Disguised Concealed Weapon

Why would anyone use Concealed Weapon instead of Disguised Weapon? The former is by far superior. Concealed weapon states "Equip this *minion* ..." where Disguised weapon states "Equip this *vampire* ..." Does this mean the obfuscate symbol on Concealed Weapon is a typo, and that it should have no use requirement? Santiago * Reporter: Mr. Ghandi, what do you think of e-mail: * western civilization? ia...@mail.utexas.edu * Ghandi: I think it would be a very good idea.

In article <iago-08089...@slip-30-3.ots.utexas.edu>, Santiago <ia...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: >Why would anyone use Concealed Weapon instead of Disguised Weapon? >The former is by far superior. Concealed weapon states "Equip this >*minion* ..." where Disguised weapon states "Equip this *vampire* ..." >Does this mean the obfuscate symbol on Concealed Weapon is a typo, and >that it should have no use requirement? Yes. It is a typo. Officially, though, it's just wallpaper. See the house rules list. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text

lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >In article <iago-08089...@slip-30-3.ots.utexas.edu>, >Santiago <ia...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: >>Why would anyone use Concealed Weapon instead of Disguised Weapon? >>The former is by far superior. Concealed weapon states "Equip this >>*minion* ..." where Disguised weapon states "Equip this *vampire* ..." >>Does this mean the obfuscate symbol on Concealed Weapon is a typo, and >>that it should have no use requirement? >Yes. It is a typo. Officially, though, it's just wallpaper. >See the house rules list. So is Concealed Weapon as non-discipline an OFFICIAL DT ERRATUM? Please tell me, anyone! -- Simeon ---------------------------- simeo...@bbs.fullcoll.edu

James C. Clover (jcl...@netcom.com) wrote: : lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes: : >Santiago <ia...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: : >>Does this mean the obfuscate symbol on Concealed Weapon is a typo, and : >>that it should have no use requirement? : >Yes. It is a typo. Officially, though, it's just wallpaper. : >See the house rules list. : So is Concealed Weapon as non-discipline an OFFICIAL DT ERRATUM? : Please tell me, anyone! Read Scott's post again. Officially, it is 'correct' as is and was supposed to come out that way. It has _not_, repeat, _not_ been corrected officially by the DT or any other WotC representatives, and thus remains an Obfuscate card which is inferior in every way to Disguised Weapon. "This isn't about answers. It's about questions. Having the right question will succeed every time; having the right answer will succeed only when the right question is asked. And how often does the universe ever ask the _right_ question of you?" -- David Gerrold, _The Middle of Nowhere_ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shane H.W. Travis | tra...@duke.usask.ca | Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Shane Travis (tra...@duke.usask.ca) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] : The one reason why i can think that they havent corrected it is as changed , youre gonna end up with shotgun weilding hellhounds.... We stop that but have a house rule that anyone else can use it as non discipline ( hey hhounds cant even use zip guns where i come from - too many dbrs...... :) ) JA CHAPMAN

shit...i'm not too good at this news posting thing.. I thought one was as a strike, and one was before range is chosen. If that is the case, the advantage of the one before range is that you would get to use the weapon's maneuver.. that makes the two cards fair i think

>I thought one was as a strike, and one was before >range is chosen. If that is the case, the advantage of >the one before range is that you would get to use the >weapon's maneuver.. >that makes the two cards fair i think WRONG! Disguised Weapon is superior to Concealed Weapon in every conceivable way. First, CW is limited on gun damage (4) and cost (2). Second, CW is usable only at the beginning of a round, whereas DW can be played at the beginning of the round OR during strike (as long as you have superior Ob). The fact that CW has no superior function, as well as the fact that there are eleven cards for each discipline (Blood Rage is actually Thaum), except Obfuscate, which has twelve, leads me to believe that CW was meant to be a non-discipline card. However, there has been no errata issued to that effect. Speaking of seldom-mentioned card errors, I have some other suspicions. I believe that Sport Bike and IR Goggles were accidentally switched sometime during the development process. It makes more sense to me that IR Goggles would give intercept, and Sport Bike would give a maneuver. Also, were Wynn and Basilia supposed to have the exact same skills? Wynn makes more sense, since his ability is to attack (Potence related activity) at +1 stealth (Obfuscate). I think Basilia, given her awesome special ability, was meant to have (like Masika) three superiors, and that's it. Anyone have any thoughts on this? -- Simeon ---------------------------- simeo...@bbs.fullcoll.edu

> >Speaking of seldom-mentioned card errors, I have some other suspicions. >I believe that Sport Bike and IR Goggles were accidentally switched >sometime during the development process. It makes more sense to me that >IR Goggles would give intercept, and Sport Bike would give a maneuver. > Hey, i never thought of that before. I makes particular sense when you look at Hawg--your way the motorcycles are related better. But it would seem that a +1 intercept non-vehicle for free would be way too powerful, and paying pool for a vehicle w/ a manuever kinda weak. That's my 2 cents. gnfnrf

Sahryx Shadowthorn (sah...@bga.com) wrote: : >The fact that CW has no superior function, as well as the fact that there : >are eleven cards for each discipline (Blood Rage is actually Thaum), : >except Obfuscate, which has twelve, leads me to believe that CW was meant : >to be a non-discipline card. However, there has been no errata issued to : >that effect. : I have a friend who has mentioned this - is this official reguarding : CW ? As he said - there has been no official errata to that effect. It apparently is not enough of a difficulty to the game for WotC to bother issuing official errata to the card. : My friend has also said that Blood Rage was supposed to be Thaum, but I : thought there was nothing wrong with a Fort card that could not be prevented : by other Fort cards ... This, however, _is_ official errata. Blood Rage is now officially a Thaumaturgy card. : Is there a recent : card errata list ? That would be really really helpful to my cause .. but : playing cards as they are printed will do until then. L. Scott Johnson puts out a compiled correction/clarification list twice a month - I believe he just posted it a day or so ago. Shane H.W. Travis | When a stupid man is doing something he is tra...@duke.usask.ca | ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- George Bernard Shaw

>The fact that CW has no superior function, as well as the fact that there >are eleven cards for each discipline (Blood Rage is actually Thaum), >except Obfuscate, which has twelve, leads me to believe that CW was meant >to be a non-discipline card. However, there has been no errata issued to >that effect. I have a friend who has mentioned this - is this official reguarding CW ? My friend has also said that Blood Rage was supposed to be Thaum, but I thought there was nothing wrong with a Fort card that could not be prevented by other Fort cards ... but I still see the points made. Is there a recent card errata list ? That would be really really helpful to my cause .. but playing cards as they are printed will do until then. >Speaking of seldom-mentioned card errors, I have some other suspicions. >I believe that Sport Bike and IR Goggles were accidentally switched >sometime during the development process. It makes more sense to me that >IR Goggles would give intercept, and Sport Bike would give a maneuver. Der .... I never really noticed this before. I think you might be right about this one as they do make sense .... but as Alan Eisinger points out maybe they forgot costs too. Excellent observation!

>L. Scott Johnson puts out a compiled correction/clarification list twice >a month - I believe he just posted it a day or so ago. > I happened to see that shortly after posting that oringal message - it has been quite helpful. Thanks for the official info on the Thaum card BTW.