In <35amom$ooc@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>, doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) writes:
> Since the game is based on Vampire, the Masquerade, it only
>makes sense to look to VtM to resolve open questions. Where Jyhad
>has obvious differences with VtM, of course we play according
>to the Jyhad rules.
>
> Since it's a question of interpretation as to what happens
>when a younger vampire is created with the Third Tradition,
>using VtM as a reference makes sense. I'd much rather do
>that than look strictly at what the card says. Since, in
>this case, the card says nothing whatever, which is why
>it's a question at all.
>
> The created vampire should be of the same clan as its
>creator.
>
>--
>Tom Doehne
>doehne@cse.ogi.edu
Tom (Doehne, not Wylie), do you think that if the designer had wanted to make
progeny created via The Third Tradition be the same clan as their creator, then
the card might actually say so? Although I wasn't a playtester -- I only got my
hands on real Jyhad cards last week -- I know the game was extensively tested.
Whether you believe progeny should be of the same clan as their creators is
irrelevant; neither the card nor the rules say so, and until or unless the WotC
Jyhad Rules Committee say otherwise, that's the way the card should be played.
I've also changed the cross-post to remove <alt.games.whitewolf> and substitute
<alt.games.jyhad> -- it's more relevant.
Howlingly yours,
Charles Keith-Stanley | Sister lovers, | The Werewolf of London
Network Representative to | Water brothers; | (Ah-rooooooooooooooo!)
rec.games.frp.* | And in time, | Mail: werewolf@vnet.ibm.com
Wizards of the Coast, Inc. | Maybe others... | Or.... werewolf@wizards.com
In article <Cw8ww8.1I9C@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> werewolf@vnet.ibm.com
(Charles Keith-Stanley) writes:
>Tom (Doehne, not Wylie), do you think that if the designer had wanted to make
>progeny created via The Third Tradition be the same clan as their creator, then
>the card might actually say so?
Having had extensive experience with Magic, another WotC product,
I know that plenty of questions slip through playtest. I would be
completely unsurprised if the designer just assumed that 'of course'
a new vampire gets the same clan, and left that info off. If the
designer and playtest group had thought it should behave differently
than Vampire, they would have made the difference explicit on the
card. After all, the designer(s) have to be pretty familiar with
VtM in order to be at all true to the original game. I'd be
astonished if some unspoken assumptions *didn't* slip through,
somewhere.
--
Tom Doehne
doehne@cse.ogi.edu
Thomas Doehne <doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu> wrote:
> Having had extensive experience with Magic, another WotC product,
>I know that plenty of questions slip through playtest. I would be
>completely unsurprised if the designer just assumed that 'of course'
>a new vampire gets the same clan, and left that info off.
While assumptions do slip through from time to time, they tend to be
of the "of course you can't use this card to do that" variety, and not
"of course this card does that". In any event, it's dangerous to try
and get inside the designers' heads and try to guess at what their
intentions were, since often people are very wrong about that. It's best
to just look at the card(s) in question, and the game in question. Jyhad
is the game in question here, not V:tM, and nothing in the rules or on
the card indicates that the clan would be copied by the fledgling vampire.
>If the
>designer and playtest group had thought it should behave differently
>than Vampire, they would have made the difference explicit on the
>card. After all, the designer(s) have to be pretty familiar with
>VtM in order to be at all true to the original game...
Yes, but Jyhad rulings should not be made based on V:tM. For the most part
it should exist in a vacuum. If it really is ambiguous as to how a card
reads, then looking to see how that concept works in V:tM can be useful
as a tiebreaker, but there is nothing ambiguous about Progeny or The Embrace.
Neither says that the fledgling has a clan, therefore it does not.
Errata might change that, but handwaving about how V:tM works won't.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
>
>Yes, but Jyhad rulings should not be made based on V:tM. For the most part
>it should exist in a vacuum.
Let's get this straight; Jyhad is a game based on Vampire: the Masquerade.
But the rules for Jyhad should not have anything to do with V:tM?
>If it really is ambiguous as to how a card
>reads, then looking to see how that concept works in V:tM can be useful
>as a tiebreaker, but there is nothing ambiguous about Progeny or The Embrace.
>Neither says that the fledgling has a clan, therefore it does not.
>Errata might change that, but handwaving about how V:tM works won't.
