Well, since
i come to these lately, i'm simply astonished
about some RT decisions.
I would like to gather here (maybe be, again), other players
who disagree with these recent "rulings", to see if we
can make some of the above new rulings to be wiped away.
Let's start with order:
1)
If a vampire bleeds with FORCE OF WILL and the bleed action is canceled
(via Change of Target, for example), then the acting vampire doesn't
suffer the aggravated damage, since there is no combat.
why, why, why ?
Can someone explain me the reason for that?
FoW reads: "Damage occours after the ACTION or combat is resolved".
So, does this means that under change of target the action is never
resolved?
--------
2)
The untap effect of MAJESTY (and Earth Meld and Meld with the Land)
occurs when the strike resolves (it is not delayed until after combat
ends).
Et voilà: another sub-specialized effect to deal with, since:
If the strike does something in addition to ending combat, that something
takes place just after the combat ends. [RTR 19970630]
now we got strike's "untap" effects that occour as strike resolves,
and all the rest occours after combat ends...
Mummify is the best example, i "end combat" - ok-
i untap in combat, then i go to torpor after it....... -eh ?-
Useless exeptions, why?.
--------
3)
THE GRANDEST TRICK makes vampires unable to block the minion who played
it, not the action in general (so if it is Masked, vampires can attempt
to block the new acting vampire)."
The "previuos" card's text (firts sentence):
"vampires cannot block this action".....it does not refers to the
acting vampire......
So, where's the errated text ?
Anyway, that appears to be just an inconsistent *ruling* since:
*All action modifiers remain in effect*, but inherent modifiers (a minion's
inherent +1 bleed, e.g.) do not. Effects applied to a minion (e.g.,
Backways) also do not carry over to the new (masking) vampire. [RTR
19951110]
so, the actual ruling would just clash with the other....
More, the Grandest tricked vampire cannot use disciplines, so, by logic,
it could not use mask 1k faces too, since it requiers obfuscate to be
played.
A very poor ruling (or errata, whatever) in the end.
------------
4)
For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are
treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the
resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects
granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a
card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the
resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally
striking "as a vampire") and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby
to call a vote (allowed if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire").
(REVERSAL)
This is, most definetely, the reversal of logic:
-a Rafastio ghoul with a veneficorum artum sanguis
can now play THA cards at superior ?
-Talaq can play a weather control, then burn
a vial of garou blood ?
What if Talaq plays the weather control under a dawn operation ?
Does he goes to torpor?
-What about a Ghouled street thug with an hand of conrad ?
- Kerebutu can now burn a changeling skin mask to get
+2 intercept *while* he's playing a spectral divination?
-And how the infernal familiar granting a basic discipline
"while" the ally is playing a card "as a vampire" ?.
-Akhenathen can now burn the concoction of vitality as he plays a summon
soul?
all question from cases that comes form this new unnecessary ruling.
---------------
5)
Effects that end combat and then do something else after combat (all in the
single resolution of the effect) will fizzle if combat doesn't end or if a
new combat is started. (Changes: Rotschreck followed by Fast Reaction or
Psyche! will nullify the torpor effect.) Note that this doesn't apply to
end combat and untap effects - the untap effect is not delayed to after
combat (see Majesty ruling above).
well, that is simply beyond comprension:
now some effects "interrupts" other effects, in an almost arbitrary and
obscure way.
So to say, if setite X plays a mummify Jalal Sayad can still use his special
against him?
So that setite X would untap, but would not go to torpor, starting another
combat with Jalal?
Nice.
---------------
6)
If an effect resolves and sets up an effect to be resolved later (e.g.,
Undead Persistence's torpor effect or Siren's Lure's combat), then the
effect will not be canceled by "interruptions" (extending combat/starting
combat/etc.).
Ah, very nice this one too......
Some effect are *not* interrupted by the madness ruled above,
but other do, so that we need more and more tons
of printed erratas, clarifications and rulings to play the game
and handle correctly those effects/cards....
very, very nice.
7)
An effect which would cause (a new) combat cannot be used if there is
already a "to be resolved later" combat.
another pretty obscure statement, probably to cover some other
damn born-by-the-above-madness-rulings conrner cases.
Ah, got it, to prevent multiple combat by different minion
playing/using psyche-like effect...
nice and very useful.
Anyway, this way, the rulings are killing the game....
Many thanks to the RT.
THIS GAME NEEDS SIMPLER AND STRAIGHT RULES TO ATTRACT NEW PLAYERS.
THIS GAMES NEEDS LESS RT RULINGS TO AVOIDING EXISTING PLAYERS
TO GO AWAY
Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome
"tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZhTA8.6863$US3.1...@twister1.libero.it...
