The Rules Team

Some people seem to be unaware of the 'job description' of the rules team, so allow me a moment to clarify: The Rules Team makes rules. The current RT has approached this task from a balance-and-correctness perspective. Meaning that balance is paramount, and correctness follows closely behing. So errata are issued to preserve balance, even if they change a card or a rule into something that it was not designed to be. If balance is not compromised, then rulings/errata are issued to maintain the design (original intent) of the cards and rules, in so far as the intent is known or can be reasonably assumed. While votes and diatribes and other assorted "this sucks, change it" rants have some utility (in illuminating areas for the RT to examine more closely), unless they show how balance has been compromised or how correctness has been sacrificed when balance was not at risk, they will likely not bring about any change in the official rulings. The best path to take to get a new ruling issued or an old ruling overturned is to show how the new ruling (old lack of an existing ruling) would fix some problem with the game. -- To address one other point: the RT has nothing to do with DCI Sanctioning. The only official interface between the RT and the DCI is in the area of the banned/restricted list. The RT can make recommendations for such lists. That is all. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: [snip] : The best path to take to get a new ruling issued or an old ruling : overturned is to show how the new ruling (old lack of an existing : ruling) would fix some problem with the game. So, uh, maybe I shouldn't bring this up, but what are the chances of one of the 'better' or 'more popular' fixes to a card like ToRIII being implemented? I noticed that the comment on the 7/7 ruling was that the fix used wasn't necessarily the best, but was easy to remember. I think the 'capacity-reducing Tomb counters' fix is pretty substantially the bext fix I've seen proposed, since it does a much better job of maintaining original intent, while still balancing the card pretty well. Josh but of course, it wouldn't exactly fix a problem with the game, at this point...

In article <6q7t1j$5...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: > > [snip] > > : The best path to take to get a new ruling issued or an old ruling > : overturned is to show how the new ruling (old lack of an existing > : ruling) would fix some problem with the game. > > So, uh, maybe I shouldn't bring this up, but what are the chances of > one of the 'better' or 'more popular' fixes to a card like ToRIII > being implemented? I noticed that the comment on the 7/7 ruling > was that the fix used wasn't necessarily the best, but was easy to > remember. > > I think the 'capacity-reducing Tomb counters' fix is pretty substantially > the bext fix I've seen proposed, since it does a much better job of > maintaining original intent, while still balancing the card pretty well. LSJ, I agree with Josh here, the capacity-reducing Tomb is balanced, still playable, and it has some impact on the game after use (Giants Blood, Minion Tap, being younger, etc.). The main point is: it remains it's original intent, while being balanced. Could you consider that? -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna [ quoted text not captured ]

I agree. Anything is better than the errata that totally changed the card. Steve Bucy CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote in article <6q9s6l$hs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6q7hds$568$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com says... >The current RT has approached this task from a balance-and-correctness >perspective. Meaning that balance is paramount, and correctness follows >closely behing. So errata are issued to preserve balance, even if they >change a card or a rule into something that it was not designed to be. > >If balance is not compromised, then rulings/errata are issued to >maintain the design (original intent) of the cards and rules, in so far >as the intent is known or can be reasonably assumed. In this context, can you explain why Wake With Evening's Freshness was "unbalanced"? The card's intent seems easily gleaned from its text, so I will assume the ruling was made on balance concerns. Thanks.

In article <6qb9c1$dig$1...@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] The argument goes that they were a no-brainer to stick in any non-combat deck, since you could freely cycle them, unlike all other non-combat cards. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

In article <6qbe4s$pbr$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > The argument goes that they were a no-brainer to stick in any non-combat > deck, since you could freely cycle them, unlike all other non-combat > cards. I don't see how not being able to replace the card until the combat ends is considered "free." If people want to load their hands with these cards, then they risk facing combat or further stealth with only having six cards or they risk jamming their hands. I just don't see a compelling reason to overhaul the card completely. [ quoted text not captured ]

augi...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > I don't see how not being able to replace the card until the combat ends is > considered "free." If people want to load their hands with these cards, then > they risk facing combat or further stealth with only having six cards or they > risk jamming their hands. I just don't see a compelling reason to overhaul > the card completely. Who says you have to block? That's why Forced Awakening is balanced. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

[ quoted text not captured ] Then why not errata that a vampire cannot play wake unless he attempts to block or play reaction cards instead of some crazy ruling that still lets you throw them whenever you wish, just not replace them until later? I feel the 77 ruling hurts those who play wakes responsibly and doesn't really stop those who throw them just to get them out of their hand.

In article <199808080408...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Fantasy15 <fant...@aol.com> writes >Then why not errata that a vampire cannot play wake unless he attempts to block >or play reaction cards instead of some crazy ruling that still lets you throw >them whenever you wish, just not replace them until later? I have to admit that I feel that this would have been a better implementation. A vampire would have to block OR react. However, the restriction imposed by the 7/7 does the same sort of thing. A Methuselah losing hand size is likely to utilise that hand size rather than just throw the card. You can still throw them whenever you wish, but how likely is it if it could seriously damage your hand? -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

