This one came up last night in one of our games. We had someone playing
Gangrel put out a bunch of Raptors (eventually 7) and Heidleberg Castle to
move them around. He eventually had all seven on one vamp with superior
Protean. He then Bums Rushes, making the guy rushed loose his entire hand.
He then plays Form of the Mist. The victim redraws, looses his hand again,
and the attacker plays Form of the Mist again. Is this legal? Can he keep
playing Form of the Mist to repeat the combat until he runs out of them?
Steve Bucy
I'd be better off undead...
"I was dead, but I'm better now" - John Sheridan
Steve Bucy wrote:
>
> This one came up last night in one of our games. We had someone playing
> Gangrel put out a bunch of Raptors (eventually 7) and Heidleberg Castle to
> move them around. He eventually had all seven on one vamp with superior
> Protean. He then Bums Rushes, making the guy rushed loose his entire hand.
> He then plays Form of the Mist. The victim redraws, looses his hand again,
> and the attacker plays Form of the Mist again.
Very nasty. Is this one of Robert's?
Chris
--
Chris Shorb
ino...@ix.netcom.com
"How can I describe it?...It's a nightmare land, a place
of death, horrifying in its desolation...Not a tree, not a
flower, not a blade of grass..."
- Herge
Steve Bucy wrote:
>
> This one came up last night in one of our games. We had someone playing
> Gangrel put out a bunch of Raptors (eventually 7) and Heidleberg Castle to
> move them around. He eventually had all seven on one vamp with superior
> Protean. He then Bums Rushes, making the guy rushed loose his entire hand.
> He then plays Form of the Mist. The victim redraws, looses his hand again,> and the attacker plays Form of the Mist again. Is this legal? Can he keep
> playing Form of the Mist to repeat the combat until he runs out of them?
>
Before I answer the question of legality, allow me to make an
observation: Since Raptor is a Sabbat card, the Sabbat rules hold -
namely the rule on forced withdrawal when your library is empty and
you have less than a full hand on your untap.
So, this method (if legal) will merely result in the forced withdrawal
of the Rushed minion's controller - not in a victory point for any
Methuselah.
The legality of Form of Mist on a non-blocked action is under dispute.
An old Rules Team ruling says that it is allowable, but recently
someone (Thomas?) pointed out that this is not legal under the rules
of gaining stealth (you cannot gain stealth unless you need stealth).
So, we're still waiting on the resolution on that question.
Until then, the old RT holds - and FoM can be played repeatedly on
the same (unblocked or blocked) action.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
: Steve Bucy wrote:
: >
: > This one came up last night in one of our games. We had someone playing
: > Gangrel put out a bunch of Raptors (eventually 7) and Heidleberg Castle to
: > move them around. He eventually had all seven on one vamp with superior
: > Protean. He then Bums Rushes, making the guy rushed loose his entire hand.
: > He then plays Form of the Mist. The victim redraws, looses his hand again,
: > and the attacker plays Form of the Mist again. Is this legal? Can he keep
: > playing Form of the Mist to repeat the combat until he runs out of them?
: >: Before I answer the question of legality, allow me to make an
: observation: Since Raptor is a Sabbat card, the Sabbat rules hold -
: namely the rule on forced withdrawal when your library is empty and
: you have less than a full hand on your untap.: So, this method (if legal) will merely result in the forced withdrawal
: of the Rushed minion's controller - not in a victory point for any
: Methuselah.
Well, it wouldn't get a victory point for anyone under the old withdrawal
rules either, but it would make it much easier to oust the person whose
library was destroyed.
But according to my copy of the Sabbat rules update, under section 2, it
says that "The Sabbat has a number of new clans, titles, and optional
rules." The designation of the rules as "optional" leads me to believe that
you don't have to use any of the rules given in the Sabbat update, even if
you are using Sabbat cards. Is that not correct?
Josh
..nitpicker of rules..
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
> : Before I answer the question of legality, allow me to make an
> : observation: Since Raptor is a Sabbat card, the Sabbat rules hold -
> : namely the rule on forced withdrawal when your library is empty and
> : you have less than a full hand on your untap.
>
> : So, this method (if legal) will merely result in the forced withdrawal
> : of the Rushed minion's controller - not in a victory point for any
> : Methuselah.
>
> Well, it wouldn't get a victory point for anyone under the old withdrawal
> rules either, but it would make it much easier to oust the person whose
> library was destroyed.
>
But only if you did it on that turn. Once she get to her untap phase,
she's automatically withdrawn.
> But according to my copy of the Sabbat rules update, under section 2, it
> says that "The Sabbat has a number of new clans, titles, and optional
> rules." The designation of the rules as "optional" leads me to believe that
> you don't have to use any of the rules given in the Sabbat update, even if
> you are using Sabbat cards. Is that not correct?
Following that logic: the method of Prisci voting is an optional rule;
the fact that any titled Sabbat vampires have votes at all is optional;
denying Sabbat vampires rank in the Camarilla (Primogen, Prince, etc.)
is optional; denying Camarilla vampires rank in the Sabbat is optional;
etc.
The rules are as optional as using Sabbat cards; but the rules are
linked very closely to using Sabbat cards.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Chris Shorb wrote:
>
> Steve Bucy wrote:
> >
> > This one came up last night in one of our games. We had someone playing
> > Gangrel put out a bunch of Raptors (eventually 7) and Heidleberg Castle to
> > move them around. He eventually had all seven on one vamp with superior
> > Protean. He then Bums Rushes, making the guy rushed loose his entire hand.
