Tongue of the Serpent - Shawn Ruling

Can this card be used at Range. It doesn't say range, but if Theft of Vitae can be used at range shouldn't this card since it of the same principle. Randy Sams.

>Can this card be used at Range. It doesn't say range, but if Theft of >Vitae can be used at range shouldn't this card since it of the same >principle. It kinda makes sense that it's not at long range since you have to hit them with your tounge.Theft of Vitae does not require touch and can be used at long range. Joseph

In article <pghbear-0409...@async36.city-net.com>, <pgh...@city-net.com> wrote: >Can this card be used at Range. It doesn't say range, but if Theft of >Vitae can be used at range shouldn't this card since it of the same >principle. No. If it doesn't say ranged, it isn't ranged. (How long is your tongue :-)? -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

AlmaLadron wrote: > > >Can this card be used at Range. It doesn't say range, but if Theft of > >Vitae can be used at range shouldn't this card since it of the same > >principle. > > It kinda makes sense that it's not at long range since you have to hit > them with your tounge.Theft of Vitae does not require touch and can be > used at long range. > > Joseph You know, Anson's tongue is pretty long. Maybe he should be allowed to used tongue strikes from range! Robert ...................................................................... :The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings: :and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. : : : :Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com: :....................................................................: :cigars * v:tes * car rallies * scotch * sega rally champion * spoon : :....................................................................:

AlmaLadron (almal...@aol.com) wrote: : >Can this card be used at Range. It doesn't say range, but if Theft of : >Vitae can be used at range shouldn't this card since it of the same : >principle. : It kinda makes sense that it's not at long range since you have to hit : them with your tounge.Theft of Vitae does not require touch and can be : used at long range. If you read the Vampire: The Masquerade Players Handbook section on Serpentis, you will see the tongue gets about 18 inches long. That, IMHO, is not long range. People keep forgetting this game is based on an existing roleplaying game and takes a lot of it's card ideas from it. Just read the RPG books and you'l understand a lot of cards better. -- //The Doctor. +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | GCS -d+ H++>+++ s:++>+:+ g+ p2 !au a->+++ w++ v+(---) | | C+++>+ UHL++ P?>+ L+ !3 E N++ K- W(---) !M !V po+ | | Y t(+) 5>+ !j R+ G++@ tv+(++) b+>++ D+ B? e+ u+** | | h+* f? !r--- n---- !y+ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+

> Danny Oscar Kip wrote: > > AlmaLadron (almal...@aol.com) wrote: > : >Can this card be used at Range. It doesn't say range, but if Theft of > : >Vitae can be used at range shouldn't this card since it of the same > : >principle. > : It kinda makes sense that it's not at long range since you have to hit > : them with your tounge.Theft of Vitae does not require touch and can be > : used at long range. > If you read the Vampire: The Masquerade Players Handbook section on > Serpentis, you will see the tongue gets about 18 inches long. > That, IMHO, is not long range. > People keep forgetting this game is based on an existing roleplaying game > and takes a lot of it's card ideas from it. > Just read the RPG books and you'l understand a lot of cards better. Yeah, but in the rule books for V:tM, the tongue does aggs damage, _and_ next round you can start to drink. Unfortunately, Tongue of the Serpent was made patently _inferior_ to Theft of Vitae and Wolf Claws, helping to cripple an interesting clan's combat ability. As such, it is one of the few halfway decent cards in Serpentis that isn't rare. Even so, that's not saying much, compared to what it could have been. (1 blood Strike:1 agg. damage. Superior Strike:1 agg. damage and steal 1 blood.) Nathan Harada

Has there been an errata on Mario Giovanni from AH? He is identical to Cristofero from DS. They both are 2capacity and have pot + nec. I can't imagine two little weenies being exactly the same. I hope and assume that he was supposed to be unique by having dom + nec. IMHO this would make him a decent vampire. If such an errata has not been issued, can it be? :)

