Yes, this is a very important question!
Anachronism says:
"Put this card on a vampire with capacity above 6. This
vampire cannot have or use any ranged weapons except the
Ivory Bow. (If he or she currently has any, they are burned.)"
Is Kerrie considered to be a Ranged Weapon for the purposes of
Anachronism?
* Would Anachronism burn/prevent equipping with a Kerrie?
If not,
* Would Anachronism prevent the minion from using the Kerrie's
ranged strike?
* Would Anachronism prevent the minion from using the Kerrie's
normal close-range strike?
Thanks.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Card Text:
Melee weapon. Requires a Laibon.
Strength+1 damage each strike. Alternatively, inflict strength ranged
damage as a strike and, after strike resolution, turn this weapon face
down (out of play) until the end of the action.
Kerrie is a Melee Weapon, and should not be affected by Anachronism.
The alternate strike is a text effect, much like the rush and no-hunt
text on Talbot's Chainsaw. If Anachronism nerfs Kerrie, I quit VtES.
Jozxyqk wrote:
> Yes, this is a very important question!
Incorrect. :-)
> Anachronism says:
> "Put this card on a vampire with capacity above 6. This
> vampire cannot have or use any ranged weapons except the
> Ivory Bow. (If he or she currently has any, they are burned.)"
>
> Is Kerrie considered to be a Ranged Weapon for the purposes of
> Anachronism?
Is <a weapon which does ranged damage> considered a ranged weapon?
Yes, by explicit descriptive definition.
In a perfect world, anachronism would only burn "modern" (or
"non-archaic", depending on which way the trait went) weapons. But it
was written without such considerations.
> * Would Anachronism burn/prevent equipping with a Kerrie?
Yes. Card text.
Wookie813 wrote:
> Kerrie is a Melee Weapon, and should not be affected by Anachronism.
> The alternate strike is a text effect, much like the rush and no-hunt
> text on Talbot's Chainsaw. If Anachronism nerfs Kerrie, I quit VtES.
LSJ wrote:
>> Is Kerrie considered to be a Ranged Weapon for the purposes of
>> Anachronism?>> Is <a weapon which does ranged damage> considered a ranged weapon?
> Yes, by explicit descriptive definition.
So, Wookie, I guess I should offer to buy your cards on the cheap now,
eh? :P
(Although it could be argued that Kerries were fairly nerf to begin
with.)
-John Flournoy
LSJ wrote:
> > Anachronism says:
> > "Put this card on a vampire with capacity above 6. This
> > vampire cannot have or use any ranged weapons except the
> > Ivory Bow. (If he or she currently has any, they are burned.)"
> >
> > Is Kerrie considered to be a Ranged Weapon for the purposes of
> > Anachronism?
>
> Is <a weapon which does ranged damage> considered a ranged weapon?
> Yes, by explicit descriptive definition.
>
Them why does it have the word MELEE on it? What is a MELEE weapon, by
explicit descriptive definition? A Meat Cleaver could be thrown, too.
> In a perfect world, anachronism would only burn "modern" (or
> "non-archaic", depending on which way the trait went) weapons. But it
> was written without such considerations.
>
> > * Would Anachronism burn/prevent equipping with a Kerrie?
>
> Yes. Card text.
Shenanigans. This is the most assanine thing I have ever heard. I will
not sell my cards immediately in the hope that good sense will prevail
and a reverse ruling made.
Seriously. It says "inflict strength ranged damage as a strike", not
"Strike: Strength R". Card text is an alternate effect of possessing
the weapon, like being able to enter combat because you have the Eye of
Hazimel. If Anachronism nerfs it, then rule that it is not a Melee
Weapon. And after you do that, meet me at the local hobby store where I
will be selling my cards!!!
Actual Real Definition:
Melee
Function: noun
Etymology: French mêlée, from Old French meslee, from mesler to mix
: a confused struggle; especially : a hand-to-hand fight among several
people
Weapon
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English w[AE]pen; akin to Old
High German wAffan weapon, Old Norse vApn
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or
destroy
2 : a means of contending against another
*note the typo in my previous post. It should begin with the word
"Then".
Wookie813 wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > > Anachronism says:
> > > "Put this card on a vampire with capacity above 6. This
> > > vampire cannot have or use any ranged weapons except the
> > > Ivory Bow. (If he or she currently has any, they are burned.)"
> > >
> > > Is Kerrie considered to be a Ranged Weapon for the purposes of
> > > Anachronism?
it should be, since it is a ranged weapon for the purposes of
Projectile.
relevant text: [cel] Strike: 1R damage or make a ranged weapon strike.
This strike cannot be dodged.
i would certainly want it to count for this, so it should also be a
ranged weapon for other cards... including Anachronism.
> >
> > Is <a weapon which does ranged damage> considered a ranged weapon?
> > Yes, by explicit descriptive definition.