> > He then plays Form of the Mist. The victim redraws, looses his hand again,
> > and the attacker plays Form of the Mist again.
>> Very nasty. Is this one of Robert's?
>
> Chris
>
Not only was this not my deck but I was the victim! This was possible
due to the botched ruling on Form of Mist. The current ruling allows
repeat actions! It essentially allows a player to play a Bum's Rush
which results in combat and then start another combat from the same Rush
and so on and so on... The timing of that deck's appearance was quite
odd since we had just discussed the Form of Mist issue last week.
Hopefully LSJ will get the Rules Team to disallow this on the basis that
more stealth is being added when it is not needed.
Robert
--
......................................................................
:The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings:
:and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. :
: :
:Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com:
:LA Tourny Info -> http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~ezix/other/rg/vtourn_1.html:
:....................................................................:
:Da pony run, he jump he pitch. He t'row my master in da ditch. :
:He died and da jury wondered why. Da verdict was the blue tail fly.:
:....................................................................:
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> > But according to my copy of the Sabbat rules update, under section 2, it
> > says that "The Sabbat has a number of new clans, titles, and optional
> > rules." The designation of the rules as "optional" leads me to believe that
> > you don't have to use any of the rules given in the Sabbat update, even if
> > you are using Sabbat cards. Is that not correct?
>
> Following that logic: the method of Prisci voting is an optional rule;
> the fact that any titled Sabbat vampires have votes at all is optional;
> denying Sabbat vampires rank in the Camarilla (Primogen, Prince, etc.)
> is optional; denying Camarilla vampires rank in the Sabbat is optional;
> etc.
Well, the Prisci vote rules aren't under the section that specifies that
there are new "optional rules". If the rules are optional then why are
we required to play with them if we use any Sabbat cards? Am I forced
to withdraw if someone else at the table has Sabbat cards? The rule
doesn't seem very optional if the very existence of the expansion
requires its use.
Besides, I think most people agree that the new rule is pretty wack.
Sure, it was hard to withdraw under the old rules, but forced withdrawal
punishes decks which go through cards quickly (like combat decks), and
these decks don't need further punishment.
James
--
James E. Hamblin
je...@cornell.edu
"There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the
darkness of the soul that has lost its way. ... Greater than
the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams.
Against this peril we can never surrender."
-- G'Kar, Babylon 5: "Z'ha'dum"
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> Steve Bucy wrote:
> >
>
> So, this method (if legal) will merely result in the forced withdrawal
> of the Rushed minion's controller - not in a victory point for any
> Methuselah.
Yes, but once it gets going, and if used backwards (i.e. against
your predator), it will clear the table in very few rounds, leaving you
with the sole victory point in the game. Not so useful in Tournament
play, but entertaining the first few times done in "friendly" games.
Just watch your back as you leave your (former) friends' houses...
My guess is that the appearance of this deck will change the
ruling on FoM (good!). However, until that time, I think I will make up
a version of this deck (evil chuckle). Don't worry Steve and Robert - I
will leave it at home if I come up to play.
>
> --
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
"Following that logic: the method of Prisci voting is an optional rule;
the fact that any titled Sabbat vampires have votes at all is optional;
denying Sabbat vampires rank in the Camarilla (Primogen, Prince, etc.) is
optional; denying Camarilla vampires rank in the Sabbat is optional; etc."
Yes, but all of the above mentioned rules are new rules that replace
nothing and simply add new (minor) aspects to the game (much like brand
new cards). The Forced Withdraw rule is a new rule that replaces a
perfectly acceptable pre exisiting rule, and for no good reason. There
was no pre exisiting "Prisci" rule that has been eraticated and replaced,
nor do the Prisci have any great effect on the structure of the game as a
whole (or any other of the above mentioned rules). They are basically new
"Flavor" rules. The Forced Withdraw rule substantially changes the rules
of the game as a whole. Originaly, if you ran out of cards, you continued
to play. Now if you run out of cards, you lose. This is a very
substantial difference, and a very good reason why one would opt not to
use this rule.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"Oh Spiteful One!
Tell me whom I should smite and they shall be smoten!"
-Homer
Robert Goudie wrote:
>
> Chris Shorb wrote:
> >
> > Steve Bucy wrote:
> > >
> > > This one came up last night in one of our games. We had someone playing
> > > Gangrel put out a bunch of Raptors (eventually 7) and Heidleberg Castle to
<snip>
> > > and the attacker plays Form of the Mist again.
> >
> > Very nasty. Is this one of Robert's?
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> Not only was this not my deck but I was the victim! This was possible
<snip>
> Hopefully LSJ will get the Rules Team to disallow this on the basis that
> more stealth is being added when it is not needed.
>
> Robert
seems pefectly reasonable to me...it's not like it's an easy combo to
get happeneing....now, all i need is some raptors and some forms of
mist......oh, and heidleburg....
salem christ.....
Robert Goudie wrote:
> L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> > The legality of Form of Mist on a non-blocked action is under dispute.
> > An old Rules Team ruling says that it is allowable, but recently
> > someone (Thomas?) pointed out that this is not legal under the rules
> > of gaining stealth (you cannot gain stealth unless you need stealth).