Neither will 'handwaving' that unclear cards should be interpreted however
the Netreps like, without reference to the intellectual foundations of
the game. Jyhad, unlike Magic, is based on something outside the
game designer's imagination. Unlike Magic, Jyhad rules do not
exist on an intellectual clean slate. While you might wish to be
able to interpret Jyhad rules in a vacuumb, you cannot -- V:tM is
the pattern to which Jyhad was woven. It is a derivative product,
however much you'd like to claim it is completely separate.
Where Jyhad does not conform to the V:tM background, it should be
very clear about the differences. The Jyhad rules seem to be pretty
good about that, but this question is one place where it isn't.
--
Tom Doehne
doehne@cse.ogi.edu
Before I could do anything to stop it, Thomas Doehne wrote:
> Let's get this straight; Jyhad is a game based on Vampire: the Masquerade.
> But the rules for Jyhad should not have anything to do with V:tM?
By Jove, I think he's got it!
--
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 <Cw8ww8.1I9C@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>, werewolf@vnet.ibm.com (Charles Keith-Stanley) writes:
>In <35amom$ooc@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>, doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) writes:>> Since the game is based on Vampire, the Masquerade, it only
>>makes sense to look to VtM to resolve open questions. Where Jyhad
>>has obvious differences with VtM, of course we play according
>>to the Jyhad rules.
>>
>> Since it's a question of interpretation as to what happens
>>when a younger vampire is created with the Third Tradition,
>>using VtM as a reference makes sense. I'd much rather do
>>that than look strictly at what the card says. Since, in
>>this case, the card says nothing whatever, which is why
>>it's a question at all.
>>
>> The created vampire should be of the same clan as its
>>creator.>
>Tom (Doehne, not Wylie), do you think that if the designer had wanted to make
>progeny created via The Third Tradition be the same clan as their creator, then
>the card might actually say so? Although I wasn't a playtester -- I only got my
>hands on real Jyhad cards last week -- I know the game was extensively tested.
I don't think the designer ever thought about the clan or she would
have been smart enough to write "This vampire is a Caitiff" on the card.
So extensively tested that one Tasha Morgan is usable by allies, and the
other isn't. So well written that the Ventrue Justicar actually creates
a Tremere Justicar. With such tremendous quality control that stacks of
R2 are readily identifiable.
Oh, but there's errata...so what? Percent of Australian players with net
access: < 5%. Number of convocation members: 3 known in the country.
Distribution of the Duelist: limited copies available 2-months after
publication.
>Whether you believe progeny should be of the same clan as their creators is
>irrelevant; neither the card nor the rules say so, and until or unless the WotC
>Jyhad Rules Committee say otherwise, that's the way the card should be played.
Well until we get direct access to the Jyhad Rules Committee, forget it.
Judging from the correspondence, we (the people for whom I liaise) can't
tell if or what is presented to the JRC and what isn't. We consider Magic
a game that need not make sense (and thus is a senseless game for some),
>I've also changed the cross-post to remove <alt.games.whitewolf> and substitute
><alt.games.jyhad> -- it's more relevant.
>
Who died and made you God? As it happens, there are VtM players who have shown
an interest in Jyhad who may decide whether or not to buy it based on how
strong the links to VtM are. Since according to you, WotC's position is
that it's a vacuum game, some sales may be in jeopardy. Such a position
may also affect who will buy the Star Trek game. At least, that is the
consensus currently developing here. Oh yes, and if you read the ongoing
discussions in the various ST groups, you'll find that Trekkers abhor
inconsistencies in the fabric of their reality.
In response to Tom Wylie's last bit:
I finally got my hands on Rumours of Gehenna. I was wrong, the card does
say 'burn this card.' I was confusing it with Archon, which is 'this effect
can be removed'. Which changes the question: Does the Archon card go to
the ash heap after the vote leaving an after effect behind? That's what
the card says...
>Do I think actually think that a person could carry an assault rifle, RPG
>and a shotgun? (or some such combination)
Yes. I do. I personally am not a huge person, but I can hip holster a
44 magnum, shoulder holster a SN special, shoulder sling a sawed off
12 gauge, back holster a 9mm, ankle holster a zip gun, wear (1) flak
jacket (Second Chance body armor), back sling an RPG with one in the
pipe, belt sheath a (Sengir) dagger, drop a assault rifle in a cross
handlebar mount on either a Hawg or a Sport Bike, and carry extra mags
of Glasers without any real difficulty. (Could put two pineapples on
the chest, and a satchel charge (Bomb) in the saddlebags as well, but
who can afford to out fit a vampire like that - Oh and did you see
the Raven, Crows, and Owl flying overhead - two Wolves running alongside
and Tasha looks so butch on the pillon typing on that Powerbook) :-)
And yes, I could use these weapons serially in a very short amount of time.
