Card text migrations

I've received several requests recently for a list of changes found from release to release of Jyhad/V:TES. So here it is (it also includes "rollback" errata, since some people have expressed in interest in that as well). If you notice any omissions in the list, please let me know via email. -> V:TES * "2 hand damage" changed to "+1 hand damage" everywhere except Torn Signpost. * "2 bleed" changed to "+1 bleed" * Anarch Troublemaker - only usable during untap. * Ancient Influence - choosing a vampire is optional. * Archon - attempting to block an Archon burns a blood, not a pool. * Army of Rats - doesn't stack. * Aura Reading - upgraded to "open hand" in inferior. * Blood Doll - grants ability to the controller of the vampire. * Blood Rage - requires Thaumaturgy. * Bonding - restricts further action modifier bleed increases in general. * Bribes - The bribing player gains 1 pool immediately. * Camarilla Exemplary - the vampire may still be blocked by allies. * Conditioning - restricts further action modifier bleed increases in general. * Deal with the Devil - is not replaced before discarding the hand. * Dr. Jest - special ability is optional. * Elder Kindred Network - has no effect on a successful referendum. * Elysium: the Arboretum - Can only be used by the controller of a combatant. * Embrace - is the same clan as the acting vampire, may do more than hunt. * Fame - is unique. * Form of Mist - superior only continues action when played by acting vamp. * Gangrel De-evolution - renamed Gangrel Atavism. * Giant's Blood - can be played only once per game. * Glaser Rounds - increase the damage the minion does, not the gun's damage. * Hawg - changed to "per round" (and errata'ed to "per combat"). * Immortal Grapple - "only hand strikes" effect lasts for the whole combat. * J. S. Simmons, Esq. - benefits only vampires, not allies. * Life Boon - You can take a pool from the target during her untap (not yours). * Magic of the Smith - cost of the equipment is paid in blood or life. * Malkavian Time Auction - the Methuselah cannot bid on her own auction. * Manstopper Rounds - increases damage the minion does, not the gun's damage. * Masquerade Endangered - prevents the vampire from hunting for the turn. * Mob Connections - can only give a press to a vampire. * Mr. Winthrop - doesn't benefit an ally. * Owl Companion - upgraded to "open hand". * Parity Shift - cannot give pool to the Methuselah whose pool is being taken. * Patagia - limited to one per vampire. * Rack - only "works" if the vampire is controlled by the same Methuselah. * Sengir Dagger - inflicts "hand damage" (strength) damage - not just 1 point. * Soul Gem - treats same aged vampire from the crypt as a younger vampire. * Stake renamed Wooden Stake and changed to deal aggravated damage. * Talbot's Chainsaw - the press is only usable in the first round. * Telepathic Vote Counting - superior is usable before or after victim votes. * Third Tradition: Progeny - is the same clan as the acting vampire.` * Threats - restricts further action modifier bleed increases in general. * Vast Wealth - played on a vampire you control; cost is paid in blood or pool. * Ventrue Justicar - makes the vampire the Ventrue Justicar. Rollbacks (to be played as in previous printing - errata to V:TES): * Melee weapons give strike options, not hand damage (strength) increases. * Academic Hunting Ground - gives a blood during the untap, not master, phase. * Asylumn Hunting Ground - costs 2 pool. * Charming Lobby - calls the first vote as part of resolution. * Curse of Nitocris - is passed only when a *new* Meth. gets the Edge. * Hector Sosa - has superior Potence * Gangrel Atavism - doesn't require control of a Gangrel. * Major Boon - modifiers to the bleed can be played afterward (by anyone). * Malkavian Dementia - doesn't require control of a Malkavian. * Malkavian Prank - if you guess correctly, you steal pool from the other Methuselah; you do not hold out any pool yourself. * Parity Shift - the allocation is announced before voting begins. * Pulled Fangs - the actions to burn are undirected actions. * Pulse of Canaille - inferior allows you to look at all Methuselahs' hands. * Second Tradition - Can be used when untapped. * Tragic Love Affair - doesn't require control of a Toreador. * Smiling Jack - doesn't cause controller to burn 1 pool/blood per counter. * Soul Gem - costs 0 pool; is "activated" upon diablerie. * Torn Signpost - is not a strike option; it adjusts the vampire's hand damage. * Zip Gun - only damages bearer if used in the combat. -> Dark Sovereigns * Archon - targets Camarilla only; requires a Camarilla vampire to remove. * Camarilla Exemplary - targets Camarilla only. * Elysium, the Arboretum - requires a Camarilla vampire to burn. * Justicar Retribution - requires a Camarilla vampire. * Masquerade Enforcement - requires a Camarilla vampire to play or to burn. -> Sabbat * Disguised Weapon - equips an equipment card from your hand. Rollbacks (to be played as in previous printing - errata to Sabbat) * Obedience - cancels combat; blocker doesn't tap. * Undead Persistence - continuously keeps the vampire out of torpor. -> Sabbat War * Non-combat cards with "Do Not Replace" aren't replaced until the end of the action. (Except Wake with Evening's Freshness) * Aggressive Tactics - doesn't require a ready Sabbat vampire. * Antediluvian Awakening - can only be burned during untap. * Antonio Delgado - untaps if the referendum (not just the PA) is successful. * Bauble - retrieves only weapons, not general equipment. * Beast, Leatherface - has a general prohibition on equipment and retainers. * Blood Brother Ambush - is an ally only while in play; has 2 strength. * Blood of Acid - lasts for the current round; doesn't stack. * Bonecraft - affects subsequent strikes, even in the current round. * Caitlin - is a 6 capacity vampire * Cardinal Sin: Failure Mission - the attack is an action; the card is controlled by the Meth. who played it; it is played by the blocker. * Cardinal Sin: Insubordination: played by the combatant. * Catatonic Fear - damage is applied after combat, and only if range was close. * Cats' Guidance - inferior is usable (only) by a tapped vampire. * Code of Milan Suspended - The "Methuselah with the Edge" is selected. * Crimson Sentinel - counters increase the damage done by the weapon. * Deflection - cannot be used to redirect the bleed to yourself. * Detection - victim can burn a blood to untap during his untap phase. * Disarm - doesn't stack. * Drawing Out the Beast - doesn't stack; sup. deals damage at press step. * Effective Management - moves the top vampire from your crypt. * Elysium, the Arboretum - ends combat between two Camarilla vampires. * Enchant Kindred - sup. at +1 stealth; only affects your uncontrolled region. * Fame - controller (not prey) loses 3 pool when vampire goes to toror. * Ghouled Street Thug - is an ally; has 1 strength. * Govern the Unaligned - superior only affects your uncontrolled region. * Guard Dogs - Used against any bleed directed at you; only provides a maneuver if you successfully block the bleed. * Hawg - grants one press per combat. * Hidden Lurker - is an action modifier. * Immortal Grapple - "only hand strikes" current round only; doesn't stack. * Legacy of Pander - is not cumulative. * Life Boon - doesn't give a VP if you are ousted before the VP is gained. * Living Manse - can end combat only before range. * March Halcyon - A blood hunt cannot be called on the diablerist. * Mind Rape - sup. steals the target your next minion phase thru end of turn. * Misdirection - costs 1 pool; taps 1 minion. * Obedience - cancels combat before blocker taps. * Orgy of Blood - doesn't require a ready Sabbat vampire. * Powerbase: Mexico City - you cannot steal from your own. * Propaganda - sup: the Methuselah being bled must tap an untapped minion. * Pulled Fangs - inflicts one normal (non-aggravated) damage; doesn't stack. * Pulse of Canaille - inferior allows you to look at all Methuselahs' hands. * Rat's Warning - Used against any bleed directed at you. * Redirection - cannot be used to redirect the bleed to yourself. * Reform Body - use as combat or reaction; usable in torpor. * Scrying Secrets - acting Meth. chooses which card is discarded. * Slaughtering the Herd - requires only dominate. * Taste of Vitae - only counts blood lost to damage; isn't cumulative * Telepathic Misdirection - cannot be used to redirect the bleed to yourself. * Terror Frenzy - sup. makes vampire burn blood per card played; doesn't stack. * Thoughts Betrayed - superior restricts only strike cards. * Tomb of Ramses III - adds counters to itself, not to the vampire. * Torn Signpost - sets the vampire's strength to a new amount. * Trap - provides one press to continue each round if a card has been played in the current round or the previous two rounds. * Undead Persistence - continuously keeps the vampire out of torpor. * Vaulderie - the blocking vampire cannot try to block again. * War Party - requires a Priscus, Archbishop, or Cardinal. * Wake with Evening's Freshness - is not replaced until your next untap phase. * White Phosphorous Grenade - harms bearer when used at close range. * Wooden Stake - doesn't do aggravated damage; simulates old paralyze rules. * Zip Gun - cannot use ammo; is a weapon only while in play. Rollbacks (to be played as in previous printing - errata to Sabbat War) * Creation Rites: The acting vampire can move a blood to the vampire. * Power Structure: Requires a ready Lasombra. * Speed of Thought: has no inherent stealth. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In article <3A41157B...