>> The "unneeded stealth" argument was mine. I have an additional point as
> to why this should be illegal. Think about Freak Drive. The superior
> version allows you to untap the vampire after an action that was
> unsuccessful. So if you play a bum's rush and the action is blocked you
> need to play the Freak Drive right away and not after the combat. That
> is correct isn't it? The "Rush" is the action not the combat so you
> can't play the Freak Drive superior after the resulting combat.
>
> What I'm getting at is that an _unblocked_ Bum's Rush or other "enter
> combat with" action is successful if not blocked. The action is
> complete if the combat begins. The optional "continue action at +1
> Stealth" clearly shouldn't apply to an action that is already
> completed. The Bum's Rush is the action _not_ the resulting combat.
> Does this make any sense?
Painfully.
I'll pass this along to the RT, as well.
Thanks.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Hamblin wrote:
> L. Scott Johnson wrote:> > Following that logic: the method of Prisci voting is an optional rule;
> > the fact that any titled Sabbat vampires have votes at all is optional;
> > denying Sabbat vampires rank in the Camarilla (Primogen, Prince, etc.)
> > is optional; denying Camarilla vampires rank in the Sabbat is optional;
> > etc.
>> Well, the Prisci vote rules aren't under the section that specifies that
> there are new "optional rules". If the rules are optional then why are
> we required to play with them if we use any Sabbat cards? Am I forced
> to withdraw if someone else at the table has Sabbat cards? The rule
> doesn't seem very optional if the very existence of the expansion
> requires its use.
The existence of the expansion doesn't require the use of the rules.
The use of the expansion does (at least for the cases I state - and
possibly extending to the Withdrawal rule).
So the withdrawal rule is optional. OK. Obviously, this implementation
needs a little clarification.
Currently, official tournaments which allow Sabbat cards (i.e.,
non-restricted tourneys, i.e. all of them that I know of) will
be using this withdrawal rule due to the nature of how rules
from successive expansions are applied (later rules overriding
earlier rules).
Obviously, some portion (possibly a large majority) of the players
on this newsgroup feel that this should not be the case.
I'll pass this along to the RT and DCI.
> Besides, I think most people agree that the new rule is pretty wack.
> Sure, it was hard to withdraw under the old rules, but forced withdrawal
> punishes decks which go through cards quickly (like combat decks), and
> these decks don't need further punishment.
I agree that it punishes them for runnig through their card resources
more quickly than the rest of the decks.
Whether this is "further" punishment is questionable, considering
the decks I see winning lately. Speed cycling combat decks don't
seem too punished so far.
Such a deck would be reduced to a speedbump for its predator once
the library is exhausted in most cases; so I doubly cannot agree
that this is "further" punishment. The deck has its reward,
regardless of the withdrawl rule in use.
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> Steve Bucy wrote:
> >
[clip of the Raptop/FoM Deck]
[clip]
> The legality of Form of Mist on a non-blocked action is under dispute.
> An old Rules Team ruling says that it is allowable, but recently
> someone (Thomas?) pointed out that this is not legal under the rules
> of gaining stealth (you cannot gain stealth unless you need stealth).
>> So, we're still waiting on the resolution on that question.
>
> Until then, the old RT holds - and FoM can be played repeatedly on
> the same (unblocked or blocked) action.
>
The "unneeded stealth" argument was mine. I have an additional point as
to why this should be illegal. Think about Freak Drive. The superior
version allows you to untap the vampire after an action that was
unsuccessful. So if you play a bum's rush and the action is blocked you
need to play the Freak Drive right away and not after the combat. That
is correct isn't it? The "Rush" is the action not the combat so you
can't play the Freak Drive superior after the resulting combat.
What I'm getting at is that an _unblocked_ Bum's Rush or other "enter
combat with" action is successful if not blocked. The action is
complete if the combat begins. The optional "continue action at +1
Stealth" clearly shouldn't apply to an action that is already
completed. The Bum's Rush is the action _not_ the resulting combat.
Does this make any sense?
Robert
[ quoted text not captured ]
PDB6 wrote:
> The Forced Withdraw rule substantially changes the rules
> of the game as a whole. Originaly, if you ran out of cards, you continued
> to play. Now if you run out of cards, you lose. This is a very
> substantial difference, and a very good reason why one would opt not to
> use this rule.
You do not lose if you run out of cards. You are simply withdrawn.
I have seen a game won by a Meth who withdrew in this fashion.
As an aside, running out of pool will oust you in a worse manner
than running out of cards. Is this a good reason to consider this
rule on ousting a bad rule?
The new Sabbat rule just makes managing your card resources more
important. It is different, obviously. But not obviously bad.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>This one came up last night in one of our games. We had someone playing
>Gangrel put out a bunch of Raptors (eventually 7) and Heidleberg Castle to>move them around. He eventually had all seven on one vamp with superior
>Protean. He then Bums Rushes, making the guy rushed loose his entire hand.
>He then plays Form of the Mist. The victim redraws, looses his hand again,>and the attacker plays Form of the Mist again. Is this legal? Can he keep
>playing Form of the Mist to repeat the combat until he runs out of them?
Ok, so I'm not LSJ.... but I'll answer anyway.
This is my take on the situation:
Superior Form of Mist only continues the action if there is an action to
continue.
As soon as the acting minion enters combat with the chosen target, the Bum's
Rush action is considered successful. Playing superior Form of Mist during the
ensuing combat will not continue the Bum's Rush action because it has already
resolved.
