Jyhad

Hey first time to the conf. so I have a few q's. Is there any rule for the Army of Rats. There seems to be no limit. I was watching 1 game where a person had (5) Army of Rats out along with bleeding, and other cards he was able to walk through his prey. Also can anyone please clerify Trap, it is worded rather badly. O well more later Thanx 2 all. Buy Umbradomo, KM

There should be no limit to the army of rats (after all, if you outnumber your prey to the point that s/he can't get rid of them, even with _your_ predator chewing on you, then you deserve to win).

In article <f.42583.2456@aquila.com> Kevin Masterson, kevin.masterson@aquila.com writes: >Hey first time to the conf. so I have a few q's. >Is there any rule for the Army of Rats. There seems to be no limit. I >was watching 1 game where a person had (5) Army of Rats out along with >bleeding, and other cards he was able to walk through his prey. >Also can anyone please clerify Trap, it is worded rather badly. >O well more later >Thanx 2 all. Buy >Umbradomo, KM The best way around this is to play like Magic tournament rules: no more than 4 of any one card in the deck! This will prevent cheesy decks. Also, the official ruling is:effects of army of rats is not cumulative! No matter how many your predator has up, only 1 point of damage is taken. Cheers, David Willis favedave@cerfnet.com "I don't give a damn what religion you are - all I care is how you treat people."

Kevin Masterson (kevin.masterson@aquila.com) wrote: : Hey first time to the conf. so I have a few q's. : Is there any rule for the Army of Rats. There seems to be no limit. I : was watching 1 game where a person had (5) Army of Rats out along with : bleeding, and other cards he was able to walk through his prey. : Also can anyone please clerify Trap, it is worded rather badly. : O well more later : Thanx 2 all. Buy : Umbradomo, KM Army of Rats: first time I ever heard of 5 at the same time. Begins to be nasty. Net ruling on jyhad-l@wizards.com says that only one can be brought out at the same time... No sorry, having more than one is redundant , since you would only lose 1BP anyway (that's the ruling). But having more is good since your prey must kill 5 Army of Rats to be done with them. :) Thought it is true the card is not clear on that one. I was against the ruling at first, but 5 at the same time, I begin ti see the Net-wisdom here... Trap: I hope you are familiar with Presses. The card gives you an automatic press at the end of each round of combat. This is a "Press to continue" press. This lasts until no Meth has played a card for three consecutive and complete turns. So, for example, at the end of a turn, the Trap gives a Press to continue, your opponent play a Press to concel it, and you manage to play another press, so combat continues and since you've played cards (whatever they are) Trap is still in effect. BTW, if you manage to play a Strike: Combat Ends (like Majesty) then the Trap is gone, of course. -- Karrde karrde@step.polymtl.ca (presently working on a new mail footer...)

You can get corrected Jyhad rulebooks from WotC by calling or mailing customer service. (206) 624-0933, custserv@wizards.com. Kevin Masterson <kevin.masterson@aquila.com> wrote: >Is there any rule for the Army of Rats. There seems to be no limit... There is errata to the card such that multiple Armies for one player are redundant, not cumulative. Fame has similar errata such that multiple Fames on the same vampire are redundant, not cumulative. >Also can anyone please clerify Trap, it is worded rather badly. Each round of combat will have a free press to continue for the first three rounds, and for each round after that if any cards had been played in that round or the previous two. This press can be cancelled normally. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Before I could do anything to stop it, David Willis wrote: > The best way around this is to play like Magic tournament rules: no more than > 4 of any one card in the deck! This will prevent cheesy decks. I don't think that Magic tournament rules (any Magic rules, as a matter of fact) are a good idea for application to Jyhad games. Another poster here wrote an illuminating article about how such card limits in Jyhad could actually unbalance the game. Jyhad seems to have some nice balances built in: The "unique" cards, the limitation on action modifiers (you can't use the same kind twice in one action), the related cards modifiers like Bonding/Conditioning/Threats, etc. WotC apparently learned a few lessons from Magic. Magic solutions may not be the answer for perceived problems with Jyhad. In the group I play in, most people like Gangrel decks. I've read on the net that Malkavian/Tremere decks (my preference) are the hot ticket. It just depends on what room you sit down and play in. A Black Lotus/Mox/Channel/Fireball deck will kill in any room, but Malkavian/Tremere deck may not. I vote that we don't limit Jyhad until some bona fide abuses arise. -- There be that can pack the cards and yet cannot play | a-Henh! well; so there are some that are good in canvasses and | Brian Wilson factions, that are otherwise weak men. | Francis Bacon |

Before I could do anything to stop it, Frederic Genest wrote: > Army of Rats: first time I ever heard of 5 at the same time. Begins to > be nasty. Net ruling on jyhad-l@wizards.com says that only one can be > brought out at the same time... No sorry, having more than one is redundant > , since you would only lose 1BP anyway (that's the ruling). But having > more is good since your prey must kill 5 Army of Rats to be done with > them. :) Thought it is true the card is not clear on that one. I was > against the ruling at first, but 5 at the same time, I begin ti see the > Net-wisdom here... If you have trouble with Rats, then clearly you have an intercept deficiency. Pack some Wakes and buy a few Sport Bikes (or put a Radio Station) and block those Rats when they come your way. -- There be that can pack the cards and yet cannot play | a-Henh! well; so there are some that are good in canvasses and | Brian Wilson factions, that are otherwise weak men. | Francis Bacon |