> >
>
> Them why does it have the word MELEE on it? What is a MELEE weapon, by
> explicit descriptive definition? A Meat Cleaver could be thrown, too.
a bad road to go down, since a vamp could throw nearly any "melee"
weapon. also, i wouldn't want to get my head caved in by a vampire
"meleeing" with a submachine gun or a sport bike, either. we give up
some of the possibilities of "pseudoreality" for the conventions of the
card game.
>
> > In a perfect world, anachronism would only burn "modern" (or
> > "non-archaic", depending on which way the trait went) weapons. But it
> > was written without such considerations.
> >
this is where your most convincing argument lies. the obvious answer
is to change the card text of anachronism, to say "except archaic
ranged weapons," and to classify Ivory Bow and Kerrie as such, along
with any future ones, say Granite Chunk for gargoyles....
but that is a lot of changing for a fairly cornercase situation....
for what it's worth, on that point, i agree with you.
> > > * Would Anachronism burn/prevent equipping with a Kerrie?
> >
> > Yes. Card text.
>
> Shenanigans. This is the most assanine thing I have ever heard. I will
> not sell my cards immediately in the hope that good sense will prevail
> and a reverse ruling made.
"i will quit if i don't get my way." it always sounds the same....
childish.
-john
Wookie813 <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:> > > Anachronism says:
> > > "Put this card on a vampire with capacity above 6. This
> > > vampire cannot have or use any ranged weapons except the
> > > Ivory Bow. (If he or she currently has any, they are burned.)"
> > >
> > > Is Kerrie considered to be a Ranged Weapon for the purposes of
> > > Anachronism?
> >
> > Is <a weapon which does ranged damage> considered a ranged weapon?
> > Yes, by explicit descriptive definition.
> >> Them why does it have the word MELEE on it? What is a MELEE weapon, by
> explicit descriptive definition? A Meat Cleaver could be thrown, too.
"Melee weapon" is Just Another Keyword in VTES. Like "Vehicle" or "Haven".
There's no specific definition to it, just a guideline to what tends to
constitute them at design time.
This guideline is broken in a few cases: Gas powered chainsaw (not strength
based), Rowan ring (doesn't even do damage), and Kerrie (has a ranged
component, which makes it a Ranged Weapon for the purposes of cards that
see it that way). No big deal.
"Wookie813" <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156547177.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
If I understand correctly, the definition you're questioning is neither
"melee" nor "weapon" but "ranged weapon".
I'm having trouble fathoming why this is so important to you. There's
a lot of things in this game where, if you think about them just in a
certain exact way, sound a bit weird. This is hardly on the top ten
list.
Are people using Anachronism nowadays as a toolbox stopper for gun
decks? I can't recall the last time I've seen it played, if ever.
Could be just the boondocks area I play in, I suppose.
Fred
For the record, I am not likely to quit this game anytime soon. I enjoy
it far too much.
I felt compelled to rant. [/rant]
SPORE wrote:
> "i will quit if i don't get my way." it always sounds the same....
> childish.
> -john
I'm a 34 year old man who still plays CCGs. Of course I'm childish!
I understand the Dead Horse argument, and will beat it no further.
...for chrissakes it's a wooden stick.... ;)
Fred Scott wrote:
> I'm having trouble fathoming why this is so important to you. There's
> a lot of things in this game where, if you think about them just in a
> certain exact way, sound a bit weird. This is hardly on the top ten
> list.
>
That sounds like a challenge. I hereby veto all instances of things
being "burned" and coming back.
> Are people using Anachronism nowadays as a toolbox stopper for gun
> decks? I can't recall the last time I've seen it played, if ever.
> Could be just the boondocks area I play in, I suppose.
>
Too bad you weren't at Origins last year. Robyn Tatu played Anachronism
and followed it up with a Nosferatu Performance Art. It was grand.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Fred Scott wrote:
>
> Are people using Anachronism nowadays as a toolbox stopper for gun
> decks? I can't recall the last time I've seen it played, if ever.
It's useful against Fat Multirush decks. I guess you might call it the
anti-David Cherryholmes card.
> Could be just the boondocks area I play in, I suppose.
>
> Fred
Or a lack of ranged weapons.
-Eric Manch
"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156557433.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Fred Scott wrote:>> I'm having trouble fathoming why this is so important to you. There's
>> a lot of things in this game where, if you think about them just in a
>> certain exact way, sound a bit weird. This is hardly on the top ten
>> list.>
> That sounds like a challenge. I hereby veto all instances of things
> being "burned" and coming back.
Especially the various live and undead thingies! Kind of like the early
scene in Pirates of the Caribbean where Will Turner runs into the same
pirate he just killed. "Hey, waitjustadamnminuteHERE!!! I thought I just
got DONE burning Josh Werner, dagNABit!!!"
> Too bad you weren't at Origins last year. Robyn Tatu played Anachronism
> and followed it up with a Nosferatu Performance Art. It was grand.