> Has there been an errata on Mario Giovanni from AH? He is identical to > Cristofero from DS. They both are 2capacity and have pot + nec. I can't June 22, at Dragon*Con in Atlanta, Darius Styx (well, the guy from the DT who looks a lot like him, anyway) shrugged his shoulders and said that he had no problem with two vamps with identical stats. It makes sense, ya know. There are a lot of vampires out there, and some of them learn the same Disciplines, especially the young ones. In the same vein, Raven and Camille are not the same vamp, and it's perfectly kosher to have both of them controlled at the same time. Mr. Pynk --- http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/~tvbarnha/mr_pynk/

"Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk]" <tvba...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu> writes: >> Has there been an errata on Mario Giovanni from AH? He is identical to >> Cristofero from DS. They both are 2capacity and have pot + nec. I can't >It makes sense, ya know. There are a lot of vampires out there, and some >of them learn the same Disciplines, especially the young ones. >In the same vein, Raven and Camille are not the same vamp, and it's >perfectly kosher to have both of them controlled at the same time. Yes, but while Mario was designed to duplicate stats, Raven was just a ham-handed attempt to replace the fair-use-overstepping art on Camille. That's like saying Igo(Jyhad) and Igo(VtES) don't contest each other. (Except that the design team was smart enough not to change the names of all the vampires - only one). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Clap on! <clap> <clap> http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Clap off! <clap> <cla+W." Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | ^Ejq#xe>4NO CARRIER

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk] wrote: [Re: the Giovanni _designed_ to have identical stats] > In the same vein, Raven and Camille are not the same vamp, and it's > perfectly kosher to have both of them controlled at the same time. Officially, yes. Unofficially, though, it is totally unfair. The advantage gained by using both Raven and Camille is small, but statistically significant. If anyone cares to see, I have about 4K of archived information from the last time this came up. [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

> > In the same vein, Raven and Camille are not the same vamp, and it's > > perfectly kosher to have both of them controlled at the same time. > > Officially, yes. > > Unofficially, though, it is totally unfair. The advantage gained by using > both Raven and Camille is small, but statistically significant. If anyone > cares to see, I have about 4K of archived information from the last time > this came up. Yuck! Statistics. :shudder: Jyhad isn't numbers. If you want numbers, go play Magic. The concepts behind the cards... the idea that each card represents something -- that what those last two vampires just did can be imagined as a story -- is what gives Jyhad it's spark of life. Do you really want to know what's wrong with degenerate decks (tap-bleed, vote-pushing, etc.)? It's not that they win or that they're "unfair". (they're not unfair, because anyone could counter with the same deck) It's because those decks have DEGENERATED. They are "degenerate" because someone has reduced the deck (and thus the game) to NUMBERS. People have figured out formulae for winning, by ignoring the concepts behind the cards. Your statistical proof of something wrong with controlling Raven and Camille is just as bad for the game as a Weenie Vote Push deck. Chris Barnhart --- http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/~tvbarnha/mr_pynk/

