Spell of Life Draft effect - errata request?

Jozxyqk:
> I know it's probably just whining, but I'd like to request some
> errata on the DRAFT effect of Spell of Life.
> Simply to add: ", and the mummies created are not unique."

It's not just whining. Spell of Life is quite possibly broken in
draft, and you're certainly not the only person to observe this. I
have never been involved in White Wolf's play test process, but it
seems very likely to me that draft effects are not tested at all.

> Matt Morgan knows why.

Pretty much everyone who played in either draft at Templecon this
weekend knows why as well. In our unsanctioned Jyhad + LotN draft
(which was not a tournament; we just drafted and played one game), Ben
Peal contested my Roxanne with Spell of Life, and in the sanctioned
draft the next day Matt Morgan contested at least 3 vampires (all 7 or
greater) with the Spell.

> Basically, in such a small card pool, the chances are increased of
> the "unique mummies" contesting with the "unique vampires" of the
> same name. In the Draft on Sunday, my predator Matt contested
> 2 out of 4 of my vampires, with mummies, for no initial cost.
> He warned me that it was going to happen, but there was nothing
> I could do (and don't say "block the action!"; this was draft, and
> he was using Mr. +1 Stealth, Porphyrion)
> If the rule remains that the unique mummies contest with vampires
> of the same name, then I think that being non-unique in draft is
> nothing but a good thing.

The problem with this solution is that it would allow the Spell of
Life players to bring out multiple copies of their own mummies, which
could make the deck somewhat more powerful. It would be cumbersome and
grossly inelegant to say that the mummies are unique with respect to
your own guys, but not with other players'. Also, in certain weird set
arrangements, one might trigger some effect by controlling a mummy of
the appropriate name, and according to LSJ's weirdly inconsistent
ruling on this issue, only unique cards count as being named something
when played as something else.

Matt Morgan suggested a solution that I was already thinking about at
the draft, which is that the Spell can be burned once you have 2 or
more, but it only creates as many mummies as the number of Spells
burned. Of course, it is annoying to have errata (especially on draft
text, which many people will not bother to memorize), but there are
already two cards under errata in draft (Third Edition Claws of the
Dead is misprinted and Immortal Grapple is literally unplayable as
written).

Jesse, who will post a report for TempleCondemn the Sins of the Father
very soon.
 >> Stay informed about: Spell of Life Draft effect - errata request? 

If the rule remains that the unique mummies contest with vampires
of the same name



Maybe I'm crazy. But why on earth would a Unique Mummy contest with a
Unique Vampire. Simply on the basis of a name that doesn't mean
anything anymore. Seriously, one is an ally the other a vamp. There
is no similiarities and the special of the Vamp if any shouldn't apply
to an Ally Mummy who just happens to have the name of the Vamp.
Treating them as the same is not right.
 >> Stay informed about: Spell of Life Draft effect - errata request? 

On 4 fév, 23:19, Jyhad <jy... RemoveThis @storageannex.com> wrote:
> If the rule remains that the unique mummies contest with vampires
> of the same name
>
> Maybe I'm crazy. But why on earth would a Unique Mummy contest with a
> Unique Vampire. Simply on the basis of a name that doesn't mean
> anything anymore. Seriously, one is an ally the other a vamp. There
> is no similiarities and the special of the Vamp if any shouldn't apply
> to an Ally Mummy who just happens to have the name of the Vamp.
> Treating them as the same is not right.

Maybe because the mummy is supposed to be the vampire brought back to
(un)life?
 >> Stay informed about: Spell of Life Draft effect - errata request? 

Jyhad wrote:
> If the rule remains that the unique mummies contest with vampires
> of the same name

.....
.......
then?

Please dude, write complete sentences. If you won't do it for me, do
it for the children.

> Maybe I'm crazy. But why on earth would a Unique Mummy contest with a
> Unique Vampire.

Because that's what the rules say. Unique cards contest with unique
cards of the same name.

>Simply on the basis of a name that doesn't mean
> anything anymore.

It doesn't mean anything more, but the name is the only thing the
rules ask for.

>Seriously, one is an ally the other a vamp. There
> is no similiarities and the special of the Vamp if any shouldn't apply
> to an Ally Mummy who just happens to have the name of the Vamp.
> Treating them as the same is not right.

They aren't treated the same. They are treated as though they have the
same name, which they do.
 >> Stay informed about: Spell of Life Draft effect - errata request? 