If, however, the Bum's Rush action had been blocked, the acting minion could
play superior Form of Mist to allow it to continue to Rush the original target.
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> > Besides, I think most people agree that the new rule is pretty wack.
> > Sure, it was hard to withdraw under the old rules, but forced withdrawal
> > punishes decks which go through cards quickly (like combat decks), and
> > these decks don't need further punishment.
>> I agree that it punishes them for running through their card resources> more quickly than the rest of the decks.
>
> Whether this is "further" punishment is questionable, considering
> the decks I see winning lately. Speed cycling combat decks don't
> seem too punished so far.
Well, considering the "unit of success" of each type of deck:
Vote: Successful Vote. Cost: ~2 cards: vote card, extra votes.
Bleed: Successful Bleed. Cost: ~3 cards: bleed card, +bleed/+stealth.
Combat: Successful Combat. Cost: ~6 cards: rush card, maneuver(s),
strikes, presses, etc.
So Combat cycles its cards much faster than either of the other major
strategies, and on top of that, a successful combat does not cause
direct pool loss, whereas Vote/Bleed does. So when I say that combat is
punished I mean that it is harder to win (fulfill victory conditions)
with a combat deck.
Now, under the new Sabbat rules, combat is hurt by being forced out of
the game prematurely. I myself have ousted people long after I ran out
of cards, and I do not agree with the rule.
> Such a deck would be reduced to a speedbump for its predator once
> the library is exhausted in most cases; so I doubly cannot agree
> that this is "further" punishment. The deck has its reward,
> regardless of the withdrawl rule in use.
Not necessarily. The following situation happens fairly often:
2 players left: the combat deck and some other deck. The combat deck is
cruising along, torporizing the other players vampires. The combat deck
has 4 ready minions, the other deck has 1. Both players have not too
much pool. The combat deck runs out of cards. Under the old withdraw
rules, the combat deck would get two more victory points; you don't need
cards to win in this situation. Under the new rule, the combat deck
gets _no_ VPs and the other deck gets one!
[ quoted text not captured ]
PDB6 <pd...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970416013...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> LSJ wrote:
> "Following that logic: the method of Prisci voting is an optional rule;
> the fact that any titled Sabbat vampires have votes at all is optional;
> denying Sabbat vampires rank in the Camarilla (Primogen, Prince, etc.) is
> optional; denying Camarilla vampires rank in the Sabbat is optional;
etc."
>> Yes, but all of the above mentioned rules are new rules that replace
> nothing and simply add new (minor) aspects to the game (much like brand
> new cards). The Forced Withdraw rule is a new rule that replaces a
> perfectly acceptable pre exisiting rule, and for no good reason. There
> was no pre exisiting "Prisci" rule that has been eraticated and replaced,
> nor do the Prisci have any great effect on the structure of the game as a
> whole (or any other of the above mentioned rules). They are basically
new
> "Flavor" rules. The Forced Withdraw rule substantially changes the rules> of the game as a whole. Originaly, if you ran out of cards, you
continued
> to play. Now if you run out of cards, you lose. This is a very
> substantial difference, and a very good reason why one would opt not to
> use this rule.
>> Peter D Bakija
> PD...@aol.com
>
> "Oh Spiteful One!
> Tell me whom I should smite and they shall be smoten!"
> -Homer
Go get em Peter! That is exactly my opinion. In fact our group does not
play with this riduculous rule. I have been waiting to see the library
wrecker deck since that stupid rule, and the Raptor appeared. Now the abuse
is here and it is very clear how it can totally screw up a game. I guess we
shall see how the RT handles the Form of the Mist mess now...
--
Steve Bucy
I'd be better off undead...
"Hmmm. I notice the number of conditional phrases in there... _seems_ to
indicate a weakness, _may_ be vulnerable in theory." - G'Kar
LSJ wrote:
"As an aside, running out of pool will oust you in a worse manner than
running out of cards. Is this a good reason to consider this rule on
ousting a bad rule?"
Now that was just silly :-)
My point is that originally if you ran out of cards, you still had the
option of continuing to play. Now you do not, which is a very substantial
and unneeded rules change. Getting ousted by running out of pool was a
rule with which the game was designed, just like continuing to play when
you ran out of cards was a rule with which the game was designed. If, for
instance, a rule was developed for the Sabbat expansion that said "Now,
instead of being ousted when you run out of pool, you may continue to play
until you run out of cards.", it would be just as rediculous as the Forced
Withdraw rule.
Yes, card managment is an important part of Jyhad, and always has been,
but in the basic set and the first 2 expansions, there was no need to
worry about running out of cards, other than the basic problem of having
no more cards. Granted, the original Withdaw rule was very unweildy and
close to impossible, but WOtC could have very easily come up with a new
Withdraw rule (perhaps if when you ran out of cards, you could choose to
Withdraw and get no points, but if you wished to continue, you still had
that option) that did not change a very basic and important rule, i.e.
that even if you ran out of cards, you could continue to play. I have
seen many many games won by players who have run out of cards, be it on
the very next turn after they have run out, or many turns afterwords.
Sure, sometimes they become speed bumbs, but very often a player in a
great position runs out of cards in the end game but still can win with
what they have in play.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <19970416013...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) writes:
> The Forced Withdraw rule substantially changes the rules>of the game as a whole. Originaly, if you ran out of cards, you continued>to play. Now if you run out of cards, you lose. This is a very
>substantial difference, and a very good reason why one would opt not to
>use this rule.