In article <36sfoo$ogv@newsbf01.news.aol.com> Lucyred, lucyred@aol.com writes: > In article <36sfoo$ogv@newsbf01.news.aol.com> Lucyred, lucyred@aol.com writes: In article <36sfoo$ogv@newsbf01.news.aol.com> Lucyred, lucyred@aol.com writes: >There should be no limit to the army of rats (after all, if you outnumber >your prey to the point that s/he can't get rid of them, even with _your_ >predator chewing on you, then you deserve to win). That's a pretty cheesy way to win. Do you like playing chess with 5 year olds? Anyway, that's the official ruling from WOTC. Learn to love it. David Willis favedave@cerfnet.com "I don't give a damn what religion you are - all I care is how you treat people."

Newsgroups: rec.games.deckmaster In article <36vg0u$tkk@tequesta.gate.net>, Brian Wilson <bwilson@gate.net> wrote: >Before I could do anything to stop it, Frederic Genest wrote: > >> Army of Rats: first time I ever heard of 5 at the same time. Begins to >> be nasty. Net ruling on jyhad-l@wizards.com says that only one can be >> brought out at the same time... No sorry, having more than one is redundant >> , since you would only lose 1BP anyway (that's the ruling). But having >> more is good since your prey must kill 5 Army of Rats to be done with >> them. :) Thought it is true the card is not clear on that one. I was >> against the ruling at first, but 5 at the same time, I begin ti see the >> Net-wisdom here... > >If you have trouble with Rats, then clearly you have an intercept >deficiency. Pack some Wakes and buy a few Sport Bikes (or put a Radio >Station) and block those Rats when they come your way. That would work great, if rats actually attacked to Bleed you, but they don't... you just automatically lose a blood from your pool when your rat-god predator untaps. You can't even use Telepathic Counters or any- thing, it's just automatic loss. 5 points of automatic loss each turn and you're in trouble.

aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes: >You can get corrected Jyhad rulebooks from WotC by calling or mailing >customer service. (206) 624-0933, custserv@wizards.com. >Kevin Masterson <kevin.masterson@aquila.com> wrote: >>Is there any rule for the Army of Rats. There seems to be no limit... >There is errata to the card such that multiple Armies for one player >are redundant, not cumulative. WIll you please make up your mind! This is absolutely ridiculous. First it was cumulative, then you came back and said the rules committe said it WASN'T. Then you corrected yourself and said it WAS. Now you're saying it isn't, again? -- | kreme@netcom.com \ 1015 South Gaylord, Denver, CO 80209 #100 | | PGP Fingerprint \ 1D 5E F7 C8 7E C2 F9 87 0F 86 C9 B0 D2 63 9C B2 | | [303/722-2009] Vox \ | | [303/777-2911] Data \ Hasn't anybody told you you're a dog? |

As of last count, they had ruled that once again it was redundant. This is worse than the Clockwork Beast ruling! At least I could _explain_ the twisted reasoning behind that one, for this one , there's just no way. Any fool can see that multiple rats are cumulative, my non-net friends will not play that way, therefore, neither can I. The ruling is basically indefensable, and I refuse to put myself in a position that will leave me an unrespected rules authority among my friends. When I attempt to put this into effect, it sounds like I'm lying thru my teeth, and I'm not even going to try any more. Get a new ruling, or a new commity, I no longer care. Lucyred

But you can intercept the AoR, when they come out. Also, if you want, you can attack the rats, so stealth would work too. Remember, if that person had been bleeding w/ govern the unaligned and conditioning and stuff, you'd have inflicted 15-30 pool, and it would have taken less time (since the rats have a 1 turn delay built in). There is no reason to restrict the rats like that, I can't play that way, and I won't play that way. Lucyred

Before I could do anything to stop it, Clinton Richard Wolf wrote: > > > >If you have trouble with Rats, then clearly you have an intercept > >deficiency. Pack some Wakes and buy a few Sport Bikes (or put a Radio > >Station) and block those Rats when they come your way. > That would work great, if rats actually attacked to Bleed you, but they > don't... you just automatically lose a blood from your pool when your > rat-god predator untaps. You can't even use Telepathic Counters or any- > thing, it's just automatic loss. 5 points of automatic loss each turn > and you're in trouble. True, but putting an Army of Rats in your territory is an *Action*, and so can be blocked. If the rats never make it in, you never loose any blood. Even if they do make it in, burn them as a directed action next time around, then they only get to damage you once. -- There be that can pack the cards and yet cannot play | a-Henh! well; so there are some that are good in canvasses and | Brian Wilson factions, that are otherwise weak men. | Francis Bacon |

In article <3799bk$123p@tequesta.gate.net>, bwilson@gate.net (Brian Wilson) writes that if you burn an AoR, it bleeds you once: Not so, the pathetic AoR only damages you on your predator's untap, that means that you can burn the rats before they can do anything. Lucyred, still angry about stupid rulings based on air!

