Well about the banish thing that several players are discuss, I accept the change (unwillingly) and start to change my decks. However, because of the repercussion of such act why instead of banning Anthelios why not make a simply change in part of the text?
Anthelios, the Red Star
Gehenna. A Methuselah can skip the master phase to exchange a master card in his or her hand for one in his or her ash heap.
Skipping the entirely master phase (not only a master phase action) may balance the card I think since methuselah that use it also will skip all effects on this phase too like Blood Doll, trifle, Path of Evil Revelations, Chantry, Parthenon, Anson and many other effects.
Seeds of Corruption I pretty sure as tournament judge for 12 years how hard is to arbitrate its effect but I think is easy create a unique clarification (collecting all ruling already posted about that) to simplify it.
About Temptation of Greater Power, I don’t have anything to say.
Is just a suggestion not a complain.
Fernando Cesar - Sydnelson
LackeyCCG and OCTGN VtES Mantainer
Prince of Rio de Janeiro
Powerbase Rio de Janeiro
The Rules Director has stated that without physical reprints, there will be no errata.
One might argue that rulings are a way of errating something.
There must be a balance for the good of the game and new players using cards that they later find out have different text or work differently, is not positive, imo.
So I agree we should either leave the cards alone or ban them.
Lilith's Blessing is easily fixed, p.e..
Ban anthelios the red Star and create the Anthelios the banned Star with the new text, same for seeds of corruption ban and create the roots of corruption, no real reprints needed!
Temptation could have something similar To golconda, pay x, maybe 3 To cancel the card
Archbishop of Itaocara
Prince ID #510
> Brum wrote:
> The Rules Director has stated that without physical reprints, there will be no errata.
> One might argue that rulings are a way of errating something.
>
Rulings and errata serve two different functions.
Rulings exist to cope with situations where cards are unclear or ambiguous. Often, this means that the card text might work in one of several ways, and the ruling picks how it works - but within the realms of card text and the current rules, following existing precedent.
Errata says that current card text is wrong in some fashion, and is being changed outright. Anything can happen as the result of errata, because you can (in theory) rewrite text completely. Precedent isn't relevant here, because you can just write brand new card text that circumvents it.
> Brum wrote:
> The Rules Director has stated that without physical reprints, there will be no errata.
> One might argue that rulings are a way of errating something.
>
> There must be a balance for the good of the game and new players using cards that they later find out have different text or work differently, is not positive, imo.
> So I agree we should either leave the cards alone or ban them.
>
> Lilith's Blessing is easily fixed, p.e..
>
I know about that stated Brum, but we already need to play with a book with all card changes between the expansions and over the years. When Villein is changed I need to update several card images in lackey and octgn programs database reflecting text changes made by vekn, most of changes are clarifications, improvement to understanding the cards and ballots rulling.
Then if they already did it before I don't know why not do it again instead of ban cards that are largely used by many years.
Fernando Cesar - Sydnelson
LackeyCCG and OCTGN VtES Mantainer
Prince of Rio de Janeiro
Powerbase Rio de Janeiro
> Sydnelson wrote:
> Then if they already did it before I don't know why not do it again instead of ban cards that are largely used by many years.
>
I believe that the Villein errata - and, similarly, the canvassing for Lilith's Blessing errata playtest suggestions - were made in anticipation that POD or DriveThruCCG or whatever would happen, and so the cards would be reprinted with the real text fairly soon.
Reality then worked out differently.
Hi there, I can understand the reasoning for Anthelios, as it is not only overpowering but it is imho relatively non interactive and boring.
ToGP is silly in a way that it is situational, once a game, needs high amount of setup. Imho the argument that it ruins the game of the target is mood point. Play smaller minions, play suddens, play a fricking diamond thunderbolt if the ToGP is that strong. isn't there a reason for why that card (edit; diamond thunderbolt) is printed?
But what really makes me pissed,angry and sad is the arbitary banning of Seeds. Problem that could have been imho easily fixed by one clear definitive ruling/clarificatin/defining. Banning an unique(?) and well balanced effect from the game, because deciding organ is unable to define what is a basicability and what is specialability, is INMNSFHO just horribly sad and disgusting. No offence meant, but come on?
Of, and btw, Seeds screws over parts of those MMPA-decks. Thanks for banning a tool against Anson&stuff. Thanks for banning a fair tool against all those annoying vampires with nasty specials. Thanks for banning my favorite card on the game, reasons being "we're unable to make a clear ruling, so we'll just van it".
P.s. For Finns, I might have a collection for sale due to this shit.