Bleh. And she played a Centralized Background Check at Powerbase: LA.
Apparently she does not much of a sense of humor about gun decks.
Fred
Wookie813 wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Is <a weapon which does ranged damage> considered a ranged weapon?
> > Yes, by explicit descriptive definition.
>
> Them why does it have the word MELEE on it? What is a MELEE weapon, by
> explicit descriptive definition? A Meat Cleaver could be thrown, too.
It has the word melee on it to identify it as a "melee" weapon.
A melee weapon is one that has the "melee" trait, by definition.
A Meat Cleaver cannot be thrown in VTES.
> > In a perfect world, anachronism would only burn "modern" (or
> > "non-archaic", depending on which way the trait went) weapons. But it
> > was written without such considerations.
> >
> > > * Would Anachronism burn/prevent equipping with a Kerrie?
> >
> > Yes. Card text.
>
> Shenanigans. This is the most assanine thing I have ever heard. I will
> not sell my cards immediately in the hope that good sense will prevail
> and a reverse ruling made.
It is no ruling, merely a clarification restating that a weapon that
deals ranged damage is a ranged weapon.
A reversal would have to take the form of errata.
> Shenanigans. This is the most assanine thing I have ever heard. I will
> not sell my cards immediately in the hope that good sense will prevail
> and a reverse ruling made.
There are a bunch of weird things in the game that don't make sense.
Like a repo man being able to find you a helicopter ("look what I found
in the yard out back! Damn yuppies, they can never keep up the payments
on their choppers").
I think the biggest one is Memories of Mortality, the card I generally
refer to as "I was a teenage War Ghoul" (they seem to have left out the
"Mortal" keyword from the card text).
"Oh no, here comes the War Ghoul! ( / renegade garou / succubus / etc
etc). "Damn I remember when I was a giant blob of malformed corpses
stuck together with Tzimisce magic... all the kids at school picked on
me... none of the girls would go to the prom with me... I know his
pain! How could I harm such a beautiful creature with which I share
such a natural affinity..."
Ridiculous stuff really. There are a bunch of other examples you can
easily think of (Ambrosius the ferryman goes computer hacking, a
vampire with a sports bike blocking a vampire flying around in a
Learjet, etc.)
But basically, the cards should really only be thought of as cards;
e.g. a Learjet is a "card that lets you draw cards", not a big plane.
If it WAS a plane and functioned in the game how planes do in real
life, it would obviously be extremely difficult if not impossible to
block a vampire using it. Trying to translate all the cards to
real-world situations just doesn't always work, unfortunately.
So rather than continually errata all the cards and make lots of
exceptional rulings, White Wolf just tells us to deal with it. Which
while at times feels frustrating, is actually a lot easier than having
multiple versions of cards flying around and having to check for the
latest rulings on cards all the time (e.g. Anachronism only works on
certain weapon types considered to be "modern weapons", the following
cards are retrospectively considered to have the card text "modern",
the following are not, blah blah blah).
See the recent debate about whether or not sports bikes are considered
to be "electronic" equipment. The less of that malarkey we have to put
up with, the better.
Dasein <dasei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Shenanigans. This is the most assanine thing I have ever heard. I will
> > not sell my cards immediately in the hope that good sense will prevail
> > and a reverse ruling made.> There are a bunch of weird things in the game that don't make sense.
> Like a repo man being able to find you a helicopter ("look what I found
> in the yard out back! Damn yuppies, they can never keep up the payments
> on their choppers").
Reg Driscoll equips with a Palatial Estate, using Hag's Wrinkles.
"Hey, look what I found in my ribcage. It's a Mansion! Who wants it?"
Dasein wrote:
> Ridiculous stuff really. There are a bunch of other examples you can
> easily think of (Ambrosius the ferryman goes computer hacking, a
> vampire with a sports bike blocking a vampire flying around in a
> Learjet, etc.)
> But basically, the cards should really only be thought of as cards;
> e.g. a Learjet is a "card that lets you draw cards", not a big plane.
Have you noticed, that a sportbike and a learjet are both verhicles.
And that the rules forbid to have two vehicles.
What do we learn by your (bad) example? Simple, the game is designed to
simulate a (fantasy) world called WoD (sometimes called the roleplaying
aspect of VTES). If possible the rules and cards make sense in that
world. So Dodges dont do damage, pistols dont give stealth, a card like
a Kerrie has a very complicated text that tries to simulate that it can
be thrown (It is obviously that the designer had not the card text
first and searched for a name of the card, but wanted to make a card
for a Kerrie and thought, what rule would simulate it.) and there is no
card "Spock", "Garfield" or "Big green blob".
There are some people who are only interested in the rule aspect of the
cards. But there are also some people who like the simulation aspect of
the game. One of the beauties of VTES for me is that a combat in VTES
is believable (different from Magic IMO). Do what you like, but please
dont tell us, that we should have no interest in the simulation aspect
of the game.
