Burst of Sunlight and Retainers

This came up in a for-fun game after the third round of a tournament: Does Burst of Sunlight affect retainers? The new card text is pretty clear in saying "1R Aggravated", but also suggests that you have to target it, meaning you can kill a Raven Spy at inferior with it, OR target the opposing vampire. The OLD card text, kinda suggests it's an overall effect that just "everything" in combat gets the damage, much like weather control. I admit, we didn't have a new card handy so that's probably why it came up in the first place. Am I correct in assuming that it's a single-target strike that just happens to be aggravated and hurt yourself as well, like the card-text suggests?

Izaak wrote: > This came up in a for-fun game after the third round of a tournament: > > Does Burst of Sunlight affect retainers? The new card text is pretty > clear in saying "1R Aggravated", but also suggests that you have to > target it, meaning you can kill a Raven Spy at inferior with it, OR > target the opposing vampire. Correct. > The OLD card text, kinda suggests it's an overall effect that just > "everything" in combat gets the damage, much like weather control. Old card text suggested, by way of explicitly stating, that just "every vampire" in combat gets the damage. > I admit, we didn't have a new card handy so that's probably why it came > up in the first place. Am I correct in assuming that it's a > single-target strike that just happens to be aggravated and hurt > yourself as well, like the card-text suggests? Like the card text states, yes. -- 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> wrote in message news:<4043223A...@white-wolf.com>... > Izaak wrote: > > This came up in a for-fun game after the third round of a tournament: > > > > Does Burst of Sunlight affect retainers? The new card text is pretty > > clear in saying "1R Aggravated", but also suggests that you have to > > target it, meaning you can kill a Raven Spy at inferior with it, OR > > target the opposing vampire. > > Correct. erm... I know this is only a card... but why would most retainers take damage from a bit of sunshine? vampires would and should, but animals and mortals?!?! IMO non-vampires should be immune to any damage from this card.

hawk_the_demon spat out: [ quoted text not captured ] If you applied the rules of the game based on card title, you would not stop arguing with your fellow players long enough to finish a game. That's why they invented card text. However, to induldge your argument-- I get sunburned, don't you? --Rob Grau

rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu: > > IMO non-vampires should be immune to any damage from this card. > > If you applied the rules of the game based on card title, you would > not stop arguing with your fellow players long enough to finish a > game. ok, some points to support my argument: - this game is about vampires, vampires don't, in general, like to sunbathe. - other creatures than vampires appear in the game, most of them don't mind a bit of sun, many even like it. - the 'theme' of the card (based on the power from the rpg), as I understand it, is that the vampires in the combat are exposed to artificial (iirc) sunlight. that is the effect the original cardtext had (only on vampires). - the card was reworded, IMO this could have been done better. I am aware that this is a card game and is not the same as the rpg and balance should have higher priority than mood. but as I have said in other threads, it is still based on the rpg and where viable should try to maintain the mood of the rpg. killing ravens with a ray of sunshine does not maintain the mood and I can't see any reason how not being able to kill retainers with sunlight is a threat to game balance. > That's why they invented card text. [sarcasm]well that was a mistake, we should only use the titles of the cards.[/sarcasm] > However, to induldge your argument-- I get sunburned, don't you? I do actually, not as badly as a vampire would though :-) bad sunburn (where skin peels of) actually helps you survive heavy sunshine, as what is happening is that cells that are badly mutated because of UV rays commit suicide (apoptosis). if they don't do that (and are still damaged) they can potentially transform into cancer cells, which are not good for you (as most people know), but that death/damage takes a while to bring somone down. vampire 'sunburn' is not a protective mechanism... erm... for vampires anyway.