We saw one in a tournament a few months ago. Hopefully, there was me (getting wrong or having doubts), Stone our former rulemonger and someone else to put our mind in common, and finally look on the internet what it did in that particuliar case (it was played on Enkidu).
We just lost 10 minutes.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Non-existant user wrote:
> A blanket rule that players cannot take more than two MPAs per turn would not require changing any card text, only the rulebook.
>
True, that would still make liquidation + anthelios work to find the masters I want faster. I can pick up any ashurs later on, no immediate rush and once the masters I want are in the ashheap, 2 MPA's per turn is plenty (more would be better, but I can work with just 2).
All for it ^^
-1 Strength
> Non-existant user wrote:
> A blanket rule that players cannot take more than two MPAs per turn would not require changing any card text, only the rulebook.
>
Half agree. Trifles get less good then. If we say "from non trifle sources" or make a trifle phase before master, or change rules to "only one source of an additional MPA can be used each turn. Trifles do not count against this. Like additional strike sources, and trifles are Quickness.....
Alek, I cried that seeds was banned. A lot. Or maybe that was because Bowie died. Just kidding. There was something in my eye.....
I liked seeds. I like prison of the mind and mind of a child too. I liked seeds more, even though I had it played on me the only time I've seen it played, but I get it would be hard-ish for rules. Much harder for non-native English speakers, I suppose.
> Ankha wrote:
> We saw one in a tournament a few months ago. Hopefully, there was me (getting wrong or having doubts), Stone our former rulemonger and someone else to put our mind in common, and finally look on the internet what it did in that particuliar case (it was played on Enkidu).
> We just lost 10 minutes.
>
...and this, people, is a textbook example of why Seeds was banned.
I've had to answer a few Seeds-related questions as a tournament judge. It's always been a pain, since it's never been 100% clear what gets removed and what doesn't (what's a penalty which Seeds doesn't remove, what's a special ability which Seeds does remove). It causes arguments, it wastes time.
In addition, it's very rare to actually see Seeds in a tournament, so the actual effect on the (tournament) game scene here will be close to nil. Nothing is preventing people from still including Seeds in casual decks.
While I understand the angst if a favorite card is banned.... still. Mountain. Molehill.
> Ankha wrote:
> We saw one in a tournament a few months ago. Hopefully, there was me (getting wrong or having doubts), Stone our former rulemonger and someone else to put our mind in common, and finally look on the internet what it did in that particuliar case (it was played on Enkidu).
> We just lost 10 minutes.
>
How? Everything relevant to Enkidu is in vekn.net/card-rulings/card-rulings-p-to-z
Enkidu's text from Secret Library:
Sabbat. Red List: Enkidu can enter combat with any minion as a action. If Enkidu successfully performs an action to employ a retainer, he untaps at the end of the turn. He cannot have or use equipment. +2 strength.
The ruling from vekn.net/card-rulings/card-rulings-p-to-z
Seeds of Corruption:
"Special ability" includes all text except terms (i.e., it doesn't include Clan, Sect, Title, Unique (or not), Blood Cursed, Circle, Flight, Infernal, Scarce, Slave, Sterile, Vulnerability, Anarch, Black Hand, Seraph, Red List). (note that this only restricts things that are possible only by special ability - things that a special ability makes impossible are still impossible.) [LSJ 19970801] [LSJ 20011211] [LSJ 20040120] [RTR 20040501]
The vampire burns blood for Seeds of Corruption when the action is attempted. [LSJ 19971013]
So let's break Enkidu down, piece by piece.
"Sabbat." Sect. Still applies, because the ruling says it doesn't include "sect" "Red List". Ditto, the ruling says it doesn't include "Red List", by name. "Enkidu can enter combat with any minion as a action." Clearly a special ability, and not saved by anything else in the ruling. It's also not a special prohibition (the "...are still impossible" bit of the ruling). Result: No longer usable with Seeds on him. "If Enkidu successfully performs an action to employ a retainer, he untaps at the end of the turn." Similarly, a special ability, that allows him to untap. Not a special restriction. No longer usable with Seeds on him. "He cannot have or use equipment." This falls under the "things that a special ability makes impossible are still impossible" part of the ruling. Still functions with Seeds in play. "+2 strength." Special ability, not a defined term from the ruling. (Nor is, say, permanent +1 stealth, +1 intercept etc.) So it doesn't apply while Seeds is on him.
There are genuinely mind-bending moments with Seeds of Corruption - Tariq the Silent is one of them - but Enkidu surely isn't one of them if you take each part of his ability in turn, and apply the ruling to it.
Yes, after ten minutes trying to figure out (and remembering either correctly or not) what it did, we ended up reading the ruling to be sure.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director