On Feb 4, 8:56 pm, jcrossnicker....TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> Jyhad wrote:
> > If the rule remains that the unique mummies contest with vampires
> > of the same name
>
> ....
> ......
> then?
>
> Please dude, write complete sentences. If you won't do it for me, do
> it for the children.

Actually I took that from the original post. Just took out the part I
wanted. That would related to what followed.


> > Maybe I'm crazy. But why on earth would a Unique Mummy contest with a
> > Unique Vampire.
>
> Because that's what the rules say. Unique cards contest with unique
> cards of the same name.

That is understandable. But there is still a difference between an
Ally and a Vampire.

> >Simply on the basis of a name that doesn't mean
> > anything anymore.
>
> It doesn't mean anything more, but the name is the only thing the
> rules ask for.

Contesting I can deal with actually. I think it's silly but not that
big a deal.

> >Seriously, one is an ally the other a vamp. There
> > is no similiarities and the special of the Vamp if any shouldn't apply
> > to an Ally Mummy who just happens to have the name of the Vamp.
> > Treating them as the same is not right.
>
> They aren't treated the same. They are treated as though they have the
> same name, which they do.

That's a cheesy loop hole. Think of all the Aabbts that can bring out
a Mummified Nefertiti and suddenly they are able to do D actions just
because of the loop hole that exists with Spell of Life.
 >> Stay informed about: Spell of Life Draft effect - errata request? 

I wrote this to Jyhad:
> > Please dude, write complete sentences. If you won't do it for me, do
> > it for the children.

and he justified himself like so:
> Actually I took that from the original post. Just took out the part I
> wanted. That would related to what followed.

It's really totally acceptable to proofread your posts before hitting
submit. Some of us do that all the time.

I wrote:
> > They aren't treated the same. They are treated as though they have the
> > same name, which they do.

To which Jyhad responded:
> That's a cheesy loop hole. Think of all the Aabbts that can bring out
> a Mummified Nefertiti and suddenly they are able to do D actions just
> because of the loop hole that exists with Spell of Life.

I have thought about this, and I may be among the first people to have
written about it on the internet. Is it a loophole? Perhaps. Is it
cheesy in any game breaking sense? Most certainly not. If someone
makes this deck and it turns out to be anything other than terrible, I
will be deeply surprised. When you say that the Aabts can take D
actions "just because of the loophole", what you really mean is that
they can take D actions "just because" they successfully took 5 card-
requiring +1 stealth actions without any built-in obfuscate on 5
different turns, only to resolve a Spell of Life that is most surely
below full strength due to the crypt decisions needed to run th combo.

Is there a really a problem here?
 >> Stay informed about: Spell of Life Draft effect - errata request? 

In article
<20207414-826a-439f-89d3-656b7af166a8 DeleteThis @f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Jyhad <jyhad DeleteThis @storageannex.com> wrote:

> On Feb 4, 8:56 pm, jcrossnicker... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
> That's a cheesy loop hole. Think of all the Aabbts that can bring out
> a Mummified Nefertiti and suddenly they are able to do D actions just
> because of the loop hole that exists with Spell of Life.

I don't know if that is a "loophole" so much as a "feature of the
card"--I suspect that someone at some point in the playtesting of the
card figured this particular trick out, brought it to the attention of
the designers, and here we are. I'm actually currently in a JOL game
where my prey (Raille) is probably playing this very deck (so far, I
have seen a lot of Aabbt Kindred playing Spells of Life...) I'm actually
really *hoping* he brings out a mummified Nefertiti, so he can start
going forward and hurting his prey

In any case, that Spell of Life brings out unique by name minions isn't
much of an issue in constructed play--the likelyhood of contesting
someone else's vampire with a mummy is really small, and things like
Aabbt Kindred making a free Nefertiti is just plain funny.

The issue here is for draft play, where the field of vampires in a given
game is *much* smaller, the likelyhood of contesting someone offensively
is high, and the damage it causes is significant. If there weren't
already special rules for the card in draft (i.e. draft effect), it
probably wouldn't be an issue either. But as there are draft effect
rules, it seems reasonable that they should be fixed to address this.

Peter D Bakija
pdb6 DeleteThis @lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

"Find hungry samurai."
-The Old Man
 >> Stay informed about: Spell of Life Draft effect - errata request?