On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk] wrote: > > > In the same vein, Raven and Camille are not the same vamp, and it's > > > perfectly kosher to have both of them controlled at the same time. > > Officially, yes. > > Unofficially, though, it is totally unfair. The advantage gained by using > > both Raven and Camille is small, but statistically significant. If anyone > > cares to see, I have about 4K of archived information from the last time > > this came up. > Yuck! Statistics. :shudder: Jyhad isn't numbers. If you want numbers, > go play Magic. The concepts behind the cards... the idea that each card > represents something -- that what those last two vampires just did can be > imagined as a story -- is what gives Jyhad it's spark of life. Yes, but the fact that Jyhad is a _balanced_ game is what makes it worthwhile to play. Star Wars the CCG can be imagined as a story, as can the Star Trek game, but neither are particularly balanced. While I agree that game analysis (doing statistics, etc.) _in_ and during the game isn't to exciting, between games, its nice to know that everything is kosher rather than provably statistically biased. > Do you really want to know what's wrong with degenerate decks (tap-bleed, > vote-pushing, etc.)? It's not that they win or that they're "unfair". > (they're not unfair, because anyone could counter with the same deck) Null arguement. Since this game allows a variety of strategies, if one strategy must be played to compete, it is still unfair, whether or not anyone could do it. > It's because those decks have DEGENERATED. > They are "degenerate" because someone has reduced the deck (and thus the > game) to NUMBERS. People have figured out formulae for winning, by > ignoring the concepts behind the cards. So your solution is...? Sit back and not complain about problems, hoping the the Design Team doesn't make another mistake? Hope that the people you play in a random game with somewhere don't play certain decks? Good luck, because that's what you are wagering on. I would rather try to show how there is an inequity (in this case, a nearly 1/2 drop in self-contesting, and an over 75% drop in two people contesting each other) in allowing Camille and Raven to be different vampires. This newsgroup has already caused several changes to official rules on cards and other things. I don't mind continually trying. > Your statistical proof of something wrong with controlling Raven and > Camille is just as bad for the game as a Weenie Vote Push deck. Why? Because on an intellectual level we think about how someone might exploit the game? It doesn't matter then, that I hope to have the whole fixed? Well, I guess, you can always sit idly by hoping that someone doesn't break your precious game and you don't play with people who exploit its drawbacks, but I'll be trying to change it so that those problems don't come up anymore. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.BSF.3.91.960922...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu>, Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk] <tvba...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu> wrote: [raven v. camille recap] >Yuck! Statistics. :shudder: Jyhad isn't numbers. If you want numbers, >go play Magic. The concepts behind the cards... the idea that each card >represents something -- that what those last two vampires just did can be >imagined as a story -- is what gives Jyhad it's spark of life. There's a difference between the *game* and the game's *design*. Jyhad's appeal is (for some) based on its world, the characterizations -- the game per se. For others, it's the elegance of the game's design. For most, it's both. A game's premise (gameworld) can be fundamentally neat, and if the design is flawed, the game is worthless (any White Wolf RPG will do as an example -- beautiful premises, horrifying klugy designs). Vice versa -- an excellently designed game won't survive if it doesn't have an exciting premise. When we talk about stats and numbers here in the newsgroup, we're exploring the game design, the balance that keeps Jyhad from becoming a schlocky collection of crocks like Magic. Little things add up. *This* card that was just a little out of line, but basically ok, in expansion X combines with *that* card that was just a little too cheap for its effect in expansion Y to become a Combo of Death -- witness the havoc wreaked on Magic by the combination of the fairly innocuous (taken separately) Instill Energy/Animate Artifact/Time Vault, which got Time Vault (a more or less balanced card on its own) banned in a matter of weeks. >Do you really want to know what's wrong with degenerate decks (tap-bleed, >vote-pushing, etc.)? It's not that they win or that they're "unfair". >(they're not unfair, because anyone could counter with the same deck) That *is* magic. Land-strip is unfair, so you counter with your own land-strip deck. Yawn. By forcing you to either play their strategy or a specific, narrowly tuned counter-strategy, they're unfair. >It's because those decks have DEGENERATED. > >They are "degenerate" because someone has reduced the deck (and thus the >game) to NUMBERS. People have figured out formulae for winning, by >ignoring the concepts behind the cards. They've exploited holes in the game's design; therefore, it behooves us to watch for development of such holes and endeavor to fix 'em. By analyzing the existing cardset for biases and exploitable artifacts, we keep things in balance. >Your statistical proof of something wrong with controlling Raven and >Camille is just as bad for the game as a Weenie Vote Push deck. I'm afraid I must disagree. Not contesting Raven/Camille gives the Gangrel a small, but definite, advantage over other clans. Just because it's not a gamebreaker is no reason to let it slide. gomi -- 'spend a day and a half dead and the lettuce runs amok.' -babs woods

Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk] wrote: > They are "degenerate" because someone has reduced the deck (and thus > the game) to NUMBERS. People have figured out formulae for winning, > by ignoring the concepts behind the cards. WooHoo! Way to go! Amen! I totaly agree, it's these types of people that make the game unfun, unfair, and totaly lifeless. Though in Adrian's defense I will say that I dont truely believe he is in this category. Maybe a tab bit over-concerned with game balance, not in the lifeless category though. > Chris Barnhart > --- > http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/~tvbarnha/mr_pynk/ Cheers! Jason

Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk] (tvba...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu) wrote: : > Unofficially, though, it is totally unfair. The advantage gained by using : > both Raven and Camille is small, but statistically significant. If anyone : > cares to see, I have about 4K of archived information from the last time : > this came up. : : Yuck! Statistics. :shudder: Jyhad isn't numbers. If you want numbers, : go play Magic. The concepts behind the cards... the idea that each card : represents something -- that what those last two vampires just did can be : imagined as a story -- is what gives Jyhad it's spark of life. You know, this would have been a plausible argument if Raven had been designed for ANY other reason than copyright infringement. No thought went into that card. What it represents is the design team knowing that they needed to get rid of Camille, and the way to do it was to just rename her. There IS no concept behind Raven. A different argument is in order here. : Do you really want to know what's wrong with degenerate decks (tap-bleed, : vote-pushing, etc.)? It's not that they win or that they're "unfair". : (they're not unfair, because anyone could counter with the same deck) : It's because those decks have DEGENERATED. : They are "degenerate" because someone has reduced the deck (and thus the : game) to NUMBERS. People have figured out formulae for winning, by : ignoring the concepts behind the cards. Um, so you're saying that someone who builds a deck which happens to exploit a design flaw but whose main purpose is to explore a particular concept of the Vampire environment is NOT degenerate? A deck is degenerate because it upsets game balance, normally pointing out a design flaw. This has nothing to do with numbers, it has to do with game design. : Your statistical proof of something wrong with controlling Raven and : Camille is just as bad for the game as a Weenie Vote Push deck. Your from the heart proof of degeneracy needs some work. -spongy

Jason Burke <jbu...@oneimage.com> writes: >Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk] wrote: >> They are "degenerate" because someone has reduced the deck (and thus >> the game) to NUMBERS. People have figured out formulae for winning, >> by ignoring the concepts behind the cards. You have to remember that no matter what Jyhad is based on, it IS a game. The cards are what the cards are; they are not proxies for a "real-life" thing. It would be more accurate to say people are winning by not being confused by what they think the cards should do. >WooHoo! Way to go! Amen! I totaly agree, it's these types of people >that make the game unfun, unfair, and totaly lifeless. Though in >Adrian's defense I will say that I dont truely believe he is >in this category. Maybe a tab bit over-concerned with game balance, >not in the lifeless category though. In a CCG, I don't think it's possible to be *too* concerned about game balance. CCGs are incredibly intolerant of balance mistakes. In most games, if there's a balance mistake, it's usually controlled by there being only one of them in a game set but with CCGs even the rarest cards are ususally printed by the thousands, and whoever starts buying them can have a great advantage. You can errata and restrict them to your heart's content, but the card will *always* have the original printing on it. Worse, even if you put out a new edition the old cards are still there. So even one moderate mistake on one card out of hundreds can wreck the game forever. Another point is the incredible size of the game spaces of these games. The potential number of decks for any of these games will be at least a googol (10^100). You can't test the whole thing, one mistake can ruin the game - You'd better be careful about balance issues. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <527ein$p...@shellx.best.com> go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) writes: >I'm afraid I must disagree. Not contesting Raven/Camille gives the Gangrel >a small, but definite, advantage over other clans. Just because it's not >a gamebreaker is no reason to let it slide. Oh, and like Muaziz doesn't give the Tremere a small, but definite advantage over other clans? Soon there will be 38 vampires to choose from and who cares if the Gangrel have 39 when expansion clans only have 10-14.