Frank
x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
> There are some people who are only interested in the rule aspect of the
> cards. But there are also some people who like the simulation aspect of
> the game. One of the beauties of VTES for me is that a combat in VTES
> is believable (different from Magic IMO). Do what you like, but please
> dont tell us, that we should have no interest in the simulation aspect
> of the game.
You can have all the interest you want in the simulation aspect, but
you have to realize that you're going to have to take a lot of what you
see with a HUGE grain of salt. Combats in V:TES are believable? Really?
"Yeah, the white phosphorous grenade exploded right in my face,
covering me in flaming napalm. Fortunately, I was wearing my leather
jacket, so everything was okay."
John Eno
Dasein wrote:
> > Shenanigans. This is the most assanine thing I have ever heard. I will
> > not sell my cards immediately in the hope that good sense will prevail
> > and a reverse ruling made.
>
> There are a bunch of weird things in the game that don't make sense.
> Like a repo man being able to find you a helicopter ("look what I found
> in the yard out back! Damn yuppies, they can never keep up the payments
> on their choppers").
>
> I think the biggest one is Memories of Mortality, the card I generally
> refer to as "I was a teenage War Ghoul" (they seem to have left out the
> "Mortal" keyword from the card text).
>
> "Oh no, here comes the War Ghoul! ( / renegade garou / succubus / etc
> etc). "Damn I remember when I was a giant blob of malformed corpses
> stuck together with Tzimisce magic... all the kids at school picked on
> me... none of the girls would go to the prom with me... I know his
> pain! How could I harm such a beautiful creature with which I share
> such a natural affinity..."
Have to admit we joke around about this too ... usually it's Shambling
Hordes ... yes, I so remember my Zombie days too.
> Ridiculous stuff really. There are a bunch of other examples you can
> easily think of (Ambrosius the ferryman goes computer hacking, a
> vampire with a sports bike blocking a vampire flying around in a
> Learjet, etc.)
> But basically, the cards should really only be thought of as cards;
> e.g. a Learjet is a "card that lets you draw cards", not a big plane.
> If it WAS a plane and functioned in the game how planes do in real
> life, it would obviously be extremely difficult if not impossible to
> block a vampire using it. Trying to translate all the cards to
> real-world situations just doesn't always work, unfortunately.
>
> So rather than continually errata all the cards and make lots of
> exceptional rulings, White Wolf just tells us to deal with it. Which
> while at times feels frustrating, is actually a lot easier than having
> multiple versions of cards flying around and having to check for the
> latest rulings on cards all the time (e.g. Anachronism only works on
> certain weapon types considered to be "modern weapons", the following
> cards are retrospectively considered to have the card text "modern",
> the following are not, blah blah blah).
>
> See the recent debate about whether or not sports bikes are considered
> to be "electronic" equipment. The less of that malarkey we have to put
> up with, the better.
While I agree that endless card clarifications/errata are not a good
thing for the game, I also think we should consider design intent.
Anachronism came out with Ancient Hearts, and let's face it, WotC
weren't ones to really be far sighted. It's clear by the intent of the
card that it should affect only modern day weapons, and since the only
archaic ranged weapon at the time was Ivory Bow, it was explicitly
exempted. (Why they never thought that another archaic ranged weapon
could be created is beyond me. It had me wondering when I first got the
card all those years ago). It just seems bad form to me that one card
is exempt by virtue of it being in existence at the time, while any
other cards that would have been included in the exemption as well
aren't covered simply because of poor card text. Unless there is
something extremely special about the Ivory Bow that I fail to realize?
Of course, this all pretty academic, and fairly cornercase, I've only
seen Anachronism once in the past 3 years. It was reprinted in the 10th
anniversary set, without modification, and it would seem unlikely to
see print again, and thus receive any sort of 'fix'.
And while I haven't followed the Electronic debate, I can understand
the confusion and questions about it. If a new term is brought into the
game, then it should be applied universally to the game. If
'Electronic' isn't to become a trait, then why use the term in the
first place, or use e.g. in brackets, which suggests there are others?
Just list the pieces of equipment and be done with it, like
Anarchronism, and let any other pieces of future electronic equipment
be exempt from Smite. The only thing I can see is that it gives WW the
option to introduce Electronic as a trait later on, but why not do it
now rather than then, which would just mean potentially more cards need
to be so clarified?
The one problem with new cards and expansions is that eventually new
ideas come up that require modifications to existing cards, or that the
new idea is never brought to fruition. Should a card such as Resticted
Airspace, which prevents the use of flying vehicles, just never be
considered, because it would require adding the Flying trait to a few
vehicles? I do understand the difficulties with implementing new
concepts and traits, as not everyone has access to the latest card
text, and thus confusion can certainly arise. But then, this will
happen any time there is an errata or text migration, and then really,
does it matter if one or twenty cards are modified at the same time?
