In <3584q6$6ru@perv.hal.COM>, aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
>Neither The Embrace nor the Third Tradition say that the vampire so
>created is of the same clan as the acting vampire, so they're not. While
>Jyhad is based on Vampire: the Masquerade, VtM really shouldn't be used
>as the basis for making rulings on cards. If you want to play such that
>the vampire so created is of the same clan, go for it,
>
(sarcasm on)
Well, let's see what WOULD make for a good ruling on cards. Black's
Legal dictionary? Symbolic logic? The Kama Sutra? No, wait! Loons and their
Habitats in the British Isles.
(sarcasm off)
If VtM isn't appropriate source material for producing answers to such
questions, then the game would best be served by removing all VtM references
thus being stripped to bare game mechanics.
Games are formulations of rules. When rules are placed within a reference
framework, these rules have a 'spirit of interpretation.'
(When I was a kid, I won a game of Battle of the Bulge by getting X units
over the Meuse. According to the rules, I won, but my 'bulge' was about
three hexes wide and the winning units were isolated. Yeah, I won the
game, but my opponent won the *WAR*. I no longer feel that I was the
victor.)
So, which came first. VtM or the WotC game system?
To any players who care to comment:
What are your preferences for resolution such unforseen combinations?
>but be aware that
>that's a house rule, and not what the card says.
Not a problem.
1) The "Convocation" doesn't accept Australian membership, so what's
the point of worrying about convocation rules.
2) More than a few of WotC rulings are disputed amongst players here.
3) If we play by the card text in every case we'd have an
unplayable mess (or did the creator of the Chaos Orb really think
about someone carving the card.)
4) Army of Rats is ruled redundant. (But that's not what the card says...)
How about Flak Jackets? How many can a minion use? No limitation is
set on the card like there is for vehicles or ammo. But as most gun
enthusiasts (and NFL quarterbacks) will say, "You can't wear two."
Disclaimer: Never used Progeny/Embrace in a game, but they are in the deck.
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------!
Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment
MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966
rxm@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.
Rick Mc Leod <rxm@mda.com.au> wrote:
>If VtM isn't appropriate source material for producing answers to such
>questions, then the game would best be served by removing all VtM references
>thus being stripped to bare game mechanics.
While Jyhad is based on Vampire: the Masquerade, pretend it never was,
and just look at the rules and the cards. If V:tM said that a Saturday
Night Special did more damage than a .44 Magnum, would you play those cards
differently in Jyhad? The official answer is "No. SNS says it does 1 damage
and .44 Magnum says it does 2. Therefore SNS does more damage." One might
wonder why Jyhad was designed differently from V:tM in that regard, but
the simple fact is that it was. In this case, The Embrace and Progeny
are not designed as they would work in V:tM. Why there weren't I don't know;
the point is that they were not.
>So, which came first. VtM or the WotC game system?
V:tM, but it doesn't really matter, since it has no direct bearing
on how Jyhad works.
>1) The "Convocation" doesn't accept Australian membership, so what's
> the point of worrying about convocation rules.
Whether the Convocation accepts anyone's membership is pretty irrelevant
to whether you accept the rules, since it has nothing to say about the
rules of the games it organizes tournaments for, other than imposing
deck construction rules. Ring of Ma'Ruf is the exception there.
>2) More than a few of WotC rulings are disputed amongst players here.
Not surprising, it happens all the time ;)
>3) If we play by the card text in every case we'd have an
> unplayable mess (or did the creator of the Chaos Orb really think
> about someone carving the card.)
Occasionally exceptions have to be made, but I don't see how making the
vampire resulting from Embrace or Progency clanless makes the cards
"unplayable".
>4) Army of Rats is ruled redundant. (But that's not what the card says...)
It wasn't "ruled" redundant; errata was issued saying it's redundant.
Basically, in that case, we are telling people to play it other than
as written.
