Lucita Question (LJS)

This question may have already been answered in the initial wave of Lucita discussion, but I missed it. It says that younger Sabbat vampires have -1 intercept against Lucita. Does this effectively mean that she has +1 stealth on all her actions against younger Sabbat because they need an equal amount of intercept to her stealth, and since they have -1 intercept to her zero stealth (assuming no other modifiers)? Or instead, does she have to add stealth to an action to make her special come into play (ie: if she only has zero stealth, you don't need any intercept to block her. This question came up at our Pre-Release tournament as Lucita stealthed passed all her younger blockers who didn't have any intercept. Gene

In article <39FC7F9B...@nospam.com>, Gene Martin <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > This question may have already been answered in the initial wave of > Lucita discussion, but I missed it. > > It says that younger Sabbat vampires have -1 intercept against Lucita. > Does this effectively mean that she has +1 stealth on all her actions > against younger Sabbat because they need an equal amount of intercept to > her stealth, and since they have -1 intercept to her zero stealth > (assuming no other modifiers)? This is the correct interpretation. Although I admit it's really stupid to word it -1 stealth instead of +1 stealth when it effectively means that. We've had problems with this in the past with Miranda Sanova. > > Or instead, does she have to add stealth to an action to make her > special come into play (ie: if she only has zero stealth, you don't need > any intercept to block her. > > This question came up at our Pre-Release tournament as Lucita stealthed > passed all her younger blockers who didn't have any intercept. > > Gene > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Gene Martin wrote: > This question may have already been answered in the initial wave of > Lucita discussion, but I missed it. > > It says that younger Sabbat vampires have -1 intercept against Lucita. > Does this effectively mean that she has +1 stealth on all her actions > against younger Sabbat because they need an equal amount of intercept to > her stealth, and since they have -1 intercept to her zero stealth > (assuming no other modifiers)? This is correct. > Or instead, does she have to add stealth to an action to make her > special come into play (ie: if she only has zero stealth, you don't need > any intercept to block her. Intercept and stealth are always treated as the amounts they are, whether those are positive, negative or zero. This is the same with bleeds and hand damage, except for the fact that negative amounts don't do any damage (in terms of blood loss or whatever). You still track their negativeness. For instance, I bleed you with Lucita. Your vampire, Dani, attempts to block. Younger, so I have 0 stealth, you have -1 intercept. Dani plays Pack Tactics. Dani now has +1 intercept (-1 + 2 = +1) against your 0 stealth. You play superior Shadow Play and get +2 stealth. So, it's now +2 stealth vs +1 intercept. Dani curses and allows the bleed through. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "And all the while I'm thinking things that I can never share with him. I'm a bundle of confusion, yet it has a strange appeal. Did it all begin with him and the way he makes me feel?"

On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, cantila wrote: > This is the correct interpretation. Although I admit it's really stupid > to word it -1 stealth instead of +1 stealth when it effectively means > that. We've had problems with this in the past with Miranda Sanova. Not really, because she doesn't have +1 stealth - all the Camarilla vampires, older vampires and Independent vampires see her just fine. It's only the younger Sabbat ones who have the problem. If you gave her stealth, her stealth would pop up and down depending on who tried to blocked. This way, the numbers are constant. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Gene Martin wrote: > > It says that younger Sabbat vampires have -1 intercept against > > Lucita. > > Does this effectively mean that she has +1 stealth on all her > > actions against younger Sabbat because they need an equal amount > > of intercept to her stealth, and since they have -1 intercept to > > her zero stealth (assuming no other modifiers)? > > This is correct. Right. > This is the same with bleeds and hand damage, except for the fact that > negative amounts don't do any damage (in terms of blood loss or > whatever). You still track their negativeness. Correct. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0010292202100.17083- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, cantila wrote: > > > This is the correct interpretation. Although I admit it's really stupid > > to word it -1 stealth instead of +1 stealth when it effectively means > > that. We've had problems with this in the past with Miranda Sanova. > > Not really, because she doesn't have +1 stealth - all the Camarilla > vampires, older vampires and Independent vampires see her just fine. It's > only the younger Sabbat ones who have the problem. > > If you gave her stealth, her stealth would pop up and down depending on > who tried to blocked. This way, the numbers are constant. > They're not more constant than as if she had +1 stealth, duh. For the younger vampires she'll now have a different stealth value (i.e. -1) than the others. Whether it's +1 or -1 doesn't matter, it's as less/much constant whether it's +1 or -1. [ quoted text not captured ]

[cantila dixit:] >They're not more constant than as if she had +1 stealth, duh. For the >younger vampires she'll now have a different stealth value (i.e. -1) >than the others. Whether it's +1 or -1 doesn't matter, it's as >less/much constant whether it's +1 or -1. This isn't actually true. As currently worded, both Lucita's stealth and any given blocker's intercept are constant barring cardplay. Example: Lucita takes a 0 stealth action. Minion X blocks. Minion X has 0 intercept. If Minion X meets Lucita's conditions, Minion X has -1 intercept. These numbers don't change without cardplay. Worded the +stealth way, Lucita's stealth can vary without any cardplay, just by changing the blocking declaration. Blocked by Camarilla Minion X, her stealth is 0; blocked by Younger Sabbat Minion Y, her stealth is 1. This is less intuitive and less elegant than the current wording, and therefore not equivalent at all. gomi -- you say they taught you how to read and write yeah, they taught you how to count i say they taught you how to buy and sell your own body by the pound