>
>
I see what you mean. Before your maximum deck size was 90 cards (for a 3 player game). Technically, now it is 89, if you play the last card your out and tough luck. I disagree with this rule
completely and we don't play with it here. Some of my decks are small to be effective ("pool leaker" decks). This can put one at a serious disadvantage, particularly if they burn through the deck
quickly (celerity/Potence combat, Trap/FOR combat, High Vote decks). I think it should be repealed.
Chance
Chance
Chance
"If you think you can, you're right. If you think you can't, you're right!" -- Henry Ford
PDB6 wrote:
>
> LSJ wrote:
> "As an aside, running out of pool will oust you in a worse manner than
> running out of cards. Is this a good reason to consider this rule on
> ousting a bad rule?"
>
> Now that was just silly :-)
I agree. Couldn't stop myself. Sorry. :-)
> Yes, card managment is an important part of Jyhad, and always has been,
> but in the basic set and the first 2 expansions, there was no need to
> worry about running out of cards, other than the basic problem of having
> no more cards. Granted, the original Withdaw rule was very unweildy and
> close to impossible, but WOtC could have very easily come up with a new
> Withdraw rule (perhaps if when you ran out of cards, you could choose to
> Withdraw and get no points, but if you wished to continue, you still had
> that option) that did not change a very basic and important rule, i.e.
> that even if you ran out of cards, you could continue to play. I have
> seen many many games won by players who have run out of cards, be it on
> the very next turn after they have run out, or many turns afterwords.
> Sure, sometimes they become speed bumbs, but very often a player in a
> great position runs out of cards in the end game but still can win with
> what they have in play.
Again, if the "speed-cycle" combat deck finds itself in a position near
the end of the game to win without playing cards (!?), then it should
stop playing cards as soon as it draws it's last one. It will have the
same effect (unless someone has a Raptor out and the combat deck failed
to kill the Raptor - which would be a mistake on the combat deck's part,
knowing that it's weakness is card supply.)
So the rule is different, but it's hardly the game-breaker that it's
being made out to be.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Hamblin wrote:
> > Such a deck would be reduced to a speedbump for its predator once
> > the library is exhausted in most cases; so I doubly cannot agree
> > that this is "further" punishment. The deck has its reward,
> > regardless of the withdrawl rule in use.
>
> Not necessarily. The following situation happens fairly often:
>
> 2 players left: the combat deck and some other deck. The combat deck is
> cruising along, torporizing the other players vampires. The combat deck
> has 4 ready minions, the other deck has 1. Both players have not too
> much pool. The combat deck runs out of cards. Under the old withdraw
> rules, the combat deck would get two more victory points; you don't need
> cards to win in this situation. Under the new rule, the combat deck
> gets _no_ VPs and the other deck gets one!
In that case, the combat deck would stop cycling cards when he draws
his last one. So the combat deck still gets two more VP.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>The legality of Form of Mist on a non-blocked action is under dispute.
>An old Rules Team ruling says that it is allowable, but recently
>someone (Thomas?) pointed out that this is not legal under the rules
>of gaining stealth (you cannot gain stealth unless you need stealth).>So, we're still waiting on the resolution on that question.>Until then, the old RT holds - and FoM can be played repeatedly on
>the same (unblocked or blocked) action.
How can this be allowable, though? Assuming that no one blocks the action,
wouldn't the action be considered _resolved_ the moment combat begins? There
wouldn't be any action to continue because the acting minion has succesfully
completed the Bum's Rush.
LSJ wrote:
" So the rule is different, but it's hardly the game-breaker that it's
being made out to be."
I would never really claim that the Forced Withdraw rule is a real
game-breaker, as more often than not it will never come up, but what it is
is another example of a bad idea by the people left in charge of designing
this game.
Originally, when you ran out of cards you could either contiunue to play
(possibly to win) or attempt to withdraw, which was close to impossible.
Now you must withdraw, whether you were about to win or not. You have no
choice when you are out of cards. You could stop playing cards when you
get down to your last one to avoid being Forced to Withdraw, turning the
"Forced Withdraw" rule into the "Forced Seven Card Smaller Deck" rule.
I'm not quite sure what the intention of this rule was, but what ever it
was, it was a bad idea. If it was to make Withdrawing easier, sure, it
did that but at the great cost of _having_ to Withdraw, which is a far cry
from the original intention of the Withdraw rule. If the intention of the
Forced Withdraw rule was to make Jyhad just that much closer to Magic, ok,
it did that, but that was a bad thing ("Yaa! Now I can win by "Decking"
other players! Woo Hoo!"). If the intention was to impose a stiff
penalty for poor card management, then it failed, as you can always just
not play any of your last seven cards (unless you are facing a deck that
can "Deck" you with Dr. Jest or Raptors...), avoiding the whole thing. If
it was intended as a rule to "punish" high speed card cycle decks, then it
was completely unnecessary, as these decks are no better than any other
decks.
As it is so easy to avoid ever actually running out of cards (just by not
playing any of your last seven), it seems fairly pointless to have a
_Forced_ rule, as you are never actually _Forced_ to Withdraw, unless
someone "Decks" you. As a result, the _Forced_ part of the Withdraw rule
serves little purpose other than to effectively reduce all deck sizes by
seven, and to open up the wack world of "Decking" opponents, which is very
far from the original rule design.
