Rules Team Rulings - 22-APR-2013

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Which more or less flies in the face of "wouldn't it be helpful if LSJ explained his reasoning"? He explained his reasoning for seat-switchers at some considerable length, and there is no "tweak" that would address those.

Yes, you are correct about LSJ explaining the seat-switching.

My apologies for the confusion. I was quoting Ankha who was talking about LSJ not explaining PTO, but then also tying in additional related issues (cards that were banned and then unbanned, banned cards that some people think can be fixed). Sorry if things got a bit muddled.

Since you apparently believe that tweaks could fix these problems, in the face of extensive explanations by LSJ, it doesn't really seem that the details of why a card was banned matter.

That is incorrect James. I'm personally not that vested in tweaking DU/KR or Memories of Mortality but I just wanted to point out that some people are more passionate about it. I recall several old school players (many in the UK) who were quite dis-satisfied when the seat-switchers were banned, and didn't think that banning was necessary.

I fully support the ban of LB. I think it's pretty obvious that the Bahari designation was meant to eventually incur some sort of negative effect (otherwise why introduce it at all, just "tap to...")

I'd be fine with banning Villein too quite honestly as it was the most glaring example of power creep the game has ever seen (though I suspect more of it's ilk were in the planning prior to the WW buyout). At least the errata un-hosed minion tap, but the card was designed (again IMO) not for the good of the game but to boost card sales. As a player of the game I never cared for that tact personally...

But certainly the two cards together, LB + V, allowing the use of insanely large crypts at zero risk was just the definition of broken combo.

So good riddance.

I'd be fine with Ahur Tablets going away too (though it sounds like it will be erratad when PoD is up and running).

And for the record I'm using ALL of these cards in decks right now; so be it. No different than Memories of Mortality and Edge Explosion.

Some cards really should not have ever been printed IMO (like Una).

Soonerborn wrote:

I fully support the ban of LB. I think it's pretty obvious that the Bahari designation was meant to eventually incur some sort of negative effect (otherwise why introduce it at all, just "tap to...")

To prevent it being used repetitively. You could achieve the same effect with "A vampire can only benefit from Lilith's Blessing once per game." But LSJ's designs have a slight tendency to use keywords where they seem to make sense, even if there isn't any tech to interact with them right there and then - handy if you come up with an interesting effect in the future, and don't need to retro-errata a previous card to fit. Obviously you can go overboard with that sort of thing, and no-one wants every card covered with redundant, non-functioning keywords, but a handful scattered around providing possible seeds for future growth seems pretty cool.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Which more or less flies in the face of "wouldn't it be helpful if LSJ explained his reasoning"? He explained his reasoning for seat-switchers at some considerable length, and there is no "tweak" that would address those.

James, thanks for reminding me of that whole DU/KR discussion. It was certainly a trip down memory lane. B-)

Refreshing myself with the Usenet archives, one might recall that players such as Johannes Walch, Mike Nudd, Rob Treasure, Reyda, Frederick Scott, and Joshua Feuerstein were not happy about the DU/KR bans at the time. (And David Buerger was very saddened by the Succubus Club ban).

To reference a few quotes which are similar to questions people are asking now:

JOHANNES WALCH:

I just fell off my chair. Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure were/are
cornerstones of V:TES.

Care to explain why these cards were banned? I cannot see any apparent
reason.

Who decides which cards are getting banned? Why isn´t there any discussion
about this? I am very disappointed by the fact that major things about this
game are changed without taking into account the opinion of those who work
countless hours in their spare time to promote and run the game.

A sad, sad day for V:TES.


HUGH ANGSEESING:

However I'm suprised that WW went for a ban on these cards rather than
perhaps limiting them to being played once per game per player or
other adjustments.

Will WW give a fuller description of their reasons of why they were
banned (none of these cards are particularly broken over here and
Succubus club i've not seen used at all in the UK)


MIKE NUDD:

Perhaps the most serious complaint (which I didn't raise before but which
I've seen elsewhere) is how come after 10 years of V:TES, and DU and KR
being available for the *entire* period should they be banned now? If they
were such a problem then they should have been banned before - what changed
in the last year or so that has made a ban so necessary all of a sudden?



So in my personal opinion, I think it should be perfectly acceptable to ask the same questions (Why was it banned? What process was used in determining the ban? Why the ban now?) that Johannes, Hugh, and Mike asked many years ago.

For those interested in viewing the threads themselves, the thread was "2005 Tournament Rules Options" from December 4, 2004. It's a good read, and there are some amusing posts about Johannes too!

Pascal wrote:

Squidalot wrote:

echiang wrote:

Pascal wrote:

ReverendRevolver wrote:

My question is, why no Ashur errata? I assumed the word "minion" would be added between 13 and "cards", or it would be banned.

The decision was taken not to errata any card until cards with updated cardtext are available.

So I assume this is a new change in policy developed some time in the past year?

I ask because apparently this line of reasoning did not apply to the December 2, 2011 rulings which errata'ed Villein (and with minor erratas to Domain of Evernight and Pocket Out of Time).

It's not new a thought - I assume the Villein errata was made because it was considered too crippling to a large number of players who did not have adequate access to villein in suitable quantities, not to be made.

The other two minor errata as you said were helpful clarifications rather than a change that needs a print.

It's an "old" thought that has been reinforced by the PoD program sounding more and more realistic. Some changes in cardtexts that were considered for this RTR have been postponed (changes similar to the Psyche! changes in the previous RTR).

How does this relate to Robert Goudie's "old" thought that:

If cards can be rehabilitated with new text in a new printing, there's
not much need to ban them. IMO (and Scott's too, AFAIK), Anarch Revolt
falls into that category of redeemable cards. As Scott has posted
elsewhere, if text were to be discovered that would redeem DU/KR, then
they would be unbanned (Of course, given their nature, it will certainly
be challenging to find appropriate text). Also, if a good solution had
presented itself previously, the cards would never have been banned.

With POD coming, new printings should be readily available. So shouldn't there be "not much need to ban" Lilith's Blessing right now, especially since it could be fixed and reprinted within the year?

I think the plan is:
1) take it out of the game
2) develop a suitable replacement
3) reintroduce the card under a new name if a suitable replacement can be made

[Edit added after thinking my way through other cards that may be banned]

Plus, LB actually reduces minion interactions by eliminating hunt actions. Regardless of the pool generation created by Villein + LB, LB removes the traditional risk of minion loss by blocking the hunt.

It's also why I think Pentex should allow the minion it is on to remove the card but other than that edit, Pentex should potentially stay (increase in minion interaction). Sense Dep is considered incredibly powerful because of its ability to remove a minion from interactions.

In general, I think, many of the players (new and experienced) want GREATER minion interaction in this game. LB removes a key minion action (Mandatory Hunts for empty vampires) and consequently represents a potential drastic reduction in minion interaction. If the Metagame does not significantly change with this banning, then obviously LB was either not influential enough OR there are other cards at fault for the problems players have with their Metagame.