Just ask the families of the 23 (dead) victims of 1 man on a tower in Austin.
Disclaimer: this isn't flamage. It's cynical.
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------!
Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment
MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966
rxm@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.
aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
> Thomas Doehne <doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu> wrote:
> > Having had extensive experience with Magic, another WotC product,
> >I know that plenty of questions slip through playtest. I would be
> >completely unsurprised if the designer just assumed that 'of course'
> >a new vampire gets the same clan, and left that info off.
>
> While assumptions do slip through from time to time, they tend to be
> of the "of course you can't use this card to do that" variety, and not
> "of course this card does that". In any event, it's dangerous to try
> and get inside the designers' heads and try to guess at what their
> intentions were, since often people are very wrong about that. It's best
> to just look at the card(s) in question, and the game in question. Jyhad
> is the game in question here, not V:tM, and nothing in the rules or on
> the card indicates that the clan would be copied by the fledgling vampire.
Jyhad is the Deckmaster version of the ceaseless vampyric
waring Jyhad depicted in V:tM. The fact the game is based on V:tM
indicates that V:tM logic should prevail where no logic is set forth.
> >If the
> >designer and playtest group had thought it should behave differently
> >than Vampire, they would have made the difference explicit on the
> >card. After all, the designer(s) have to be pretty familiar with
> >VtM in order to be at all true to the original game...
>
> Yes, but Jyhad rulings should not be made based on V:tM. For the most part
> it should exist in a vacuum. If it really is ambiguous as to how a card
That's similar to saying my Genes exist alone and are not
-really- a combination of my parents. Make a game based on V:tM, and
it only exists in a vacuum if the starter pack came with V:tM 2nd edition.
> reads, then looking to see how that concept works in V:tM can be useful
> as a tiebreaker, but there is nothing ambiguous about Progeny or The Embrace.
> Neither says that the fledgling has a clan, therefore it does not.
> Errata might change that, but handwaving about how V:tM works won't.
>
Anyone who has played the game Jyhad is based on would know
the general principle of lineage. Furthermore, you are talking about
bloodlines. It's not just in V:tM, it's common sense.
> Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
> aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
--
Alex Feely
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I grow tired of continuous games and trivalities, torturous endeavors and
continued pain, I want the sky and I want to keep it for once.
af2e@andrew.cmu.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Doehne <doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu> wrote:
>>Yes, but Jyhad rulings should not be made based on V:tM. For the most part
>>it should exist in a vacuum. >Let's get this straight; Jyhad is a game based on Vampire: the Masquerade.
>But the rules for Jyhad should not have anything to do with V:tM?
One should not have to know how to play Vampire in order
to be able to play Jyhad. Allowing V:tM to override what the Jyhad rules
and cards say effectively requires one to know how to play Vampire.
Again, if a card is totally ambiguous as to what should happen in a given
situation, then going to V:tM for reference can be helpful, but it should
not be permitted to simply override Jyhad. Saying that vampire created
via Progeny gets a clan simply because that's what would happen in V:tM
qualifies as allowing V:tM to override Jyhad, which is bad.
>It is a derivative product,
>however much you'd like to claim it is completely separate.
Obviously Jyhad was not designed in a vacuum. But again, people should
not have to know how to play Vampire to play Jyhad, so Jyhad rulings should
not be overtly based on V:tM.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Alex Feely <af2e+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Jyhad is the Deckmaster version of the ceaseless vampyric
>waring Jyhad depicted in V:tM. The fact the game is based on V:tM
>indicates that V:tM logic should prevail where no logic is set forth.
Probably a plan, but I fail to see how "Progeny doesn't say the vampire
inherits the clan" qualifies as "where no logic is set forth". The rule
of thumb "don't read something into a card that isn't there" applies
equally well to Jyhad as to Magic.
> Anyone who has played the game Jyhad is based on would know
>the general principle of lineage. Furthermore, you are talking about
>bloodlines. It's not just in V:tM, it's common sense.
If we made rulings based on "common sense", then Frozen Shades would
fly, Sea Serpents could band with Mesa Pegasi to block Fallen Angels,
and one wouldn't be able to wear multiple Flak Jackets. Don't read something
into a card that isn't there... don't let "common sense" or Vampire blind
you as to what's really there.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Alex Feely (af2e+@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: Anyone who has played the game Jyhad is based on would know
: the general principle of lineage. Furthermore, you are talking about
: bloodlines. It's not just in V:tM, it's common sense.