My play group probably would have accepted Wakes to be errata'd to "End of Turn" from "End of Combat". The 7/7 ruling of "Your next untap phase" strikes me as foriegn ground. No other card in the set has this limitation and seems extreme. I'm not against change, just extreme change.. The errata below adds extreme card text altering the card far beyond it's original text. Hence a re-write, not errata. Bernie Bresnahan Bern...@yahoo.com James Coupe wrote in message ... [ quoted text not captured ]

augi...@my-dejanews.com (Augie) wrote: > In article <6q7hds$568$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com says... > >The current RT has approached this task from a balance-and-correctness > >perspective. Meaning that balance is paramount, and correctness follows > >closely behing. So errata are issued to preserve balance, even if they > >change a card or a rule into something that it was not designed to be. > > > >If balance is not compromised, then rulings/errata are issued to > >maintain the design (original intent) of the cards and rules, in so far > >as the intent is known or can be reasonably assumed. > > In this context, can you explain why Wake With Evening's Freshness was > "unbalanced"? The card's intent seems easily gleaned from its text, so I will > assume the ruling was made on balance concerns. Thanks. Its effect was too great for its cost. The restriction (do not replace until after combat) was nearly meaningless. And the result is basically an extra defender. This issue was debated an dissected on the newsgroup in early 1995. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qmtcv$sql$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > augi...@my-dejanews.com (Augie) wrote: > > In article <6q7hds$568$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com says... > > >The current RT has approached this task from a balance-and-correctness > > >perspective. Meaning that balance is paramount, and correctness follows > > >closely behing. So errata are issued to preserve balance, even if they > > >change a card or a rule into something that it was not designed to be. > > > > > >If balance is not compromised, then rulings/errata are issued to > > >maintain the design (original intent) of the cards and rules, in so far > > >as the intent is known or can be reasonably assumed. > > > > In this context, can you explain why Wake With Evening's Freshness was > > "unbalanced"? The card's intent seems easily gleaned from its text, so I will > > assume the ruling was made on balance concerns. Thanks. > > Its effect was too great for its cost. The restriction (do not replace > until after combat) was nearly meaningless. And the result is basically > an extra defender. > > This issue was debated an dissected on the newsgroup in early 1995. But the actual ruling makes Forced Awakening a better choice (even with the cost)! I still don't see that WwEF is unbalanced. But, if you still insist that it is, why is "don't replace until the end of the current turn" not enough? I really can't see it. -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qp1df$gfr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: [ Wake errata ] > But the actual ruling makes Forced Awakening a better choice (even > with the cost)! I still don't see that WwEF is unbalanced. Actually, Forced Awakening is not always a better choice. What if you are using bleed bounce as bleed defense? If you are using Forced Awakening, you are paying 2 blood for each deflection. Against a heavy bleeder, your vampires will be empty pretty quickly. If you use Wake, you don't spend the extra blood, and you have to wait until your turn to redraw. > But, if you still insist that it is, why is "don't replace until the end > of the current turn" not enough? I really can't see it. From what I recall, one of the big problems with Wake is that you can play it during anyone's turn even though you have no chance of blocking one of their actions. So let's say you have 3 Wakes in your hand, but none of the cards you need. With your suggested errata, you could still dump all three if you wanted with no adverse side effect. In my decks, I've been doing the following. In intercept decks and combat decks I use Forced Awakening because I really want to block. So if I don't block, I lose a blood. In decks that use weenies, need lots of blood for other things (like Ravnos and Lasombra), or use bleed bounce, I use Wake. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP Rules Survey Website - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qpg8g$1f1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@shout.net wrote: > In article <6qp1df$gfr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > [ Wake errata ] > > > But the actual ruling makes Forced Awakening a better choice (even > > with the cost)! I still don't see that WwEF is unbalanced. > > Actually, Forced Awakening is not always a better choice. What if you > are using bleed bounce as bleed defense? If you are using Forced Awakening, > you are paying 2 blood for each deflection. Against a heavy bleeder, your > vampires will be empty pretty quickly. If you use Wake, you don't spend > the extra blood, and you have to wait until your turn to redraw. > > > But, if you still insist that it is, why is "don't replace until the end > > of the current turn" not enough? I really can't see it. > > From what I recall, one of the big problems with Wake is that you can play > it during anyone's turn even though you have no chance of blocking one of > their actions. So let's say you have 3 Wakes in your hand, but none of > the cards you need. With your suggested errata, you could still dump all > three if you wanted with no adverse side effect. Under 7/7 you can dump as many Wakes as you want as well. There's almost no difference. With 7/7 you just wait until you predator takes his last action, dump all Wakes, and then during your untap get a full hand again. Btw, who would dump Wakes???? They are (at least in my environment) a really important defense. If you pack so many Wakes in your deck that you have to dump them, something with your deck is not right. Too many Wakes take important deck space!!! That's a cost, too. Well, to this date I haven't seen a single player dumping wakes en masse. O.K., I know of situations, where you have a Wake, but you have no intercept, bleed bounce, reduce bleed in your hand; so you play the wake, hoping to draw a usable card for the *next* action. That's it. But playing 4 or 5 Wakes in a row, well that has never been observed in our play-environment. -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qrncl$cfg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at> wrote: > >Under 7/7 you can dump as many Wakes as you want as well. There's almost >no difference. With 7/7 you just wait until you predator takes his last >action, dump all Wakes, and then during your untap get a full hand again. Yes, you can still dump then all, but you don't get a benefit from it until your turn. >Btw, who would dump Wakes???? They are (at least in my environment) a >really important defense. If you pack so many Wakes in your deck that you >have to dump them, something with your deck is not right. Too many Wakes >take important deck space!!! That's a cost, too. The thing is that with the old rules you could pack your deck with as many wakes as you wanted, since it was never a problem if you had too many. In a deck so constructed you would often discard wakes. Now, I'm playing Devil's advocate a bit, since I don't think Wake was broken, although it wasn't in the spirit of the rest of the game. >Well, to this date I haven't seen a single player dumping wakes en masse. >O.K., I know of situations, where you have a Wake, but you have no >intercept, bleed bounce, reduce bleed in your hand; so you play the >wake, hoping to draw a usable card for the *next* action. That's it. >But playing 4 or 5 Wakes in a row, well that has never been observed in >our play-environment. I've done it, although it's only worthwhile for an intercept deck (which are inherently weak), and so hardly broken I'll agree. [ quoted text not captured ]