I would suggest that the Forced Withdraw rule be changed to something
along the lines of:
"If you start a turn with less than seven cards in your hand and have no
cards in your library, you _may_ withdraw from the Jyhad. If you
Withdraw, you gain no VPs, nor does your Predator gain a VP or six pool as
a result. You are never _required_ to Withdraw."
This would result in:
A) Fixing the nigh-impossible original Withdrawing rules, while
maintaining the spirit of those rules.
B) Making "Decking" someone impossible.
C) Allowing players in a good position who run out of cards to continue
to play, as in the original rules.
D) Making a great deal of long time Jyhad players happy.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"You're so pretty when you're unfaithful to me."
-Pixies
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> Again, if the "speed-cycle" combat deck finds itself in a position near
> the end of the game to win without playing cards (!?),
Is this to indicate that you have never come upon this situation?
> then it should
> stop playing cards as soon as it draws it's last one. It will have the
> same effect (unless someone has a Raptor out and the combat deck failed
> to kill the Raptor - which would be a mistake on the combat deck's part,
> knowing that it's weakness is card supply.)
First of all, only long range combat decks (pitch or guns) can actually
kill retainers. So a close range Nosferatu, Gangrel or Brujah deck is
SOL? Even without the Raptor, this effectively reduces a deck's size by
7. Depending on which cards you play, there will be some 7 cards which
you will never be able to play.
There are other games with the "you run out of cards, you lose" rule,
but in both of these games that I play (Shadowfist and Magic), there is
no automatic replenishment of cards. Subsequently, both of these games
have card management ("card advantage") as a high priority for success.
In Shadowfist, since you almost always draw up to maximum hand size at
the beginning of turns, this is not such a big issue, but cards that
increase that hand size are very popular. In Jyhad, every time you play
a card, you replace that card. Your hand is a vital resource that is
always present. This is why cards such as Thoughts Betrayed so badly
break the paradigm of the game: they remove your hand from the game,
however temporarily.
Jyhad is not a game of Mind Twists and Curtains of Fullness. Having a
"run out of cards = lose" rule is completely counter to the design of
the game. Your defense of the rule: "well, just stop playing cards as
soon as you draw your last one" is reminiscent of some defenses of TB,
like "well, just use equipment" and "it's just temporary".
> So the rule is different, but it's hardly the game-breaker that it's
> being made out to be.
Being punished for having high card throughput is fairly game-breaking.
High throughput is its own punishment; once you run out of cards, I
agree that it is difficult to win a game. But a player should not be
forced to lose the game for playing too many cards. That's not the way
this game is built.
Just like it is difficult to withdraw under the old withdrawal rule, but
it is possible; I've done it with a combat deck. Why do away with this
old rule?
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson <vte...@regency.wizards.com> wrote in article
<335619C0...@regency.wizards.com>...
> PDB6 wrote:
> >
(snip)
> > Yes, card managment is an important part of Jyhad, and always has been,
> > but in the basic set and the first 2 expansions, there was no need to
> > worry about running out of cards, other than the basic problem of
having
> > no more cards. Granted, the original Withdaw rule was very unweildy
and
> > close to impossible, but WOtC could have very easily come up with a new
> > Withdraw rule (perhaps if when you ran out of cards, you could choose
to
> > Withdraw and get no points, but if you wished to continue, you still
had
> > that option) that did not change a very basic and important rule, i.e.
> > that even if you ran out of cards, you could continue to play. I have
> > seen many many games won by players who have run out of cards, be it on
> > the very next turn after they have run out, or many turns afterwords.
> > Sure, sometimes they become speed bumbs, but very often a player in a
> > great position runs out of cards in the end game but still can win with
> > what they have in play.
>> Again, if the "speed-cycle" combat deck finds itself in a position near> the end of the game to win without playing cards (!?), then it should> stop playing cards as soon as it draws it's last one. It will have the
> same effect (unless someone has a Raptor out and the combat deck failed
> to kill the Raptor - which would be a mistake on the combat deck's part,
> knowing that it's weakness is card supply.)
Don't forget Doctor Jest and Aggressive Tactics (which was also in the
Raptor deck).
> So the rule is different, but it's hardly the game-breaker that it's
> being made out to be.
What if the last card you draw is very key to making your situation a
winning one. For example, you have a full IC out, but only two pool. The
last card is a Minion Tap. Under the old rules this situation would be
fine. Under the new rule it is a game-breaker.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Steven Bucy wrote:
Peter Bajika wrote;
<snip>
>> 'The Forced Withdraw rule substantially changes the rules> > of the game as a whole. Originaly, if you ran out of cards, you> continued
> > to play. Now if you run out of cards, you lose. This is a very
> > substantial difference, and a very good reason why one would opt not to
> > use this rule.
> >> > Peter D Bakija
> > PD...@aol.com
> >
> > "Oh Spiteful One!
> > Tell me whom I should smite and they shall be smoten!"
> > -Homer
>> Go get em Peter! That is exactly my opinion. In fact our group does not
> play with this riduculous rule. I have been waiting to see the library
> wrecker deck since that stupid rule, and the Raptor appeared. Now the abuse
> is here and it is very clear how it can totally screw up a game. I guess we
> shall see how the RT handles the Form of the Mist mess now...
>> --
> Steve Bucy
>
> I'd be better off undead...
