Freeze the flesh

Any rule erratum or clarification submission for the upcoming ARV should be posted here.
Post Reply
panotxa
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:35 pm
Location: Vic/Barcelona

Freeze the flesh

Post by panotxa » Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:41 am

I propose the following erratum:

FREEZE THE FLESH
Magic. Shadow‐magic. Playable on a character that was eliminated by a body check this turn if you have a shadow‐magic‐using character that was in his company when the character was eliminated. Return the character to the company and tap him. Target character has ‐2 mind to a minimum of 1, ‐1 prowess, and ‐2 body. The character’s company is now overt. Unless he is a Ringwraith, the shadow‐ magic‐using character makes a corruption check modified by ‐4.

Discussed here:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2916&p=24145

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Theo » Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:52 am

In addition to what the original proposal addresses, I am concerned that two of these cards allow a character to be frozen out of a greater failed corruption check (or any other elimination) if they had been previously frozen out of an elimination by a body check in the same turn. To avoid this, how about:
Freeze the Flesh wrote: Magic. Shadow‐magic. Playable on a character that was last eliminated by a body check this turn if you have a shadow‐magic‐using character that was in his company during that elimination. Return the character to the company and tap him. Target character has ‐2 mind to a minimum of 1, ‐1 prowess, and ‐2 body. The character’s company is now overt. Unless he is a Ringwraith, the shadow‐magic‐using character makes a corruption check modified by ‐4.

Additional thematic suggestions:
  • Instead of the "is", I'd like to suggest instead correcting the "was", only allowing Freeze the Flesh to be played in immediate response to a character failing a body check or lose the chance. No allowance of decay to set in before remembering how to Freeze the Flesh from a draw later that turn.
  • Also removes the ability for the frozen to effectively become invulnerable to follow-up attacks. I doubt freezing helps against a Dragon swallowing the defenseless lump whole.
Freeze the Flesh wrote: Magic. Shadow‐magic. Playable on a character that is being eliminated by a body check if a shadow‐magic‐using character is in his company. Instead of being eliminated by this body check, set the character's status to tapped. Target character has ‐2 mind to a minimum of 1, ‐1 prowess, and ‐2 body. The character’s company is now overt. Unless he is a Ringwraith, the shadow‐magic‐using character makes a corruption check modified by ‐4.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Theo » Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:58 am

My concern does not seem to have been recognized by the ballot, leaving me in a quandry. :|
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by the Jabberwock » Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:46 am

Theo wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:58 am
My concern does not seem to have been recognized by the ballot, leaving me in a quandry. :|
Jose-san was the point man on this item and I don't want to speak for him.

However, from my general observation, a very likely reason your language was not considered for implementation is because it was submitted only a few days prior to the scheduled vote open. There was a significant amount of work being done daily behind the scenes by the ROC. Each ROC member was responsible for drafting specific ballot items. Once completed, the other members of the ROC reviewed the drafts and provided feedback, which were then discussed by the group. Many times changes were made due to the feedback. While there were a few loose ends in the final days prior to the vote open, most ballot items had already gone through the review process at that point.

Also, many of the ballot items use the same language as submitted or agreed upon by the submission author, however, there are some items where the language was changed as deemed necessary or appropriate by the ROC.

As an aside... I'm not sure why your language not being implemented would cause you consternation on which way to vote on the item as presented. You either believe Freeze the Flesh should be usable (in some way) or you do not. IMO, language not being "perfect" is not a good reason to not vote for a significant improvement.

User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Council Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Thorsten the Traveller » Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:15 am

Perhaps also it wasn't clear what exactly your concern was. Is it thematic, or mechanic? Basically you're saying a character can first be eliminated by bc and Freezed, while he can be corrupted and Freezed again later that turn? I suppose so, but it's a) far-fetched, b) now also possible, c) not the main issue this errata is dealing with, and d) perhaps not even unthematic (he's an undead now, the shadow-magic controller has him on a string).
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.

User avatar
kober
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:31 am
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by kober » Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:24 am

Don't despair Theo - there will be ARV in '19, and yours could be the first submission :D

Jose-san
Council Member
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Jose-san » Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:48 pm

Sorry, last weekend was crazy. I didn't see your contribution until now. We can make Freeze the Flesh work, and iron out the wrinkles on next occasion.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by Theo » Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:58 pm

Thanks for the insights. I totally understand the pipeline having already begun on that one. And I agree that my two-in-one-turn concern is quite orthogonal from the original proposal.

@kober :D
the Jabberwock wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:46 am
IMO, language not being "perfect" is not a good reason to not vote for a significant improvement.
I agree within reason. My quandry is that while the proposal seems an improvement in terms of clarity, I think it assumes the "was" rather than "is" basis without proper consideration. While this difference can always be revisited later, the ballot passing would reinforce voters expectations. I guess I have some soul searching for whether I believe avoiding disputes is preferable over diminishing a player's ability to locally dispute whether Freeze the Flesh should be required upon instead of after elimination.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

User avatar
the Jabberwock
Council Chairman
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Freeze the flesh

Post by the Jabberwock » Fri Jun 08, 2018 1:54 am

Theo wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:58 pm
I agree within reason. My quandry is that while the proposal seems an improvement in terms of clarity, I think it assumes the "was" rather than "is" basis without proper consideration. While this difference can always be revisited later, the ballot passing would reinforce voters expectations. I guess I have some soul searching for whether I believe avoiding disputes is preferable over diminishing a player's ability to locally dispute whether Freeze the Flesh should be required upon instead of after elimination.
I disagree, as I don't think this ballot item passing sets a precedent that this card should be playable at any time during the turn, but rather addresses the fact that the original version using both was and is set up an impossible situation. The current ballot item doesn't address, nor make any argument for the was being preferable over the is being idea, so I don't see it ingraining any sort of "this is how it should be" sentiment in the community.

If a reasonable argument is made in the future that this card should only be allowed as an immediate response to a failed body check, rather than any time that turn after the failed body check, it can easily be presented as its own improvement, allowing our intelligent community to decide whether or not they agree.

Additionally, if this proposal passes as written, I don't see any dispute being had over the upon versus after elimination point. The language is clear that it is after.

Post Reply

Return to “Annual Rules Vote - Submissions”