rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

JYHAD question

8 messages from 6 participants · 07 October 1994 – 14 October 1994 · rec.games.deckmaster
source archive

ALLAN D JAKUBOWICZ

My question pertains to the "Cultivated Blood Shortage" card. This master card drains one blood from all Ventrue during the untap phase. The card states: "... Any vampire can burn this card by taking a D action, which would be at +1 stealth." I think that you can only burn the card if you have a vampire or a card that gives you the capability of taking D actions (since the card states '... by taking ...' and doesn't say '.... as a ...' ). My friend argues that any vampire can burn the card and the action will be considered as a direct action. Can somebody please e-mail me the correct interpretation of the card. Thanks in advance. Allan Jakubowicz cs922020@ariel.cs.yorku.ca

Lucyred

Wich reminds me, is "cultivated blood shortage" a shortage of cultivated blood, or a blood shortage which you have cultivated? Also, many political cards say that you can burn them with a vote. (Archon, Rumors of Gehenah) But aren't Political cards already in your ashheap? Wouldn't that make the text on those cards totally meaningless? Lucyred

Tom Wylie

Minions always have available the actions in the rulebook, and any actions provided by cards in play. Actions of the latter kind are provided by the card in question, and you don't have to burn an action card to take advantage of them. Most political cards just go to the ash heap when used. But if some condition is given for the card being burned or stolen, then it remains in play. Since Archon gives a condition for being burned, it remains in play on the vampire in question. This is the same principle as for master cards; it just so happens that a higher percentage of master cards stay in play. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Lucyred

I want you all to know that I refuse to play with the AoR ruling, not because I think that WotC sucks, or anything like that, but because I can't. I play Jyhad with several people who lack a modem, and I can't explain to them why the AoR works that way. It neither says that on the card, or in the rules, and the card isn't even better than those dominate bleed cards. The fact is: A good bleed deck can do thre plus bleed per action, and that alows them to do much more than 1 point cumulative, with a one turn delay. And the AoR can be swept. I truly don't see the problem. And when I do try to explain it, people accuse me of cheating, and I don't blame them, _I_ feel like I'm cheating. The ruling doesn't make any sense, and is not supported by anything. I won't play with it, because I can't. Lucyred

Frederic Genest

Lucyred (lucyred@aol.com) wrote: : Wich reminds me, is "cultivated blood shortage" a shortage of cultivated : blood, or a blood shortage which you have cultivated? I would say both, in a sense. But since Ventrue can only feed upon a specific type of blood source (in V:tM), then I would say "a shortage of cultivated blood". -- Karrde karrde@step.polymtl.ca (presently working on a new mail footer...)

Frederic Genest

Lucyred (lucyred@aol.com) wrote: : I want you all to know that I refuse to play with the AoR ruling, not : because I think that WotC sucks, or anything like that, but because I : can't. I play Jyhad with several people who lack a modem, and I can't : explain to them why the AoR works that way. It neither says that on the : card, or in the rules, and the card isn't even better than those dominate : bleed cards. : The fact is: A good bleed deck can do thre plus bleed per action, and : that alows them to do much more than 1 point cumulative, with a one turn : delay. And the AoR can be swept. I truly don't see the problem. : And when I do try to explain it, people accuse me of cheating, and I : don't blame them, _I_ feel like I'm cheating. The ruling doesn't make any : sense, and is not supported by anything. : I won't play with it, because I can't. : Lucyred I suppose than AoR stands for Army of Rats. In any case, thanks for telling us. -- Karrde karrde@step.polymtl.ca (presently working on a new mail footer...)

CurtAdams

In article <376add$jtt@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, lucyred@aol.com (Lucyred) writes: >I want you all to know that I refuse to play with the AoR ruling, not >because I think that WotC sucks, or anything like that, but because I >can't. I play Jyhad with several people who lack a modem, and I can't >explain to them why the AoR works that way. It neither says that on the >card, or in the rules, and the card isn't even better than those dominate >bleed cards. > The fact is: A good bleed deck can do thre plus bleed per action, and >that alows them to do much more than 1 point cumulative, with a one turn >delay. And the AoR can be swept. I truly don't see the problem. > And when I do try to explain it, people accuse me of cheating, and I >don't blame them, _I_ feel like I'm cheating. The ruling doesn't make any >sense, and is not supported by anything. > I won't play with it, because I can't. Another advantage of multiple rats is that it benefits Nosferatu and Gangrel. Under current rules, Gangrel make great combat decks, but combat decks are mediocre with multiple players (albeit fearsome 1-on-1). Nosferatu have stealth, but it can be hard to find actions for them worth making stealthy (Computer hacking for 2 bleed vs. Malkavian Govern/Conditioning for 6(!)). AoR adds to either clan, making them better, but, as Lucyred points out, not killer. I think that the game is most interesting if all clans can be good, mulitplayer or single player, without being killer.

Anton Dovydaitis

curtadams@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: : : Another advantage of multiple rats is that it benefits Nosferatu and : Gangrel. Under current rules, Gangrel make great combat decks, but combat : decks are mediocre with multiple players (albeit fearsome 1-on-1). : Nosferatu have stealth, but it can be hard to find actions for them worth : making stealthy (Computer hacking for 2 bleed vs. Malkavian : Govern/Conditioning for 6(!)). AoR adds to either clan, making them : better, but, as Lucyred points out, not killer. I think that the game is : most interesting if all clans can be good, mulitplayer or single player, : without being killer. I agree completely regarding AoR, and in fact, QUESTIONS@WIZARDS.COM at one point recenated the Aor ruling, agreeing "there was no reason" that Army of Rats should NOT be cumulative. Apparently, the design team is not all of one mind on this subject.