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >I've received several requests recently for a list of changes found >from release to release of Jyhad/V:TES. >So here it is (it also includes "rollback" errata, since some people >have expressed in interest in that as well). If you notice any omissions >in the list, please let me know via email. This isn't an omission so much as a question: >-> V:TES >* Soul Gem - treats same aged vampire from the crypt as a younger vampire. Card text from www.white-wolf.com/vtes: "Unique equipment. If bearer is burned, draw <the top> card from your crypt. If the new vampire is younger, vampire comes into play <with blood from the blood bank equal to his capacity> and inherits the Soul Gem; otherwise, place the vampire in your uncontrolled <region> and burn this card. If bearer is diablerized, {the diablerizing vampire cannot take the Gem}." The V:TES text was not rolled back, or at least the rollback/alteration isn't on the list, yet the White Wolf cardtext seems to be in conflict. What is the correct way to treat same-aged vampires drawn via Soul Gem? gomi -- kono sora wo daite kagayaku, shounen yo shinwa ni nare.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:24:27 -0500, LSJ wrote: >I've received several requests recently for a list of changes found >from release to release of Jyhad/V:TES. So here it is (it also includes >"rollback" errata Thanks - that was quite enlightening. I had no idea that there were so many "rollbacks" and now understand why players think that Smiling Jack is powerful. Unfortunately it makes it clear that the game is fubar. I stopped taking Magic seriously when the Duellist had a regular column entitled "This month's reversals" and see that VTES got the same TLC from WotC. The good news is that it stiffens my resolve to fight the good fight on the Shadowfist playtest list - the Z-Man has the crazy idea that that game would benefit from an even longer list of errata. I've no idea how we're going to resolve this mess at the club. It's like eating the apple from the tree of knowledge - we will be cast out of paradise and know death. Andrew

In article < 188378BA21510805.5F1B7D7C...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:24:27 -0500, LSJ wrote: > > >I've received several requests recently for a list of changes found > >from release to release of Jyhad/V:TES. So here it is (it also includes > >"rollback" errata > > Thanks - that was quite enlightening. I had no idea that there were > so many "rollbacks" and now understand why players think that Smiling > Jack is powerful. > > Unfortunately it makes it clear that the game is fubar. <finally snaps> It's not fubar. As always, you are just plain factually wrong. And this isn't a list of new changes. It is a summary of ALL changes. Most are text-supported now [just the SW rollbacks aren't, i think]. I stopped > taking Magic seriously when the Duellist had a regular column entitled > "This month's reversals" and see that VTES got the same TLC from WotC. > The good news is that it stiffens my resolve to fight the good fight > on the Shadowfist playtest list - the Z-Man has the crazy idea that > that game would benefit from an even longer list of errata. i expect the SF community will judge this matter for themselves and i doubt they will pay much attention to your opinions. You apparently don't see that the rank inconsistency and silliness of your posts, coupled with your claim that some of them are just wind-ups anyway, makes it impossible for anyone to take YOU seriously on any subject whatsoever. > > I've no idea how we're going to resolve this mess at the club. Maybe give a copy of Scott's helpful little VTES vade mecum to all the VTES players in your club? It's > like eating the apple from the tree of knowledge - we will be cast out > of paradise and know death. "Fight the Good Fight .... eating the apple from the tree of knowledge" ... Ah-ha! i KNEW i'd come across this style of "argument" before. > > Andrew > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >* Soul Gem - treats same aged vampire from the crypt as a younger > >vampire. > > Card text from www.white-wolf.com/vtes: > > "Unique equipment. If bearer is burned, draw <the top> card from your > crypt. If the new vampire is younger, vampire comes into play <with > blood from the blood bank equal to his capacity> and inherits the Soul > Gem; otherwise, place the vampire in your uncontrolled <region> and > burn this card. If bearer is diablerized, {the diablerizing vampire > cannot take the Gem}." > > What is the correct way to treat same-aged vampires drawn via Soul > Gem? As older. The migration list is incorrect on this point. The V:TES text uses the "younger ... otherwise" text as above. Thanks for the catch. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:42:10 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: ><finally snaps> It's not fubar. As always, you are just plain factually >wrong. And this isn't a list of new changes. It is a summary of ALL >changes. Most are text-supported now [just the SW rollbacks aren't, i >think]. You've lost me here. The thing that caught my eye was Smiling Jack. I've several copies of the VTES version of this card but it never seemed as good as people were suggesting. Now I understand that its notional text has been rolled back to the Jyhad version which I don't have and don't want. There isn't, so far as I can tell, a SW version of this card. So, this is the opposite of MRP. If it were just one isolated misprint then this would be forgiveable but it isn't - there's a long list of these rollbacks. What's still not clear to me is whether these flip-flops were misprints or deliberate fixes. Why was Smiling Jack changed and then changed back? >> I've no idea how we're going to resolve this mess at the club. > >Maybe give a copy of Scott's helpful little VTES vade mecum to all the >VTES players in your club? I talked with Tom on the phone and our consensus was that we'd continue to play cards as printed for the most part. I skimmed LSJs lists but I am not going to be memorising them, printing them out and circulating them to others. For one thing, it would put them off the game, as it does me. This stuff only seems reasonable to you because you've absorbed it over the years. >"Fight the Good Fight .... eating the apple from the tree of knowledge" >... Ah-ha! i KNEW i'd come across this style of "argument" before. Judge not lest ye be judged. Andrew

On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:09:28 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:42:10 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > >><finally snaps> It's not fubar. As always, you are just plain factually >>wrong. And this isn't a list of new changes. It is a summary of ALL >>changes. Most are text-supported now [just the SW rollbacks aren't, i >>think]. > >You've lost me here. The thing that caught my eye was Smiling Jack. >I've several copies of the VTES version of this card but it never >seemed as good as people were suggesting. Now I understand that its Not surprising, either, since in the V:TES version you would not only pay your OWN pool to start doing damage, but you pay the increasing damage as well; why would you ever want to play with a card that did more damage to you than to your prey? As it stands now, with Smiling Jack you take X pool damage for the card, and everyone else on the table takes X! pool damage. (that's not a typo; X! is notation for "X, factorial") Is it broken? Not hardly, as everyone at the table will come and knock Jack out of commission before X gets much past 3 or 4. >notional text has been rolled back to the Jyhad version which I don't >have and don't want. There isn't, so far as I can tell, a SW version >of this card. So, this is the opposite of MRP. If it were just one >isolated misprint then this would be forgiveable but it isn't - >there's a long list of these rollbacks. > >What's still not clear to me is whether these flip-flops were >misprints or deliberate fixes. Why was Smiling Jack changed and then >changed back? Because some idiots named WotC either misprinted the card or casually changed it in V:TES, of course. There is a long list of screwups that came out with the panic-release of V:TES; not the least of which was changing the card backs, demonstrating how little WotC was actually using their HEADS when they released the V:TES printing. The original Jyhad cards are significantly more balanced, as the 25-player Jyhad booster draft tourney at DragonCon showed. Why was it changed back? Because the original Jyhad version was still far more accessible than the V:TES version, and because it probably WAS a misprint as opposed to an intentional change. >>> I've no idea how we're going to resolve this mess at the club. >> >>Maybe give a copy of Scott's helpful little VTES vade mecum to all the >>VTES players in your club? > >I talked with Tom on the phone and our consensus was that we'd >continue to play cards as printed for the most part. I skimmed LSJs >lists but I am not going to be memorising them, printing them out and >circulating them to others. For one thing, it would put them off the >game, as it does me. This stuff only seems reasonable to you because >you've absorbed it over the years. Actually, I had to absorb quite a bit of it all at once when I arrived in this game. It wasn't anywhere near as difficult as you imagine; the trick is learning to spot what looks like a card that is obviously screwed up (Smiling Jack) and then having a printout handy to use as reference. The vast majority of cards are, still, unaffected and won't matter. However, at least you have begun to see the light and are agreeing "for the most part". Some cards have no business existing in a non-errata'd form. >>"Fight the Good Fight .... eating the apple from the tree of knowledge" >>... Ah-ha! i KNEW i'd come across this style of "argument" before. > >Judge not lest ye be judged. Why are you judging V:TES then? Time to come down from the ivory tower, Noodle Noggin, and muck about with the rest of us. -- Derek Goon-of-the-Month club member