>
> I would like to gather here (maybe be, again), other players
> who disagree with these recent "rulings", to see if we
> can make some of the above new rulings to be wiped away.
>
You and 8 million other people who have felt the need to start inane threads
over stupid rulings that barely effect the game at all.
>
> 1)
> If a vampire bleeds with FORCE OF WILL and the bleed action is canceled
> (via Change of Target, for example), then the acting vampire doesn't
> suffer the aggravated damage, since there is no combat.
>
> why, why, why ?
> Can someone explain me the reason for that?
>
Card text.
> FoW reads: "Damage occours after the ACTION or combat is resolved".
> So, does this means that under change of target the action is never
> resolved?
>
Yep.
> 2)
> The untap effect of MAJESTY (and Earth Meld and Meld with the Land)
> occurs when the strike resolves (it is not delayed until after combat
> ends).
>> now we got strike's "untap" effects that occour as strike resolves,
> and all the rest occours after combat ends...
> Mummify is the best example, i "end combat" - ok-
> i untap in combat, then i go to torpor after it....... -eh ?-
> Useless exeptions, why?.
>
Who knows? Who cares? A stupid ruling, but it makes no difference.
> 3)
> THE GRANDEST TRICK makes vampires unable to block the minion who played
> it, not the action in general (so if it is Masked, vampires can attempt
> to block the new acting vampire)."
>
> The "previuos" card's text (firts sentence):
> "vampires cannot block this action".....it does not refers to the
> acting vampire......
> So, where's the errated text ?
> Anyway, that appears to be just an inconsistent *ruling* since:
>
Again, who the fuck cares? Get over it already. It's a crappy card. Stick it
back in the binder and move on.
> 4)
> For allies that are able to play certain cards "as a vampire", they are
> treated as vampires for all parts of the resolution of the play of the
> appropriate cards. This includes the resolution of an action card and the
> resolution of a strike card. It does not include any continuing effects
> granted by the card (after its resolution) nor any effects given by a
> card in play. This reverses a few previous rulings regarding the
> resolution of, for example, Burst of Sunlight (will harm the ally
> striking "as a vampire") and the ability of an ally to use Charming Lobby
> to call a vote (allowed if the ally plays Charming Lobby "as a vampire").
> (REVERSAL)
>
Ah, so many annoying people, so little, apparently, to whine about. How many
people had a Rasta Ghoul/Burst of Sunlight deck? Did it drive you crazy that
instead of paying for an overpriced, fragile ally, you could have instead
played protean. Sure, Protean has to pay a blood for their agg damage, but
it's a hand strike, and Gangrel don't fall down quite as easily to
*everything*. And they can't be Far Mastered. Face it, the ruling is dumb and
useless. The effects are nil.
{ rest snipped as I've become suddenly nauseated }
"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:p3fC8.535$Po6...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ZhTA8.6863$US3.1...@twister1.libero.it...
> >
> > I would like to gather here (maybe be, again), other players
> > who disagree with these recent "rulings", to see if we
> > can make some of the above new rulings to be wiped away.
> >
> You and 8 million other people who have felt the need to start inane
threads
> over stupid rulings that barely effect the game at all.
>
Yes, albeit official rulings, some of them are (apparently)
stupids enough to concern some people, including me.
> >
> > 1)
> > If a vampire bleeds with FORCE OF WILL and the bleed action is canceled
> > (via Change of Target, for example), then the acting vampire doesn't
> > suffer the aggravated damage, since there is no combat.
> >
> > why, why, why ?
> > Can someone explain me the reason for that?
> >
> Card text.
>
Yes, now i realized that, thanks.
> > FoW reads: "Damage occours after the ACTION or combat is resolved".
> > So, does this means that under change of target the action is never
> > resolved?
> >
> Yep.
>
> > 2)
> > The untap effect of MAJESTY (and Earth Meld and Meld with the Land)
> > occurs when the strike resolves (it is not delayed until after combat
> > ends).
> >
> > now we got strike's "untap" effects that occour as strike resolves,
> > and all the rest occours after combat ends...
> > Mummify is the best example, i "end combat" - ok-
> > i untap in combat, then i go to torpor after it....... -eh ?-
> > Useless exeptions, why?.
> >
> Who knows? Who cares? A stupid ruling, but it makes no difference.
Mh, so stupidity makes no difference, as long as it comes from the official
source?
>
> > 3)
> > THE GRANDEST TRICK makes vampires unable to block the minion who played
> > it, not the action in general (so if it is Masked, vampires can attempt
> > to block the new acting vampire)."
> >
> > The "previuos" card's text (firts sentence):
> > "vampires cannot block this action".....it does not refers to the
> > acting vampire......
> > So, where's the errated text ?