> How about Flak Jackets? How many can a minion use? No limitation is
> set on the card like there is for vehicles or ammo. But as most gun
> enthusiasts (and NFL quarterbacks) will say, "You can't wear two."
There's an axiom in Magic that "magic doesn't have to make sense". The rules
have to make sense, but trying to impose a sense of reality on whether certain
card combinations should or shouldn't work (e.g. Sandals of Abdallah on
a Merchant Ship) is a mistake. The same axiom applies to Jyhad. It *is*
possible to wear multiple flak jackets, it's just awkward as hell; but
whether it makes sense to do so in reality doesn't have much to do with
whether you can do so in the game. The card doesn't prohibit a minion
from stacking up multiple vests, so it can. It's also pretty awkward
to be lugging around two assault rifles, a sawed-off-shotgun, and a
chainsaw... Do you have a problem with a minion doing so, like you do
with wearing multiple flak jackets?
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Since the game is based on Vampire, the Masquerade, it only
makes sense to look to VtM to resolve open questions. Where Jyhad
has obvious differences with VtM, of course we play according
to the Jyhad rules.
Since it's a question of interpretation as to what happens
when a younger vampire is created with the Third Tradition,
using VtM as a reference makes sense. I'd much rather do
that than look strictly at what the card says. Since, in
this case, the card says nothing whatever, which is why
it's a question at all.
The created vampire should be of the same clan as its
creator.
--
Tom Doehne
doehne@cse.ogi.edu
So, unless a card says you cannot 'stack' them, you may? This came up
yesterday during a game when someone wanted to use a stealth card (I
forget which one) and wanted to stack them as he had 3. Can you do such
things? Or do you play a stealth card, opponent plays intercept, and so on...
=======____________________________________________________________=======
|\/\/\| . . Mitchell J. Gross mjg@io.com . . * |/\/\/|
| | . * Computer Artist & Storyteller . | |
| _O_ | ( . alt.arts.storytelling . . * . | _O_ |
| | | . Email for info on The Camarilla * | | |
| |"Fools allow others to rule them. Wise men rule themselves."| |
|\/\/\|____________________________________________________________|/\/\/|
======= =======
In <35c9ti$i1b@pentagon.io.com> mjg@pentagon.io.com (Mitchell J. Gross) writes:
>So, unless a card says you cannot 'stack' them, you may? This came up
>yesterday during a game when someone wanted to use a stealth card (I
>forget which one) and wanted to stack them as he had 3. Can you do such
>things? Or do you play a stealth card, opponent plays intercept, and so on...
>
Do you mean he wanted to use the same Stealth card three times on the same
action? If that's the case, then the action is illegal, as the rules
explicitly state that the same action modifier cannot be used more than
once on the same action. (Rules, p. 15)
Or did you mean something completely different?
DSR
In <Cw8ww8.1I9C@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>, werewolf@vnet.ibm.com (Charles Keith-Stanley) writes:
>In <35amom$ooc@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>, doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) writes:>> Since the game is based on Vampire, the Masquerade, it only
>>makes sense to look to VtM to resolve open questions. Where Jyhad
>>has obvious differences with VtM, of course we play according
>>to the Jyhad rules.
>>
>> Since it's a question of interpretation as to what happens
>>when a younger vampire is created with the Third Tradition,
>>using VtM as a reference makes sense. I'd much rather do
>>that than look strictly at what the card says. Since, in
>>this case, the card says nothing whatever, which is why
>>it's a question at all.
>>
>> The created vampire should be of the same clan as its
>>creator.>
>Tom (Doehne, not Wylie), do you think that if the designer had wanted to make
>progeny created via The Third Tradition be the same clan as their creator, then
>the card might actually say so? Although I wasn't a playtester -- I only got my
>hands on real Jyhad cards last week -- I know the game was extensively tested.
I don't think the designer ever thought about the clan or she would
have been smart enough to write "This vampire is a Caitiff" on the card.
