them to
> torpor, but some cards already did silly things like letting
> Huitzipochtli (with a skill card) die to Call the Great Beast and
> inherit the Soul Gem from himself.
Ah, got it:
since the rules(rulings)/cards enviroment as a whole
allow such silly things to do, then let's allow more
and more silly things to do,
until we'll make the game die drowning in them.
Nice approach.
Not mine, luckily.
Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome
<snip>
> Common sense would say:
> since we (all the rest of the alphabet)
> are the majority of the letters, we consider anyway
> X as Z when X plays Y as Z
>
> OR
>
> X is still X ALSO for Y (as it is for us)
> and the RT ruling sucks since we don't
> need more and more exceptions for our game.
Common sense would say that if X plays Y as Z, then X plays Y as Z. It
should not make any conclusions about X playing Q or Methuselah
playing R on X, since R and Q are not Z. Common sense, at least where
I'm from, says that a card does what it says it does.
Exceptions are built into the game from the beginning. Almost every
card is an exception to one or more rules.
> Reading the above i'm sure, the common sense has died.> Yes, yes, let's have a tons of other issues that will be born form such
> nonsense.
> What about a vampire playing cards as an ally ?
> (under the grandest trick?).
> Have you an idea of how much clarifications
> such rulings would need?
The Grandest Trick is different. It states "This acting vampire is
treated as a mortal ally for the duration of the action". Translation:
"X is Y until Z (at which point it becomes Z again)". Quite simply,
after TGT is played, ALL cards treat the vampire as an ally. It also
states th at s/he cannot use cards that require a vampire, a
discipline, or a blood cost to play, so there is NO interaction
between TGT and the ruling.
> Ah, got it:
> since the rules(rulings)/cards enviroment as a whole
> allow such silly things to do, then let's allow more
> and more silly things to do,
> until we'll make the game die drowning in them.
> Nice approach.
> Not mine, luckily.
Rather, let's face the fact that, although they seem silly in theme,
they are not silly in the rules system, when one reads the cards and
plays them as they say they are to be played.
Lactamaeon.
Warpath wrote:
SNIP
> These are the questions that need to be asked, not all this knee jerk
> criticism.
>
Well put however thats not the full case.
Blood brother ambush allows them to play Pot cards, but if you play
burning wrath as a 3 cap vampire you burn as a ally first, which is 100%
opposite of the BoS effects, so the ruling become inconsistant to the
untrained mind.
Raille
tetragrammaton wrote:
> Actual "ruling" says:
>
> X (ally) playing Y (card) as it is Z (vampire)
> is considered Z by Y.
Works for Bos
Does not work for BBA and Burning wrath.
X (BBA) playing Y (BW) as it is Z (vampire) is considered X (Ally) by Y
(BW).
So please try again
Raille
ps good effort though
"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3CD9A964...@spamcop.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
No, sorry , the rule says just that.
The fact that BBA is *still* burned by playing
BW is by another rule...
The rule on allies "burning when reaching 0 life"
is still active even while the BBA plays BW.
The BW card still see BBA as a vampire, even thought
the BBA dies by playing it, being still an ally for the other rule (LSJ,
correct me
if i'm wrong) *headhache*....
Emiliano
<snip>
> Blood brother ambush allows them to play Pot cards, but if you play
> burning wrath as a 3 cap vampire you burn as a ally first, which is 100%
> opposite of the BoS effects, so the ruling become inconsistant to the
> untrained mind.
How is this opposite of BoS? ONLY the Burning Wrath treats the ally as
a vampire. The rest of the game only sees an ally with no life.
With BoS ONLY the BoS treats him as a vampire. The rest of the game
sees the ally suffer the effects of the card he played, which sends
him to torpor.
Lactamaeon.
[ quoted text not captured ]
You are correct. Y (BW) doesn't consider X (BBA) to be an ally, since X
is playing Y as a vampire. However, after playing X and while waiting
for strike resolution to occur so that X will resolve, the rule W (allies
with 0 life are burned) shows X (which W sees as an ally, since W is not
an effect of the resolution of Y - even more clear from the fact that Y
hasn't begun to resolve yet) to the door.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/