Personally, I would like to see such changes, to give a better 'feel'
to the game, rather than just having card text. Otherwise, why bother
with names and pictures to give a sense of reality to it? I doubt I'd
have played the game if all the cards were simply things like Obfuscate
1 - +1 stealth/+2 stealth, Obfuscate 2 - +1 stealth/block fails,
Obfuscate 3 - +2 steath on non-bleed actions/+3 stealth on non-bleed
actions, etc. It's the image of what is happening, of the minions using
their abilities to do all these things, that make the game so enjoyable
to play.
Just my thoughts,
Chris, Thrall of Arika
x5m...@gmx.de escreveu:
> Dasein wrote:
> > Ridiculous stuff really. There are a bunch of other examples you can
> > easily think of (Ambrosius the ferryman goes computer hacking,
Although there's a lot of funny examples in this thread that drive the
point quite nicely, this one is more justified from background than it
seems. Wraiths are pretty capable of possessing computers and invading
systems. Heck, there's almost a whole Arcana (their powers - Inhabit in
this case) dedicated to this sort of thing. They can even travel very
long distance intanstaniously through internet cables and that sort of
stuff.
Unless you're referring to the fact that Ambrosius is a Ferryman and
therefore probably too old to indulge in that sort of thing. ;)
Fabio "Sooner222" Macedo
A Wraith: the Oblivion fan
PS: maybe one day I'll see a mini-expansion introducing wraiths. One
can hope, can't he?
> > Ridiculous stuff really. There are a bunch of other examples you can
> > easily think of (Ambrosius the ferryman goes computer hacking, a
> > vampire with a sports bike blocking a vampire flying around in a
> > Learjet, etc.)
> > But basically, the cards should really only be thought of as cards;
> > e.g. a Learjet is a "card that lets you draw cards", not a big plane.
>
> Have you noticed, that a sportbike and a learjet are both verhicles.
> And that the rules forbid to have two vehicles.
Have you noticed, that a vampire (or person, or war ghoul for that
matter) can wear 10 pairs of IR Goggles? And they work together?
This could go on and on.
> What do we learn by your (bad) example? Simple, the game is designed to
> simulate a (fantasy) world called WoD (sometimes called the roleplaying
> aspect of VTES). If possible the rules and cards make sense in that world.
Right. But it's not always possible that they make sense; sometimes
they don't make sense at all (like the example someone had of a leather
jacket protecting against a white phosphorus grenade; they also stop
RPG rounds, which is even more ridiculous).
> There are some people who are only interested in the rule aspect of the
> cards. But there are also some people who like the simulation aspect of the game.
Don't get me wrong, I do too.
> One of the beauties of VTES for me is that a combat in VTES
> is believable (different from Magic IMO). Do what you like, but please
> dont tell us, that we should have no interest in the simulation aspect of the game.
Ok maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm not telling anyone to have no
interest in the simulation aspect of the game. I'm telling people that
we have to play by the rules, even if they don't make sense in the
'real world' (or the 'World of Darkness world', or any other world you
care to think of). If your vampire fires an RPG at a Loyal Street Gang,
then they survive (must be a very big jacket also to protect a whole
gang of homeboys). It makes no sense at all, in anyone's world, no
matter how you imagine it, but for the purposes of the game, it's just
what happens, because that's what the cards and the rules say. And
White Wolf's general policy is to stick to what the cards and rules
say, even where it doesn't make sense, and even where there seems to be
some original intention for them to work another way (e.g. I think
Memories of Mortality was originally intended to only work on mortal
allies; I think Anachronism was intended to stop vampires using
handguns, rifles, assault rifles, rocket launchers, etc.)
Rather than continually change the cards and the rules, they tell us
that "it's just how it works". And my point is that, while that means
some things make no sense if you think about it in a game world
situation, it's just how the cards are. And that policy makes the game
a lot easier to learn and play, since cards don't change often.
Memories of Mortality just stops a vampire from blocking allies, full
stop. Like I said, if you think about it just as a card, then you're
fine. It's a card that stops you blocking allies. Switch off your World
of Darkness goggles for a moment when somebody plays that card and it's
all good. Yes it would be cool if all the cards made sense in a World
of Darkness way, but that's just the way it works.
>
> Frank
"Dasein" <dasei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156814577.0...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Have you noticed, that a sportbike and a learjet are both verhicles.
>> And that the rules forbid to have two vehicles.>
> Have you noticed, that a vampire (or person, or war ghoul for that
> matter) can wear 10 pairs of IR Goggles? And they work together?
10 Flak Jackets is a lot more amusing. I even have a "combat" deck
that attempts to take advantage of this. (OK, not a _good_ one. But
it's fun to play for a while.)
It takes me back to a game many years ago when Eric Pettersen put three
on some vampire and started bleeding with it.
*tapping the vampire*, "Frederick the Weak (or whoever the hell it was,
I can't recall) waddles forward..."