>
> "Hmmm. I notice the number of conditional phrases in there... _seems_ to
> indicate a weakness, _may_ be vulnerable in theory." - G'Kar
Yeah, what he said.
1. There is no form of mist mess. The guy that started this mess with
the raptor deck had everyone fooled because they seem to have confused
the psyche card with the form of mist card. Although, I imagine there
will be some change to the wording of Form of mist centered around the
'continue the action' part. You have to have a sick mind to come up with
continuing the same action as legal. Im impressed. So the only way to
empty peoples hands like this is to give 7 raptors (super) to someone
with super celerity. I am tempted to say if they can manage it, let 'em
have it.
However, I think this is a similar situation to TB, the denial of the
hand during play, and constitutes nothing more than 'magicising' the
game (new word?), and yes I understand there are different mechanics.
The reason I call it 'magicising' is due to the different focus of the
two games. I could never get into magic because it seemed to me to be a
tabletop wargame represented by cards (which it is :)). Jyhad held
something else for me in that the focus was split between the methusela
and their minions, whilst retaining skill as an important part of the
game between players. I like my vampires. Both the denial of the hand
and the 'forced withdrawl' rule both put the focus more heavily on the
methusela rather than the minions.
And I dont like it. :)
An abstract point, but one that had to be made.
2. There are several groovy web sites for jyhad.
* Judith and Mark's Jyhad page.
* The Corrupters Jyhad Page.
* Rulemongers.
* Bob's Jyhad Page.
James B.
'The last of the crew needs a special remark,
though he looked an incredible dunce,
he had just one idea, but that one being snark,
The good Bellman engaged him at once.'
The Hunting of the Snark, Lewis Carrol.
Hmmm...
the "Forced Withdrawal" rule is a bad rule, indeed, but there are ways
around it:
- don't limit deck size
(if someone wants to play with 120 cards, why not?)
- impose a 3-card limit
(no more 7 Raptors)
- don't use the rule
I don't care about "official" rules. If, in that part of the gamers'
community I'm part of, we all agree that some rule is silly, we won't
use it.
Werner
Steven Bucy wrote:
>
> Don't forget Doctor Jest and Aggressive Tactics (which was also in the
> Raptor deck).
A Predator's Dr. Jest still alive at this point in the game indicates
a shortcoming of the combat deck that has little to do with the
Withdrawal rule.
Aggressive Tactics - Reduces your hand size, does not make you draw.
(Or, the aggressive Meth. can pay two pool, a Master Pahse action, and
hope someone else takes an action to burn the AT. to have you
effectively discard and replace one card. If she has this much pool and
influence (among her partner Meth.) to spare at this point in the game,
she's obviously in a good position, WithDrawal rule or no.)
> > So the rule is different, but it's hardly the game-breaker that it's
> > being made out to be.
>
> What if the last card you draw is very key to making your situation a
> winning one. For example, you have a full IC out, but only two pool. The
> last card is a Minion Tap. Under the old rules this situation would be
> fine. Under the new rule it is a game-breaker.
Then you should've had 1 more copy of that card in your library,
apparently. Examples can be contrived to illustrate any side of
most "real" arguments.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
It is allowable because the RT says it is.
Sorry, but I cannot come up with a more satisfactory explanation.
Here's the RT ruling:
From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
Subject: VTES Rules Team Rulings: 10/17/95
Date: 17 Oct 1995 05:39:07 GMT
Message-ID: <45vfhr$8...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
1) You may continue an action that has already been considered successful.
For example, if a Bum's Rush is successful, you may play superior Form of
Mist during that combat to continue the action, in which case a second
combat may start (but the action can then be blocked). Note that if you
complete the action again, you get all of its effects again. For example,
if you complete Bum's Rush again, you would get an optional maneuver in the
second combat.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Werner Arend wrote:
>
> Hmmm...
> the "Forced Withdrawal" rule is a bad rule, indeed, but there are ways
> around it:
>
> - don't limit deck size
> (if someone wants to play with 120 cards, why not?)
The problem with this is the following: since Jyhad has the automatic
replace rule, given an effective 80 card deck, you can make an effective
160 card deck by simply shuffling together two copies of the deck. This
new deck will be just as effective as the original, but will have the
advantage that each card will be able to be used twice, and it will not
run out of cards until twice as much time has passed.
So, the size of a deck would depend only on the number of cards owned by
a person ("Damn, I only have 27 Undead Strengths. I guess my Brujah
deck will only have 270 cards in it."). The maximum deck size limit is
something that doesn't need tinkering with.
BTW: Does anyone ever find themselves in a situation where someone comes
into a game with a deck which is too big? I mean really big, like
120-150 cards. Do you say anything?
> - impose a 3-card limit
> (no more 7 Raptors)
CL would cause many more problems, and the problem with the FWR is the
rule itself, not Raptor.
> - don't use the rule
Ding! Ding! Ding! This is my point. The rule is not needed, not
useful, and wrong. My group doesn't use it, and I get the impression
that a lot of people don't.
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> PDB6 wrote:
> > The Forced Withdraw rule substantially changes the rules
> > of the game as a whole. Originaly, if you ran out of cards, you continued
> > to play. Now if you run out of cards, you lose. This is a very
> > substantial difference, and a very good reason why one would opt not to
> > use this rule.
>> You do not lose if you run out of cards. You are simply withdrawn.
> I have seen a game won by a Meth who withdrew in this fashion.