Derek Ray wrote: > As it stands now, with Smiling Jack you take X pool damage for the > card, and everyone else on the table takes X! pool damage. (that's > not a typo; X! is notation for "X, factorial") Is it broken? Not > hardly, as everyone at the table will come and knock Jack out of > commission before X gets much past 3 or 4. Not factorial. Ouch! That would be very bad! 'X' Factorial is 1 times 2 times 3 times....times X Smiling Jack actually costs the non-controllers over time 1 plus 2 plus 3 plus...plus X where 'X' is the number of turns it's been out. I don't recall a specific mathematical term for that kind of number. FYI, the difference between the real Smiling Jack and Smiling Jack written in some way so that the cost to non-controllers would be factorial looks like: 1 blood real SJ=1 factorial SJ=1 2 blood real SJ=3 factorial SJ=2 3 blood real SJ=6 factorial SJ=6 4 blood real SJ=10 factorial SJ=24 5 blood real SJ=15 factorial SJ=120 6 blood real SJ=21 factorial SJ=720 then it kind of starts to get obscene. Fred

On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:12:50 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> As it stands now, with Smiling Jack you take X pool damage for the >> card, and everyone else on the table takes X! pool damage. (that's >> not a typo; X! is notation for "X, factorial") Is it broken? Not >> hardly, as everyone at the table will come and knock Jack out of >> commission before X gets much past 3 or 4. > >Not factorial. Ouch! That would be very bad! Oops, my bad. Knew the sequence, but mis-identified the term. I think there IS a mathematical term, but I'll let James Hamblin jump in and correct it; I know there isn't one that can be as easily reproduced as !. :) >Smiling Jack actually costs the non-controllers over time >1 plus 2 plus 3 plus...plus X where 'X' is the number of turns it's >been out. I don't recall a specific mathematical term for that >kind of number. Well, I can write it on a piece of paper, but there isn't a CHARACTER for it that I know of. >1 blood real SJ=1 factorial SJ=1 >2 blood real SJ=3 factorial SJ=2 >3 blood real SJ=6 factorial SJ=6 >4 blood real SJ=10 factorial SJ=24 >5 blood real SJ=15 factorial SJ=120 >6 blood real SJ=21 factorial SJ=720 > >then it kind of starts to get obscene. At 21 total pool and/or blood spent, it's already pretty obscene. This is why most people come and eat Jack for lunch... although the thing saving him a lot of times is the "selfish" factor, where you want to let your prey take the damage and have to decide whether to waste an action burning Jack himself. =) I'm really overdue to make a Jack deck, I think. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A423B6A...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: [derek says smiling yak factorial] >Not factorial. Ouch! That would be very bad! > >'X' Factorial is 1 times 2 times 3 times....times X >Smiling Jack actually costs the non-controllers over time >1 plus 2 plus 3 plus...plus X where 'X' is the number of turns it's >been out. I don't recall a specific mathematical term for that >kind of number. It's just like factorial, only with addition instead of multiplication. Like a sum series, sum from 0 to n by integers. I know there's a term for the operation, dammit. One of our Interchangeable Jameses, the one in the UK (Coupe or Hamblin? I can never remember), knows his math. Or 'maths,' as they call it in his benighted land, where clearly singular entites such as rock bands are plural (as in "Oasis are a bunch of wanker pansies not worth the Semtex the Provos would waste blowing them up") and clearly singular entities like "Math" are plural. Bah. [ quoted text not captured ]

>I talked with Tom on the phone and our consensus was that we'd >continue to play cards as printed for the most part. I skimmed LSJs >lists but I am not going to be memorising them, printing them out and >circulating them to others. For one thing, it would put them off the >game, as it does me. This stuff only seems reasonable to you because >you've absorbed it over the years. The greatest debate I've had with other local players was not card limits or broken cards. The greatest debate has always been house rules and errata. I've played under several different rules systems - Jyhad only, play as written with house rules and the understood rule of no political decks, official rules, goofy Gen Con rules one year a ways back. It is sooo tempting to play house rules. For one thing, you don't have to have all the errata, clarifications, rulings printed out so that you can reference them while playing. However, the only way that works is to play with the same people forever. It may be common in this game. But, our current group doesn't, so it's official with no house tweaks. Anyway, I'd like to see more cards with correct wordings get reprinted. Eventually, hopefully, everything will be printed correctly on the cards. Then, finally, everyone can play "as written". As for LSJ's list, I only skimmed through it. Immortal Grapple - the only comment I saw was that it allowed only hand strikes for the entire combat. Did I miss something?