hawk_the_demon replied: > rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu wrote: > > hawk_the_demon spat out: > > > IMO non-vampires should be immune to any damage from this card. > > > > If you applied the rules of the game based on card title, you would > > not stop arguing with your fellow players long enough to finish a > > game. > > ok, some points to support my argument: > > - this game is about vampires, vampires don't, in general, like to > sunbathe. <--snip 3 more points about vampires and sunlight--> Also: > killing ravens with a ray of > sunshine does not maintain the mood and I can't see any reason how not > being able to kill retainers with sunlight is a threat to game > balance. > > > That's why they invented card text. > > [sarcasm]well that was a mistake, we should only use the titles of the > cards.[/sarcasm] You get it, but you don't. You act sarcastic in the above quote, but in the previous two paragraphs you take on the topic of vampires and sunlight in a very non sarcastic way. The only place that mentions sunlight is the card title. Try calling the card "That Not So Fresh Feeling" and look at it again. There's nothing else to suggest that allies/retainers should be immune to damage from this card, but not immune to a card like Thrown Sewer Lid. Switching to the non card game world: > > However, to induldge your argument-- I get sunburned, don't you? > > I do actually, not as badly as a vampire would though :-) > > bad sunburn (where skin peels of) actually helps you survive heavy > sunshine, as what is happening is that cells that are badly mutated > because of UV rays commit suicide (apoptosis). if they don't do that > (and are still damaged) they can potentially transform into cancer > cells, which are not good for you (as most people know), but that > death/damage takes a while to bring somone down. > > vampire 'sunburn' is not a protective mechanism... erm... for vampires > anyway. The cancer thing is a straw man. Sunburn is still painful. Serious sunburn can require hospitalization. That's real damage. You argue that allies should be immune from the card effects because sunlight isn't harmful to them, but you admit that it is harmful to human beings. The real world logic doesn't hold up here. --Rob Grau

rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu: > <--snip 3 more points about vampires and sunlight--> one point was actually about original card effect, which is a good indication of designers intent. quite often used as a justification for errata and rulings. the justification of going against designers intent is usually because of balance issues. in this case I can see no threat to game balance from having this card not being able to hurt allies. there may have been other complications with the original text, but this solution was IMO not the best one. (now... try to understand that this is the main point of what I am trying to explain here). > Also: > > killing ravens with a ray of > > sunshine does not maintain the mood and I can't see any reason how not > > being able to kill retainers with sunlight is a threat to game > > balance. did actually you read this part? see the clause on designers intent above as well. > > > That's why they invented card text. > > > > [sarcasm]well that was a mistake, we should only use the titles of the > > cards.[/sarcasm] > > You get it, but you don't. You act sarcastic in the above quote, but > in the previous two paragraphs you take on the topic of vampires and > sunlight in a very non sarcastic way. The only place that mentions > sunlight is the card title. Try calling the card "That Not So Fresh > Feeling" and look at it again. I do get it, believe me, I'm not sure if you do. this sarcasm was a reply to a silly statement (if you don't agree that it was silly, then, well, ...). when I describe arguments for my opinions, usually I don't see a need for sarcasm. > There's nothing else to suggest that allies/retainers should be immune > to damage from this card, but not immune to a card like Thrown Sewer > Lid. read the clause on designers intent above. cards have different effects, original BoS had different effect from the sewer lid (btw, let's rename that to thrown pillow and try to maintain the mood of the game at the same time). the original effect was on vampires only, why change that? ok the original 'to all vampires in the combat' clause was maybe threat to game balance, but change to 'strike 1/2 agg, you take damage too' was IMO not the best solution. ah, yes, read the clause above on designers intent. > Switching to the non card game world: <snip bunch of irrelevant stuff> > The cancer thing is a straw man. Sunburn is still painful. Serious > sunburn can require hospitalization. That's real damage. yes, but would it be an effective 'weapon' in a fight? how long after exposure does it take for you to be aware of the damage? > You argue that allies should be immune from the card effects because > sunlight isn't harmful to them, but you admit that it is harmful to > human beings. The real world logic doesn't hold up here. it is damaging yes, but not in such a way that it would cause anyone to die/be severly injured for the duration of the fight he was involved in at the moment when he was exposed to the sunlight. so that logic does hold. -------------------------- summary: mood is important. balance is more important. optimal solution is when both are maintained. if a part of cards effect is threat to balance, that part should be changed while trying to maintain the mood. other parts of the cards effect than the one that is a threat to bame balance should remain unchanged. if you disagree... well then we disagree. to bad (or is it?)

rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu (Rob Grau) wrote in message news:<92a6fbf1.04030...@posting.google.com>... > --Rob Grau d00d. Look who figured out USENet (again) ;-) Good to see you posting, Rob. Does this mean you now have the time to game? DaveZ Atom Weaver

atomweaver wrote: > d00d. Look who figured out USENet (again) ;-) Good to see you > posting, Rob. Does this mean you now have the time to game? He hemmed and hawwed about it at first, but I sent a few of Da Boys around the way, and he's decided to be reasonable. ;) -- -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@duke.edu

guenh...@mindspring.com (atomweaver) wrote in message news:<4c6f3f3e.0403...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I don't have time to drive to Connecticut for the Prophecies League games, if that's what you mean. :) I do need to justify having a closet full of card and board games, so I'm hoping to be around a bit more. Torpor was nice to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. --Rob Grau

hawk_the_demon wrote: > rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu: > > <--snip 3 more points about vampires and sunlight--> > > one point was actually about original card effect, which is a good > indication of designers intent. quite often used as a justification > for errata and rulings. > the justification of going against designers intent is usually because > of balance issues. When I look at the newsgroup archives, it looks like the rules team decided to change the way damage that allies received when playing cards "as a vampire" in May 2002. My guess is those rulings were related to the rewording of Burst of Sunlight when the Camarilla Edition was released in August 2002. You really need to ask LSJ or a rules team member what their rational was before you build an argument that it was all done because of game balance. I don't know. > from having this card not being able to hurt allies. there may have > been other complications with the original text, but this solution was > IMO not the best one. (now... try to understand that this is the main > point of what I am trying to explain here). Well, I'm not going to change your opinion. However, If your opinion was based on rules or a game mechanic, then I'd probably care a lot more about it. > > Switching to the non card game world: > <snip bunch of irrelevant stuff> > > The cancer thing is a straw man. Sunburn is still painful. Serious > > sunburn can require hospitalization. That's real damage. > > yes, but would it be an effective 'weapon' in a fight? how long after > exposure does it take for you to be aware of the damage? I'd say that by the end of strike resolution, you'd know. :) > > You argue that allies should be immune from the card effects because > > sunlight isn't harmful to them, but you admit that it is harmful to > > human beings. The real world logic doesn't hold up here. > > it is damaging yes, but not in such a way that it would cause anyone > to die/be severly injured for the duration of the fight he was > involved in at the moment when he was exposed to the sunlight. so that > logic does hold. If that's the way you want it to be, then sure. I only wanted to get across the point that sunlight wasn't completely harmless, since that's what the original statement was. I don't see why any decent storyteller couldn't work through this issue. Who says it has to be regular sunlight? The "Burst" is really created through Thamaturgy, so I don't see why it couldn't be more concentrated or more potent sunlight. I mean it's not like anyone has actually shown up with a light meter and asked a Tremere to cast the Burst of Sunlight spell. > if you disagree... well then we disagree. to bad (or is it?) Indeed. --Rob Grau

Rob Grau wrote: > My guess is those rulings were > related to the rewording of Burst of Sunlight when the Camarilla > Edition was released in August 2002. You really need to ask LSJ or a > rules team member what their rational was before you build an argument > that it was all done because of game balance. I don't know. probably right there. what I might have put in a clearer way was that _I_ could not see any threat to game balance, maybe somone else did. > Well, I'm not going to change your opinion. However, If your opinion > was based on rules or a game mechanic, then I'd probably care a lot > more about it. fair enough. I guess that everyone has different opinion on how important the mood is. (I could insert sarcastic remarks on using pokemon images and 'fluffy bunny' combat cards etc. but I'll try to resist.... DAMN!) > > > Switching to the non card game world: > <snip bunch of irrelevant stuff> > > > The cancer thing is a straw man. Sunburn is still painful. Serious > > > sunburn can require hospitalization. That's real damage. > > > > yes, but would it be an effective 'weapon' in a fight? how long after > > exposure does it take for you to be aware of the damage? > > I'd say that by the end of strike resolution, you'd know. :) perhaps at the end of combat ;-) 'HAH! that showed him.... wait... OUCH!' > If that's the way you want it to be, then sure. I only wanted to get > across the point that sunlight wasn't completely harmless, since > that's what the original statement was. I don't think I said it wasn't... cancer and all, but I get your point. > I don't see why any decent storyteller couldn't work through this > issue. Who says it has to be regular sunlight? The "Burst" is > really created through Thamaturgy, so I don't see why it couldn't be > more concentrated or more potent sunlight. I mean it's not like > anyone has actually shown up with a light meter and asked a Tremere to > cast the Burst of Sunlight spell. good point, and what an interesting experiment that would be.