Fred
> 10 Flak Jackets is a lot more amusing. I even have a "combat" deck
> that attempts to take advantage of this. (OK, not a _good_ one. But
> it's fun to play for a while.)
>
> It takes me back to a game many years ago when Eric Pettersen put three
> on some vampire and started bleeding with it.
>
> *tapping the vampire*, "Frederick the Weak (or whoever the hell it was,
> I can't recall) waddles forward..."
Heh that is pretty good. And hmm if I'm not mistaken Marie Faucigny can
get Flak Jackets for free... was this the way you went?
I heard about a game where a guy got five IR goggles on one minion (not
sure, I vaguely remember it being a renegade garou, but that's possibly
because I would like for it to have been a renegade garou).
In response to people pointing out how ridiculous it was, he replied
"well don't think of it as him wearing lots of goggles... think of each
subsequent equip action as him getting a *better* pair of goggles than
the last pair. So currently he has a REALLY REALLY good pair of
goggles."
"Dasein" <dasei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1156821237.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> 10 Flak Jackets is a lot more amusing. I even have a "combat" deck
>> that attempts to take advantage of this. (OK, not a _good_ one. But
>> it's fun to play for a while.)
...
> Heh that is pretty good. And hmm if I'm not mistaken Marie Faucigny can
> get Flak Jackets for free... was this the way you went?
No. I like the potence weenies with the Disarms and Pulled Fangs. Last
game, one of them actually ambused Enkidu. Would have gotten him, too,
if it hadn't been for that damn Leathery Hide card. $#*@!
Fred
Dasein wrote:
> > Shenanigans. This is the most assanine thing I have ever heard. I will
> > not sell my cards immediately in the hope that good sense will prevail
> > and a reverse ruling made.
>
> There are a bunch of weird things in the game that don't make sense.
> Like a repo man being able to find you a helicopter ("look what I found
> in the yard out back! Damn yuppies, they can never keep up the payments
> on their choppers").
While not the most assanine thing I have ever heard (my apologies for
flying off the handle), I find it wrong both thematically and in the
way the card is written. Kerrie is specifically denoted a Melee Weapon,
and as far as I know, is now the only melee weapon affected by
Anachronism. It seems to me it could be 'clarified' that Kerrie is a
Melee Weapon whether used at close or long range - the long range
effect causing strength damage at range as a strike. We all know you
throw the Kerrie and it comes back, but for thematic reasons and to
honor design intent, it's not a Ranged weapon. That's what I was
expecting the ruling to be. It really had nothing to do with with
feasability in a game world or how you can hide an elephant in your
shorts if you are the dominant male. I am probably most upset because I
have really been enjoying bouncing Kerries off of heads with Pushing
the Limits, and now the guys in my group will be playing Anachronisms
and I'll have to put Massassi away for a year. *sigh*
Next time I go on a faux-temper tantrum, I'll be sure to be more
liberal with the winky-face!! ;)
In message <1156825219.5...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
Wookie813 <veknp...@yahoo.com> writes:
>I find it wrong both thematically and in the
>way the card is written. Kerrie is specifically denoted a Melee Weapon,
>and as far as I know, is now the only melee weapon affected by
>Anachronism. It seems to me it could be 'clarified' that Kerrie is a
>Melee Weapon whether used at close or long range - the long range
>effect causing strength damage at range as a strike.
That would still be a "ranged weapon", because ranged weapon has been
defined as a weapon that does damage at range.
"Melee weapon", as a keyword in V:TES, has absolutely zero meaning. It
just applies when other cards make use of it, such as Undead Strength
being usable on a strike with a melee weapon. It doesn't have any
meaning beyond that, just like "Black Hand" or "Gun" has zero meaning in
the game beyond what card text gives it. It's just a word with no
rules-specific meaning.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Thrall of Arika wrote:
> While I agree that endless card clarifications/errata are not a good
> thing for the game, I also think we should consider design intent.
> Anachronism came out with Ancient Hearts, and let's face it, WotC
> weren't ones to really be far sighted. It's clear by the intent of the
> card that it should affect only modern day weapons, and since the only
> archaic ranged weapon at the time was Ivory Bow, it was explicitly
> exempted.
I totally agree with you.
And i dont think it should really be done at the moment, in the end it
woudl be a good change.
If we now have a term "old" or "ancient" at equipment and Anachronism
would work against all equipment with these term, WW could create a
Dark Age expansion with all equipment having the "ancient" term. Then
it woudl be very simple to have Dark Ages tournaments (only "ancient"
equipemnet would be allowed.).
Frank
Dasein wrote:
> Have you noticed, that a vampire (or person, or war ghoul for that
> matter) can wear 10 pairs of IR Goggles? And they work together?
> This could go on and on.
And like someone said, it can be rationalized by thinking of a better
version.