>At 21 total pool and/or blood spent, it's already pretty obscene. >This is why most people come and eat Jack for lunch... although the >thing saving him a lot of times is the "selfish" factor, where you >want to let your prey take the damage and have to decide whether to >waste an action burning Jack himself. =) > >I'm really overdue to make a Jack deck, I think. 90% of the time I've seen it blown up before it reached 2, usually with the whole table arranging to be rid of it. I remember one time blowing it up cross table at +5 stealth because that's just the proper thing to do. I don't consider a Smiling Jack deck viable until I start seeing players let it go.

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > In article <3A423B6A...@netcom.com>, > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: > > [derek says smiling yak factorial] > > >Not factorial. Ouch! That would be very bad! > > > >'X' Factorial is 1 times 2 times 3 times....times X > > >Smiling Jack actually costs the non-controllers over time > >1 plus 2 plus 3 plus...plus X where 'X' is the number of turns it's > >been out. I don't recall a specific mathematical term for that > >kind of number. > > It's just like factorial, only with addition instead of > multiplication. Like a sum series, sum from 0 to n by > integers. I know there's a term for the operation, dammit. Well, I'll put this way. Though I'll admit my memory sucks big fat hairy donkey dicks to earn its slimy living, I do have a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and throughout my education I always recall thinking, "This kind of a number *should* have a name and no one's ever mentioned it." I always thought of it as, 'The Bowling Number' because of the positions of the pins in a bowling alley: 1 in the first row, 2 in the second row, 3 in the third, and so on. Well, 'so on' goes for one more row in a real bowling alley but I always liked to imagine that you could have an arbitrary number of rows of pins in bowling just like you could have an arbitrary number of pairs of opponents in a game of chess. I'm digressing, aren't I? Well, this is where I came in. Bye!... Fred

cur...@aol.com (Ian Lee) wrote: > As for LSJ's list, I only skimmed through it. Immortal Grapple - the > only comment I saw was that it allowed only hand strikes for the entire > combat. Did I miss something? Yes - the change found in Sabbat War. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <91thbk$2et5$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Gomi no Sensei <go...@best.com> writes >It's just like factorial, only with addition instead of >multiplication. Like a sum series, sum from 0 to n by >integers. I know there's a term for the operation, dammit. > >One of our Interchangeable Jameses, the one in the UK >(Coupe or Hamblin? I can never remember), knows his math. The other one. I'm the English student (with two maths A levels, for some reason). -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "It's hard to carry on when you feel all alone. Now I've swung back down again, it's worse than it was before. If I hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor." - James, "Sit Down"

On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:09:52 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: >Not surprising, either, since in the V:TES version you would not only >pay your OWN pool to start doing damage, but you pay the increasing >damage as well; why would you ever want to play with a card that did >more damage to you than to your prey? You would use it with a pool gain strategy - what folk here call "bloat", right? >I think there IS a mathematical term ... I know there isn't one >that can be as easily reproduced as ! ... there isn't a CHARACTER >for it that I know of. It's called a triangular number and the character is the greek letter delta. >However, at least you have begun to see the light and are agreeing >"for the most part". Some cards have no business existing in a >non-errata'd form. I've not come across such a case yet though. We were playing with Fame and Wake as printed tonight - didn't cause much trouble. The card that most perplexed us was Talbot's Chainsaw. I'd misread this before but it seems that it always does 3 damage to one of your own minions. There's no errata on this that I can see and so it's hard to justify using it. Maybe if you combo it with cards like The Rack and Palatial Estate but it's an awfully large investment in one trick. >Why are you judging V:TES then? That's the topic of this newsgroup. Andrew