Before I could do anything to stop it, Lucyred wrote: > In article <3799bk$123p@tequesta.gate.net>, bwilson@gate.net (Brian > Wilson) writes that if you burn an AoR, it bleeds you once: > Not so, the pathetic AoR only damages you on your predator's untap, that > means that you can burn the rats before they can do anything. Hey, then that's even better. I don't see what the big sweat over rats is anyway. I played with them in a deck or two, but there are certainly better cards to stock in your stack. -- There be that can pack the cards and yet cannot play | a-Henh! well; so there are some that are good in canvasses and | Brian Wilson factions, that are otherwise weak men. | Francis Bacon |

Before I could do anything to stop it, Brian Wilson wrote: >Hey, that's even better. I don't see what the big sweat over rats is anyway. I >played with them in a deck or two, but there are certainly better cards to >stock in your stack. The big sweat over the rats comes from a bunch of whiners who don't want anyone to make a reasonable deck without Ventrue or Malkavians. The AoR is the only thing that aproaches a way for Gangrels and Nosferatu to oust their prey. Since the whiners have been able to successfully con WotC into making rats non-cumulative, Gangrel decks simply can't oust their prey in time. Lucyred

Army of Rats was supposed to have been changed in editing to say that it is not cumultive. This change somehow did not make it in, and errata was issued saying that it is not cumulative. It had nothing in particular to do with input from the field. There was a lot of confusion on this point, since there is in fact nothing on the card indicating they would not be cumulative, and not all people in customer service became aware of the errata at the same time. The situation has stabilized, and until such a time as the design team reverses the errata on the card, Army of Rats will not be cumulative. We apologize for the confusion on the matter; it basically came about as a result of the heavy con season, during which several people were out of the office for extended periods of time so weren't up on all the latest rulings/errata. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

That isn't true, and you know it. As this debate has gotten bigger, WotC has been trying to make it sound as if it had been a decision made farther and farther back, fact is: WotC's trying to cover their ass. Lucyred

In article <37el49$ea@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, lucyred@aol.com (Lucyred) wrote: > Before I could do anything to stop it, Brian Wilson wrote: > >>Hey, that's even better. I don't see what the big sweat over rats is >>anyway. I played with them in a deck or two, but there are certainly better >>cards to stock in your stack. >The big sweat over the rats comes from a bunch of whiners who don't want >anyone to make a reasonable deck without Ventrue or Malkavians. The AoR is >the only thing that aproaches a way for Gangrels and Nosferatu to oust >their prey. Since the whiners have been able to successfully con WotC into >making rats non-cumulative, Gangrel decks simply can't oust their prey in >time. I'm getting rather tired of your 'more-undead-than-thou' attitude, Lucyred. It seems if anyone's 'whining' over this card, it's you. Too bad you can't make a real deck without use of it. I haven't used AoR in any of my most recent decks. I don't play Malkavians and only when Voting do I use a lot of Ventrue. As Tom's said, REPEATEDLY, the ERRATA to the card is that it's not cumulative....this isn't a 'ruling' or whatnot, but how the card should have READ, and was intended. If you can't get it through your thick head that sometimes WotC makes mistakes (like rushing this through the printers without adequate editing) then that's YOUR problem, not ours. It's not hard to build a deck that's good against Malkavians or Ventrue. I do it all the time. Malkavian Dementia is a lovely card. It was used against me too much, so I avoid them now. I have yet to get a Tragic Love Affair used against me though, so I still play my beloved Toreador. Get off your soapbox, lucyred. Gangrel decks do well enou' on their own. --Red +----------------------------------------------+---------------------------+ | Looking for Creature Bonds and Earthbinds!!! | redadept@cris.com | | If you'd like to contribute, send me E-mail! +---------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------+ Hail Eris! Fnord! | | Ferrets: Eris' gift to mankind, everyone should be owned by one! | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article <37hhj5$m3i@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, Lucyred <lucyred@aol.com> wrote: >That isn't true, and you know it. As this debate has gotten bigger, WotC >has been trying to make it sound as if it had been a decision made farther >and farther back, fact is: WotC's trying to cover their ass. all right. i've had ENOUGH of you. it was errata. that's been wizards' line from the beginning: army of rats was DESIGNED noncumulative, then the text got left off the card in the rush. it was a MISTAKE. learn to cope. it's only one card, by the multiply colored nipples of astarte. wizards has taken flak time and time again for mistakes that are simply to be expected when one deals under the volume and time constraints that they do. indeed, it seems that the more effort wizards puts into making things right with their customers, the more ignorant little hysterics like YOU whinge and moan. *shlorp* into the killfile you go. heckler i WON'T have you mouthing off to tom wylie like that. it's bad enough that he puts in all these hours into a thankless activity for basically peanuts, but this callous ingratitude is nothing short of sickening. -- "You're not very brave, are you?" Chris says. "No," I answer, and pull the rind of a slice of salami between my teeth to remove the meat. "But you'd be astonished at how smart I am." -- Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance, chp. 21