And how are those of us who just picked up Jyhad to play supposed
to know these things? I hate to tell you this, but it ISN'T common
sense. I had just assumed clans were a matter of choice (like
choosing political parties) but I gather from these posts that
it is instead a matter of heredity. But this distracts from my
point. How the **** am I supposed to know this 'rule' when I
go to a Jyhad tourney?
Terry Wright | "You're talking a lot,
Tww133@cs.usask.ca | but you're not saying anything."
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- from "Psycho Killer", Talking Heads
Tom Wylie (aahz@hal.COM) wrote:
: If we made rulings based on "common sense", then Frozen Shades would
: fly, Sea Serpents could band with Mesa Pegasi to block Fallen Angels,
: and one wouldn't be able to wear multiple Flak Jackets. Don't read something
^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
REALLY? The wording on the card says 'Prevents 1 damage each combat'.
Given 2 Flak Jackets, you can 'prevent 1 damage each combat.' Thus
multiple Flaks are just a waste of space.
Y'know, I like our interpretation better... :-(
Terry Wright | "You're talking a lot,
Tww133@cs.usask.ca | but you're not saying anything."
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- from "Psycho Killer", Talking Heads
In article <35ldpe$nea@perv.hal.COM> aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
>Thomas Doehne <doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu> wrote:>>>Yes, but Jyhad rulings should not be made based on V:tM. For the most part
>>>it should exist in a vacuum. >>Let's get this straight; Jyhad is a game based on Vampire: the Masquerade.
>>But the rules for Jyhad should not have anything to do with V:tM?>
>One should not have to know how to play Vampire in order
>to be able to play Jyhad. Allowing V:tM to override what the Jyhad rules
>and cards say effectively requires one to know how to play Vampire.
I agree. But that's not what we're talking about here -- we're talking
about necessary information being left off a card, and what it should
be. We're talking about figuring out what the Jyhad rules *are*, not
about overriding them.
>>It is a derivative product,
>>however much you'd like to claim it is completely separate.>
>Obviously Jyhad was not designed in a vacuum. But again, people should
>not have to know how to play Vampire to play Jyhad, so Jyhad rulings should
>not be overtly based on V:tM.
If the rules are unclear, why shouldn't you use V:tM?
This does not bode well for the game based on Tolkien....
--
Tom Doehne
doehne@cse.ogi.edu
In article <35le00$nfv@perv.hal.COM> aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
>Probably a plan, but I fail to see how "Progeny doesn't say the vampire
>inherits the clan" qualifies as "where no logic is set forth". The rule
>of thumb "don't read something into a card that isn't there" applies
>equally well to Jyhad as to Magic.
Wrong. Magic was designed from the ground up. Jyhad is based on V:tM.
The 'don't read something' guideline makes less sense *because* there
is a foundation that has been built on (V:tM).
P.S. If you guys try this argument with the Tolkien game, you'll
earn the world's undying contempt.
--
Tom Doehne
doehne@cse.ogi.edu
Terrence W Wright <tww133@cs.usask.ca> wrote:
>: and one wouldn't be able to wear multiple Flak Jackets.
> ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>REALLY? The wording on the card says 'Prevents 1 damage each combat'.
>Given 2 Flak Jackets, you can 'prevent 1 damage each combat.' Thus
>multiple Flaks are just a waste of space.
Each Flak Jacket can only prevent 1 damage each combat. There's nothing on
the cards stopping you fromm using more than one to do so. If you want to
disallow it for "role-playing" reasons then go for it, but...
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Rick Mc Leod <rxm@mda.com.au> wrote:
>I finally got my hands on Rumours of Gehenna. I was wrong, the card does
>say 'burn this card.' I was confusing it with Archon, which is 'this effect
>can be removed'. Which changes the question: Does the Archon card go to
>the ash heap after the vote leaving an after effect behind? That's what
>the card says...
Neither Archon nor Camarilla Exemplary stays in play, but rather just have
an effect on the vampire. Thus their effects would not wear off if the person
putting that effect into play was ousted. People will typically leave these
cards out to remind everyone of the effect, but technically they are
not in play.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
In article <35n5mk$pg1@perv.hal.com>, Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> wrote:
>Terrence W Wright <tww133@cs.usask.ca> wrote:>>: and one wouldn't be able to wear multiple Flak Jackets.
>> ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>>REALLY? The wording on the card says 'Prevents 1 damage each combat'.