> > There are some people who are only interested in the rule aspect of the
> > cards. But there are also some people who like the simulation aspect of the game.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I do too.
>
> > One of the beauties of VTES for me is that a combat in VTES
> > is believable (different from Magic IMO). Do what you like, but please
> > dont tell us, that we should have no interest in the simulation aspect of the game.
>
> Ok maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm not telling anyone to have no
> interest in the simulation aspect of the game. I'm telling people that
> we have to play by the rules, even if they don't make sense in the
> 'real world' (or the 'World of Darkness world', or any other world you
> care to think of).
I agree. A TCG is no RPG where we have a storyteller who can fix rules
if they dont make sense. So we have to accept, that some things dont
work very well in a simulating aspect.
But what some people dont seem to get is that the game is designed to
make sense in its simulating/roleplaying aspect. It is obviously not
the case that LSJ thought: We need a very complicated combat card that
has 12 line of text and gives you +1 strength, prevent 1 non-agg,
optional maneuver and 2R agg damage. Nobody thinking from the view of a
card game would design such a card. He obviously thought, there is a
discipline level in the WoD that makes you into a dragon; how can we
simulate that with a card? (You know, what card i am talking about? ;-)
)
And that is, what i love about VTES. It tries to make sense in the
simulating aspect. And that is why i hate all the card ideas, that are
obviously ONLY designed with a TCG mind: "We need something against
Arrika, lets call it Starshiptrooper Laser and give it 3agg and no
Combat Ends against it".
If you can believe in a combat, where you have 7 health level and if
someone shoots at you, you will usually be able to hobble around, than
VTES combat doesnt look to strange to you. Even if i want the
roleplaingy/simulation aspect, i still know, it is a game.
Frank
Thrall of Arika wrote:
> And while I haven't followed the Electronic debate, I can understand
> the confusion and questions about it. If a new term is brought into the
> game, then it should be applied universally to the game. If
> 'Electronic' isn't to become a trait, then why use the term in the
> first place, or use e.g. in brackets, which suggests there are others?
> Just list the pieces of equipment and be done with it, like
> Anarchronism, and let any other pieces of future electronic equipment
> be exempt from Smite. The only thing I can see is that it gives WW the
> option to introduce Electronic as a trait later on, but why not do it
> now rather than then, which would just mean potentially more cards need
> to be so clarified?
?
Electronic is currently trait. At this time, it is possessed by: IR
Goggles, Laptop Computer, and Phased Motion Detector. It is "applied
universally to the game", to use your phrase. The 'e.g.' is used
because there are potentially others (other electronic equipment that
hasn't yet been printed at this time).
This is a case of "now" rather than "then".
[ quoted text not captured ]
Oops!
That's all and good then. I hadn't realized that this was the case. I
hadn't followed the threads, and so obviously I had missed the
clarification that those three pieces of equipment did indeed have the
Electronic trait. Thanks for that.
No matter how hard I try to stay on top of the rules for our group, I
always seem to miss something ...
Chris, Thrall of Arika
[ quoted text not captured ]
An unfortunate truth. Make no mistake, I think WW does an excellent job
in attempting to convert abilities and concepts into a card game. Some
things are just very difficult to simulate effectively, or attempts to
make a card act as it would in a 'real' sense just make the card
wallpaper. I think the intent of Memories of Mortality was to be more
along the lines of mortals, and those that appear that way (mages, for
example, or even zombies ... zombies are people too! Well ... were
...). But it seems that with the expansions, we sort of moved away from
mortal allies to other interesting types ... werewolves, demons, etc. I
certainly don't advocate making Memories mortal only (though I doubt it
would hurt the card too much, with the Imbued), but it does stretch the
limits of card flavour and game mechanics.
I have recently been taking notes of games we've been playing, and
attempting to write an actual story based around what happens (which
reminds me, I still have to write up the one for the last tournament we
had). I'll probably do the same for the prerelease too. It certainly
takes some doing to think of how to conceptualize some aspects of what
happens. But I also find that it makes it easier to see how things
work, even if they don't make sense right away. Such as the Gang with
Leather Jacket vs. the RPG Launcher. It's not too hard to consider that
each of the gang members gets a jacket (bulk purchase discount!), that
the rocket doesn't actually hit them, but explodes nearby while they
duck and cover, their jackets getting shredded and singed as a result,
but leaving them alive and breathing.
Have to admit though that it's harder to explain a Laibon with an
Elephant Guardian blocking someone's attempt to steal from Powerbase:
Washington DC, say ... You'd think someone would notice the elephant
circling around the Washington Monument ... And still can't rationalize
the Hell Hound on a Sports Bike either ...
But I think I speak for a lot of people that a lot of the interest in
the game is in the imagery, not just the actual game mechanics (which
are good and solid, of course). Without the vampire background, though,
how much interest would there be in the game? It is much more
interesting and fun to play with Memories of Mortality, rather than
Can't Block or Hurt Allies.