>> As an aside, running out of pool will oust you in a worse manner
> than running out of cards. Is this a good reason to consider this
> rule on ousting a bad rule?
>> The new Sabbat rule just makes managing your card resources more
> important. It is different, obviously. But not obviously bad.
>> --
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
> Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
> (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
If Forced Withdrawal is not an optional rule, does it affect gamers who
play with one Sabbat card in their deck, one Sabbat vamp in their crypt,
or what?
It is a very different way to play the game, and I want to know when I
can avoid it.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
pheersum inhabits the mortal shell of eric schultheis. one
channels mailto://phee...@netwizards.net.spamtrap remove spamtrap
before mailing.
nature says,"go ahead, have as many babies as you want. something will
eat them."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> I don't care about "official" rules. If, in that part of the gamers'
> community I'm part of, we all agree that some rule is silly, we won't
> use it.
>
> Werner
An argument for jyhad consensual reality? interesting...
What happens when you go to an official tournament? Do you
Socrates-style debate the referee and other players on the nature of the
universe in regards to a 3CL? Does it work? <start furiously taking
notes>
James B.
'Wisdom is for the rich'- Anon.
James Hamblin writes:
>
>BTW: Does anyone ever find themselves in a situation where someone comes
>into a game with a deck which is too big? I mean really big, like
>120-150 cards. Do you say anything?
>
I've _never_ played in an environment where a maximum deck size is
actually enforced. We're well aware that there is a maximum deck size in
the rules, but we're much too lazy to enforce it (the fact that it depends
on the number of players is probably the real reason why we don't use it; we
never know in advance how many players will be at the table, and it can be
anywhere from 3 to 7).
In fact, the average deck size in my various play groups is probably over
100 cards. I think one of my current decks is a bit over 120 cards. It's never
been a problem; maybe we'll change that if we feel the need for it.
As for the forced withdrawal rule... we use it, but we're aware that it sucks.
Usually a player with no cards left will simply stop using them, and nobody
tried to play the Raptor game (though I did it once, involuntarily, in a
Sabbat-only 6-booster game: my prey was finally forced to either let me bleed
or face a Raptor and withdraw from the game...).
Philippe
[ quoted text not captured ]
No, I won't do that (but I'll certainly try to get people to change their
minds for the *next* tournament), and I suspect it wouldn't work anyway <g>.
But most of the games I play are not in a tournament, and these are usually
where I have most fun, because I try new deck designs, etc. As I said,
there are 1200+ cards to try... In this environment, there really is
no point in using a rule we all feel uncomfortable with - or is there?
In a tournament, however, I'd always play conservative and use the most
effective deck allowed by the rules that I can come up with.
Werner
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, James Hamblin wrote:
> Werner Arend wrote:
> > - don't limit deck size
> > (if someone wants to play with 120 cards, why not?)
>
> The problem with this is the following: since Jyhad has the automatic
> replace rule, given an effective 80 card deck, you can make an effective
> 160 card deck by simply shuffling together two copies of the deck. This
> new deck will be just as effective as the original, but will have the
> advantage that each card will be able to be used twice, and it will not
> run out of cards until twice as much time has passed.> So, the size of a deck would depend only on the number of cards owned by
> a person ("Damn, I only have 27 Undead Strengths. I guess my Brujah
> deck will only have 270 cards in it."). The maximum deck size limit is
> something that doesn't need tinkering with.
I don't agree with you here, because of the following points:
- it's hard to design multi-strategy decks with less than about 100 cards,
and I think that multi-strategy decks are much more interesting than the
more single-minded ones.
- I don't think that running out of cards or not should be able to decide
who wins a victory point. If I lose because I made the wrong deck for the
purpose, or because my predator simply played a better strategy, or because
I don't own some cards that would've turned the table, thats OK, but losing
because running out of cards is boring. This punishes decks with high card
throughput, and increases the value of equipment cards to a degree
where it also becomes boring, because everyone tends to use the same
equipment....
My point is, keep the game interesting by keeping balance between different
types of decks. Encourage players to vary! Limiting Library size to
40+10/player doesn't do that (perhaps 40+15/player would do it better).
The same point goes for a card limit. Depending on 2 or 3 cards for your
strategy may be effective, but it's also rather boring...
> BTW: Does anyone ever find themselves in a situation where someone comes
> into a game with a deck which is too big? I mean really big, like
> 120-150 cards. Do you say anything?
I've seen this twice for sure, and I suspect more often than that (I usually
don't count my opponents' cards). Effective use of a Fragment of the Book of
Nod will reduce your library stack rather quickly. I once got to the bottom
of my 100card deck this way...
Werner
Pheersum wrote:
> If Forced Withdrawal is not an optional rule, does it affect gamers who
> play with one Sabbat card in their deck, one Sabbat vamp in their crypt,
> or what?
>
> It is a very different way to play the game, and I want to know when I
> can avoid it.
It is my understanding that the Withdrawal rule is to be used if
Sabbat cards are allowed to be in the library or crypt - regardless
of whether anyone actually has any.
I'm waiting on an RT/DCI clarification on this, however.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Here's a wacky idea, why not change the rules so that if you use all the
cards in your Library it simply gets re-shuffled and continue on? Maybe
"set" the deck size at exactly 90 cards?
Now I've rarely hit the bottom of mine, but I might be more inclined to
try different strategies with this kind of structure.
Any thoughts, or am I just a heretic of sorts?
-- Bernie