>>Given 2 Flak Jackets, you can 'prevent 1 damage each combat.' Thus
>>multiple Flaks are just a waste of space. >
>Each Flak Jacket can only prevent 1 damage each combat. There's nothing on
>the cards stopping you fromm using more than one to do so. If you want to
>disallow it for "role-playing" reasons then go for it, but...
So multiple Armies of Rats are redundant, while multiple Flak Jackets are
cumulative? Is there some rule of thumb to determine which category a given
card falls into? Would 2 pairs of IR Goggles give you 2 maneuvers, for
example?
In <35m4bh$qpf@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) writes:
>>Probably a plan, but I fail to see how "Progeny doesn't say the vampire
>>inherits the clan" qualifies as "where no logic is set forth". The rule
>>of thumb "don't read something into a card that isn't there" applies
>>equally well to Jyhad as to Magic.>Wrong. Magic was designed from the ground up. Jyhad is based on V:tM.
>The 'don't read something' guideline makes less sense *because* there
>is a foundation that has been built on (V:tM).
Yes, but the rules underwent a major modification in the transition from
rpg to cardgame.... some rules just simply aren't applicable...
Why don't I get a soak roll?
Why does aggravated damage send me directly to torpor?
etc, etc... VtM isn't my personal favorite game (I greatly prefer Mage: the
Ascension), but the point still goes... you are changing a paper 'n pencil
rpg to a card game.... the complexity of one system's rules don't carry
over into the other one...
>P.S. If you guys try this argument with the Tolkien game, you'll
>earn the world's undying contempt.
Ah, just play Talislanta.....
Dave
"And how'd you dare to tell me that I'm my Father's son
When that was just an accident of birth?
I'd rather look around me and compose a better song
'Cause that's the honest measure of my worth"
-Jethro Tull, "Wind-Up"
P.S. - For the Talislanta-impared, it is a fantasy rpg system that is not based
upon Tolkein...
P.P.S. - Hmm.. the quote seems strangely significant this time....
In <35ldpe$nea@perv.hal.COM>, aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
>
>One should not have to know how to play Vampire in order
>to be able to play Jyhad. Allowing V:tM to override what the Jyhad rules
>and cards say effectively requires one to know how to play Vampire.
>Again, if a card is totally ambiguous as to what should happen in a given
>situation, then going to V:tM for reference can be helpful, but it should
>not be permitted to simply override Jyhad. Saying that vampire created
>via Progeny gets a clan simply because that's what would happen in V:tM
>qualifies as allowing V:tM to override Jyhad, which is bad.
>
I don't see any override. It's a logical inference based on common sense
and VtM. Clans are not an award. Vampires can not change clan. They
can be cast out of society. They can be orphaned. If I believed that VtM
should override Jyhad, then I'd print out little Thaumaturgy symbols
for Wake with Evening's Freshness and stick them on everyone's cards.
>
>Obviously Jyhad was not designed in a vacuum. But again, people should
>not have to know how to play Vampire to play Jyhad, so Jyhad rulings should
>not be overtly based on V:tM.
>
Who said anything about overt basis on VtM? I believe it's supporting
evidence, but, I was a member of my clan the day I became progeny. That
is common sense. It didn't require a written decree (and there still
aren't any in many parts of the world.)
No one has to know anything about VtM to come to that conclusion. This
leads to a bigger question: Does the "Jyhad Rules Committee" intend to
take into account VtM when making such decisions, or are they more likely
to be vacuum based? Admittedly, many cards have no relationship to VtM
at all (Fake Out, etc.), and questions of this type are few and far
between (Rotschreck, Titles, and this are the only ones that come to
mind so far. It should probably also be noted that the one vampire,
one title position has strong basis in VtM, but no support whatsoever
in the Jyhad rules - according to which a single vampire could be
Prince of All Cities and Justicar of her Clan, and a primogen
simultaneously.)
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------!
Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment
MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966
rxm@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.
Terrence W Wright writes
:REALLY? The wording on the card says 'Prevents 1 damage
:each combat'. Given 2 Flak Jackets, you can 'prevent 1
:damage each combat.' Thus multiple Flaks are just a waste
:of space.
:
If it had said "this vampire can prevent 1 damage each combat" you'd be
right (similar to Rumors of Gehenna). However, it isn't worded that
way. So Flak Jacket A prevents a point of damage, and so does Flak
Jacket B (preventing a different point of damage).
--
AGLA | Michael Schmahl (Black-Robe Mage) | M:tG |
d""""b | fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu | () |
Mb dM | fsmgs@acf-lab.alaska.edu | () () |
VbdP | Oblivion BBS: (907)479-4751 | ()() |