I still advocate card intent/concept over game mechanics though, as in
the case of Anarchonism. It just seems strange that it will affect a
weapon that is probably one of the oldest around (I don't know, but I'm
presuming that the Kerrie is a ceremonial type club/staff), and yet not
the relatively newer weapon in the Ivory Bow. Still, relatively moot,
except in certain environments, and so doubtful that such a change
would ever come about.
Chris, Thrall of Arika
x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
> I agree. A TCG is no RPG where we have a storyteller who can fix rules
> if they dont make sense.
In fact, it's not an RPG at all. So worrying about RPG elements in a
game that's not an RPG shouldn't be much of a priority.
> But what some people dont seem to get is that the game is designed to
> make sense in its simulating/roleplaying aspect. It is obviously not
> the case that LSJ thought: We need a very complicated combat card that
> has 12 line of text and gives you +1 strength, prevent 1 non-agg,
> optional maneuver and 2R agg damage. Nobody thinking from the view of a
> card game would design such a card. He obviously thought, there is a
> discipline level in the WoD that makes you into a dragon; how can we
> simulate that with a card? (You know, what card i am talking about? ;-)
> )
Sure. But trying to bend everything to make some kind of story is going
to end up with ridiculousness at one point or another. I don't think
anyone's advocating that you can't do some little storytelling in your
head if you want to. You should just be aware that if you look too
closely at how the cards interact, it's going to end up with silliness
that can't be justified without abstraction.
> And that is, what i love about VTES. It tries to make sense in the
> simulating aspect. And that is why i hate all the card ideas, that are
> obviously ONLY designed with a TCG mind: "We need something against
> Arrika, lets call it Starshiptrooper Laser and give it 3agg and no
> Combat Ends against it".
It's fortunate that no one has suggested anything like that, then. It's
even more fortunate that it hasn't been printed.
John Eno
> I still advocate card intent/concept over game mechanics though, as in
> the case of Anarchonism. It just seems strange that it will affect a
> weapon that is probably one of the oldest around (I don't know, but I'm
> presuming that the Kerrie is a ceremonial type club/staff), and yet not
> the relatively newer weapon in the Ivory Bow. Still, relatively moot,
> except in certain environments, and so doubtful that such a change
> would ever come about.
>
> Chris, Thrall of Arika
The actual correct name is "Kierie" It is usually a walking stick made
from something like ironwood, an extremely hard wood. Usualy has a tree
knot for the handle, making it a particularly vicious club. I once saw
a beater kill a 500kg buck that had been winged by a hunter with a
single swing to the skull with a knob kierie.
Blooded Sand wrote:
> The actual correct name is "Kierie" It is usually a walking stick made
> from something like ironwood, an extremely hard wood. Usualy has a tree
> knot for the handle, making it a particularly vicious club. I once saw
> a beater kill a 500kg buck that had been winged by a hunter with a
> single swing to the skull with a knob kierie.
You may transliterate it as you like, but the "actual correct" name is
kerrie (a Bushman or Hottentot word for stick). The term used on the
card is not a shorterning of the Afrikaans word
knobkierie/knobkerrie/knopkierie.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Um, dude, no dissin meant but the term is KhoiSan, not the derogative
Bushman/Hottentot. And they call it a knobkerrie. The pronounciation
however is 'kee-ri'
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hmm. All the references I found for the derivation referred to "kerrie"
as the Bushman/Hottentot word for stick. None referred to that group by
any other name, nor did they refer to that group's term as "knobkerrie"
(although they did mostly mention "knobkerrie" as the Afrikaans word
for it).
Any reference for the term "kerrie" NOT being correct/viable?
> The pronounciation
> however is 'kee-ri'
If you say so. Not part of the topic at hand, though.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Bushmen" (for the San) and "Hottentot" (for the Khoikhoi), or
collectively the Khoisan, are not identified (or used) as derogative
terms outside of South Africa. Now, White Wolf would probably be happy
to be informed of the international usages of the words as described in
the "Oxford Dictionary of South African English". If they then see fit
to go into detail about how 'kerrie' is perfectly correct, they can use
"Khoisan", giving up some recognizability outside of South Africa in
exchange.
That they call it a knobkerrie does not preclude them from also calling
it simply a kerrie. "knob" part comes from the Dutch "knop" (knob) and
the kerrie comes from the Nama (a Khoisan language) word variously
tranliterated "kerrie" "kieri" or "kirri" (stick). So even if they
sometimes call their sticks "knobsticks", they're still sticks. (I
assume it's Nama, anyway.)
Hunter
--
http://www.hunterandlori.com
Kushiel wrote:
> "Yeah, the white phosphorous grenade exploded right in my face,
> covering me in flaming napalm. Fortunately, I was wearing my leather
> jacket, so everything was okay."
>
That only shows the quality of Leather Jackets in V:TES. It's all that
extra padding you know.
Archie