> > Anyway, that appears to be just an inconsistent *ruling* since:
> >
> Again, who the fuck cares? Get over it already. It's a crappy card.
Stick it
> back in the binder and move on.
Ok,but the only thing in my mind is:
why errating the GT and not the Herald of Topheth?
Now i can see better that errating GT that way
can somewhat protect game balance from
playing it in combo with mask of 1000 faces.
But why not errating Herald of Topheth, with
a clarification that he cannot call political action ?.
That seem the only point made for
introducing the ruling about allies "playing as".
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, that ally stuff is being discussed ad nausea elsewhere, so i won't
keeping
discussing it here (just my news server don't showing in the first place the
previous
posted topics about "allies playing as" when i wrote this message).
Emiliano
> Mh, so stupidity makes no difference, as long as it comes from the official
> source?
Wrong. Restate as, "stupidity makes no difference so long as it has
little or no impact on anything" or perhaps "stupidity makes no
difference so long as it makes no difference." How often is someone
going to Psyche! a Mummify?
> Ok,but the only thing in my mind is:
> why errating the GT and not the Herald of Topheth?
> Now i can see better that errating GT that way
> can somewhat protect game balance from
> playing it in combo with mask of 1000 faces.
> But why not errating Herald of Topheth, with
> a clarification that he cannot call political action ?.
> That seem the only point made for
> introducing the ruling about allies "playing as".
The point about allies playing as stemmed from an earlier thread,
wherein a player actually used well-placed logic in his arguments with
LSJ (gasp!). The rulings (well, the reasons behind them anyway) were
shown to be inconsistent. This ruling is not inconsistent with itself,
and replaces all previous rulings on the subject, making for a lot
less overall errata/rulings.
Lactamaeon.
"lactamaeon" <newq...@rose-hulman.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:786c1f73.02050...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
About this instance (the errata/rulings' reduction)
let's see if after june 1 the official errata/clarification/ruling list
will be *really* shorter, then we'll can tell if
some of the discussed new rulings succeded
at doing that (very well welcomed) reduction.
Emiliano
<snip>
"lactamaeon" <newq...@rose-hulman.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:786c1f73.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > Mh, so stupidity makes no difference, as long as it comes from the
official
> > source?
>
> Wrong. Restate as, "stupidity makes no difference so long as it has
> little or no impact on anything" or perhaps "stupidity makes no
> difference so long as it makes no difference." How often is someone
> going to Psyche! a Mummify?
>
> > Ok,but the only thing in my mind is:
> > why errating the GT and not the Herald of Topheth?
> > Now i can see better that errating GT that way
> > can somewhat protect game balance from
> > playing it in combo with mask of 1000 faces.
> > But why not errating Herald of Topheth, with
> > a clarification that he cannot call political action ?.
> > That seem the only point made for
> > introducing the ruling about allies "playing as".
>
> The point about allies playing as stemmed from an earlier thread,
> wherein a player actually used well-placed logic in his arguments with
> LSJ (gasp!). The rulings (well, the reasons behind them anyway) were
> shown to be inconsistent.
Btw, can you post me here the url of that discussion ?
(if it is not the one on herald playing CL)
Thanks in advance.
EMiliano
[ quoted text not captured ]
tetragrammaton wrote:
> "lactamaeon" <newq...@rose-hulman.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio> > The point about allies playing as stemmed from an earlier thread,
> > wherein a player actually used well-placed logic in his arguments with
> > LSJ (gasp!). The rulings (well, the reasons behind them anyway) were
> > shown to be inconsistent.
>
> Btw, can you post me here the url of that discussion ?
> (if it is not the one on herald playing CL)
That thread would certainly be a large part of it.
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=e60e99d5909e03e5
Interested parties could also search for
"ally vampire considered OR treated group:rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad"
for more background.
(You may want to restrict the search to end at April 30 2002 :-)
--
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/
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3CDBB876...@white-wolf.com...
> tetragrammaton wrote:
> > "lactamaeon" <newq...@rose-hulman.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > The point about allies playing as stemmed from an earlier thread,
> > > wherein a player actually used well-placed logic in his arguments with
> > > LSJ (gasp!). The rulings (well, the reasons behind them anyway) were
> > > shown to be inconsistent.
> >
> > Btw, can you post me here the url of that discussion ?
> > (if it is not the one on herald playing CL)
>
> That thread would certainly be a large part of it.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?th=e60e99d5909e03e5
>
> Interested parties could also search for
> "ally vampire considered OR treated group:rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad"
> for more background.
>
> (You may want to restrict the search to end at April 30 2002 :-)
>
Thnks :-)
Emiliano
> --
> Btw, can you post me here the url of that discussion ?
> (if it is not the one on herald playing CL)
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> EMiliano
If I can find it again. I'll try to soon.
Lactamaeon