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:51:09 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:09:52 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Not surprising, either, since in the V:TES version you would not only >>pay your OWN pool to start doing damage, but you pay the increasing >>damage as well; why would you ever want to play with a card that did >>more damage to you than to your prey? > >You would use it with a pool gain strategy - what folk here call >"bloat", right? Problem: if your deck is focussed enough to successfully bloat while absorbing X+1 pool/blood damage per turn from YOURSELF, not to mention what your predator is doing to you... then your deck is unable to stop the actions the rest of the table will take to off Smiling Jack. The idea is to defend Jack, defend against your predator, and rely on the fact that you're only spending one pool per turn to do piles of damage to everything around you. You should also be prepared to bleed rapidly on your own turn once your prey falls within ousting distance; tricky but possible. >>I think there IS a mathematical term ... I know there isn't one >>that can be as easily reproduced as ! ... there isn't a CHARACTER >>for it that I know of. > >It's called a triangular number and the character is the greek letter >delta. Ah. While I could make my keyboard show a delta, it would never translate across USENET properly. Oh well. >>However, at least you have begun to see the light and are agreeing >>"for the most part". Some cards have no business existing in a >>non-errata'd form. > >I've not come across such a case yet though. We were playing with >Fame and Wake as printed tonight - didn't cause much trouble. The That's because nobody was trying to break Fame. Here, again, you misunderstand the purpose of errata. The errata is not meant for Noodle Noggin's group where everyone is nice to each other. The errata is meant for universal standards and tournaments, where people can and WILL try to win in any way possible, and one of the terribly abusive ways to do it was to slap Fame on your own vampire and bounce them in and out of torpor. Very easy to do with anyone possessing Fortitude, since there's that nice bleed card called Force of Will that will put you there WHILE bleeding, AFTER you have taken ANOTHER action already. Of course it didn't cause much trouble. Nobody was TRYING. >card that most perplexed us was Talbot's Chainsaw. I'd misread this >before but it seems that it always does 3 damage to one of your own >minions. There's no errata on this that I can see and so it's hard to >justify using it. Maybe if you combo it with cards like The Rack and >Palatial Estate but it's an awfully large investment in one trick. You could always give it to the Gangrel, who can drop a Restoration every turn and gain 3 blood onto one of their minions. (as I understood it, Talbot was originally a Gangrel who went completely over to the Beast...) You can give it to a Giovanni deck with Ambrosius, who is immune to normal damage. You can give it to the Tremere, who make 3 Embraces, and then use the Chantry to yank one out of torpor every turn after it takes the 3 damage. You can do a LOT of things with Talbot's Chainsaw, but you really DO need to build the deck around it. Just flinging Talbot's into any old deck won't fly; which is just as well, considering it's a rush action, a press, a prevent, and 3 damage per strike - VERY powerful weapon. You could even use it with a Palatial Estate, Hunting Ground, and a 3-cap who did nothing but hunt every turn. Not so difficult. >>Why are you judging V:TES then? > >That's the topic of this newsgroup. Ducking the question? Although it has been self-fulfilling, actually; quite a lot of people are judging you in response. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message news: 20001221141711...@ng-bk1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Two days ago two players get ousted by a Rotschreck/2nd trad/intercept deck who managed to fuel a smiling jack with 5 pool on it. It eventually get ousted itself because of an Antediluvian awakening played with the right timing. If you can defend it, Smiling jack is a deadly weapon.

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:188378BA21510805.5F1B7D7C...@lp.airnews.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Here's an apple. Go die. The rest of us will stay in paradise. > > Andrew -- Kevin J. Mergen, Prince of Madison, WI (remove NOSPAM for direct reply) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, "The Art of War" "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:4411943765E35990.B2A4A323...@lp.airnews.net... [ quoted text not captured ] What a cop out. I'm sure Derek, James Hamblin, legbiter, James Coupe, Xian, Gomi, Lasombra, Peter, jck, et.al., and I are willing to abide by "Judge, and stand ready to be judged." Why aren't you? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <KYx36.47346$36.15...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, Kevin M. <kjme...@NOSPAMhome.com> writes >I'm sure Derek, James Hamblin, legbiter, James Coupe, Xian, Gomi, >Lasombra, Peter, jck, et.al., and I are willing to abide by "Judge, and >stand ready to be judged." > >Why aren't you? Trolls rarely are. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "What's wrong with wanting more? If you can fly -- then soar! With all there is, why settle for just a piece of sky?"