So extensively tested that one Tasha Morgan is usable by allies, and the
other isn't. So well written that the Ventrue Justicar actually creates
a Tremere Justicar. With such tremendous quality control that stacks of
R2 are readily identifiable.
Oh, but there's errata...so what? Percent of Australian players with net
access: < 5%. Number of convocation members: 3 known in the country.
Distribution of the Duelist: limited copies available 2-months after
publication.
>Whether you believe progeny should be of the same clan as their creators is
>irrelevant; neither the card nor the rules say so, and until or unless the WotC
>Jyhad Rules Committee say otherwise, that's the way the card should be played.
Well until we get direct access to the Jyhad Rules Committee, forget it.
Judging from the correspondence, we (the people for whom I liaise) can't
tell if or what is presented to the JRC and what isn't. We consider Magic
a game that need not make sense (and thus is a senseless game for some),
>I've also changed the cross-post to remove <alt.games.whitewolf> and substitute
><alt.games.jyhad> -- it's more relevant.
>
Who died and made you God? As it happens, there are VtM players who have shown
an interest in Jyhad who may decide whether or not to buy it based on how
strong the links to VtM are. Since according to you, WotC's position is
that it's a vacuum game, some sales may be in jeopardy. Such a position
may also affect who will buy the Star Trek game. At least, that is the
consensus currently developing here. Oh yes, and if you read the ongoing
discussions in the various ST groups, you'll find that Trekkers abhor
inconsistencies in the fabric of their reality.
In response to Tom Wylie's last bit:
I finally got my hands on Rumours of Gehenna. I was wrong, the card does
say 'burn this card.' I was confusing it with Archon, which is 'this effect
can be removed'. Which changes the question: Does the Archon card go to
the ash heap after the vote leaving an after effect behind? That's what
the card says...
>Do I think actually think that a person could carry an assault rifle, RPG
>and a shotgun? (or some such combination)
Yes. I do. I personally am not a huge person, but I can hip holster a
44 magnum, shoulder holster a SN special, shoulder sling a sawed off
12 gauge, back holster a 9mm, ankle holster a zip gun, wear (1) flak
jacket (Second Chance body armor), back sling an RPG with one in the
pipe, belt sheath a (Sengir) dagger, drop a assault rifle in a cross
handlebar mount on either a Hawg or a Sport Bike, and carry extra mags
of Glasers without any real difficulty. (Could put two pineapples on
the chest, and a satchel charge (Bomb) in the saddlebags as well, but
who can afford to out fit a vampire like that - Oh and did you see
the Raven, Crows, and Owl flying overhead - two Wolves running alongside
and Tasha looks so butch on the pillon typing on that Powerbook) :-)
And yes, I could use these weapons serially in a very short amount of time.
Just ask the families of the 23 (dead) victims of 1 man on a tower in Austin.
Disclaimer: this isn't flamage. It's cynical.
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------!
Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment
MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966
rxm@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.
Rick Mc Leod <rxm@mda.com.au> wrote:
>I finally got my hands on Rumours of Gehenna. I was wrong, the card does
>say 'burn this card.' I was confusing it with Archon, which is 'this effect
>can be removed'. Which changes the question: Does the Archon card go to
>the ash heap after the vote leaving an after effect behind? That's what
>the card says...
Neither Archon nor Camarilla Exemplary stays in play, but rather just have
an effect on the vampire. Thus their effects would not wear off if the person
putting that effect into play was ousted. People will typically leave these
cards out to remind everyone of the effect, but technically they are
not in play.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Mitchell J. Gross <mjg@pentagon.io.com> wrote:
>So, unless a card says you cannot 'stack' them, you may? This came up
>yesterday during a game when someone wanted to use a stealth card (I
>forget which one) and wanted to stack them as he had 3. Can you do such
>things? Or do you play a stealth card, opponent plays intercept, and so on...
You can't use the same action modifier multiple times on the same action,
so you could use both Lost in Crowds and Cloak the Gathering to increase
the stealth of an action, but not two Cloaks.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.