In article <8tj3l8$24or$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > [cantila dixit:] > > >They're not more constant than as if she had +1 stealth, duh. For the > >younger vampires she'll now have a different stealth value (i.e. -1) > >than the others. Whether it's +1 or -1 doesn't matter, it's as > >less/much constant whether it's +1 or -1. > > This isn't actually true. > > As currently worded, both Lucita's stealth and any given blocker's > intercept are constant barring cardplay. > > Example: > > Lucita takes a 0 stealth action. Minion X blocks. > Minion X has 0 intercept. If Minion X meets Lucita's > conditions, Minion X has -1 intercept. These numbers > don't change without cardplay. > > Worded the +stealth way, Lucita's stealth can vary > without any cardplay, just by changing the blocking > declaration. Blocked by Camarilla Minion X, her stealth > is 0; blocked by Younger Sabbat Minion Y, her stealth is > 1. This is less intuitive and less elegant than the > current wording, and therefore not equivalent at all. > > gomi Umm am I missing something here? Even with the -1 it changes depending on the blocker. In your example above, depending on who blocks, he'll have -1 intercept or 0 intercept, it's the same thing! In *every* case where you can give an example that +1 stealth changes cardplay so does the -1 stealth. [ quoted text not captured ]

cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > > [cantila dixit:] > > > > >They're not more constant than as if she had +1 stealth, duh. For the > > >younger vampires she'll now have a different stealth value (i.e. -1) > > >than the others. Whether it's +1 or -1 doesn't matter, it's as > > >less/much constant whether it's +1 or -1. > > > > This isn't actually true. > > > > As currently worded, both Lucita's stealth and any given blocker's > > intercept are constant barring cardplay. > > Umm am I missing something here? Even with the -1 it changes depending > on the blocker. In your example above, depending on who blocks, he'll > have -1 intercept or 0 intercept, it's the same thing! In *every* case > where you can give an example that +1 stealth changes cardplay so does > the -1 stealth. The intercept or stealth a *given minion* has is constant for the action (barring modifiers). The blocker either has 0 intercept or -1 intercept. Whichever he has, it is constant. Lucita has 0 stealth. Constant. If a younger Sabbat vampire attempts to block, Lucita has 0 stealth. If an older Sabbat vampire attempts to block, Luciat has 0 stealth. If a non-Sabbat vampire attempts to block, Lucita has 0 stealth. If an ally attempts to block, Lucita has 0 stealth. A given younger Sabbat vampire has -1 intercept when Lucita is acting. A given older Sabbat vampire has 0 intercept when Lucita is acting. A given non-Sabbat vampire has 0 intercept when Lucita is acting. A given ally has 0 intercept when Lucita is acting. All constant. Christine Boscacci has -2 intercept when Lucita is bleeding. Hugo has -2 intercept when Luciat is acting. Richard Tauber has -2 intercept when Lucita is acting. Anton has +1 intercept when Lucita is acting. etc. All constant. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8tk04c$gl4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Yes it's all cnstant and would still be if Lucita had +1 stealth against younger Sabbat vampires, that's my point. There's no case where it matters if Lucita has +1 against younger Sabbat vamps or if she makes them have -1 intercept instead. But the ngative thing with phrasing it -1 intercept instead of +1 stealth is that it causes confusion since this term is normally not used compared to the the +1 stealth terminology. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Yes it's all cnstant and would still be if Lucita had +1 stealth > against younger Sabbat vampires, that's my point. There's no case where > it matters if Lucita has +1 against younger Sabbat vamps or if she > makes them have -1 intercept instead. But the ngative thing with > phrasing it -1 intercept instead of +1 stealth is that it causes > confusion since this term is normally not used compared to the the +1 > stealth terminology. Okay, so it's six one way and one-half dozen the other. I thought European education far exceeded American education, and I learned what a negative number was when I was 12. Is there confusion that -1 is less than zero? It is fairly simple. Should a player not understand negative numbers, then perhaps you would be so kind as to give him a lesson in algebra. I think that the x + 1= 0 model will work quite well. Just solve for x. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8tk62n$m40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > > Yes it's all cnstant and would still be if Lucita had +1 stealth > > against younger Sabbat vampires, that's my point. There's no case > where > > it matters if Lucita has +1 against younger Sabbat vamps or if she > > makes them have -1 intercept instead. But the ngative thing with > > phrasing it -1 intercept instead of +1 stealth is that it causes > > confusion since this term is normally not used compared to the the +1 > > stealth terminology. > > Okay, so it's six one way and one-half dozen the other. I thought > European education far exceeded American education, and I learned what a > negative number was when I was 12. Is there confusion that -1 is less > than zero? It is fairly simple. Should a player not understand > negative numbers, then perhaps you would be so kind as to give him a > lesson in algebra. I think that the x + 1= 0 model will work quite > well. Just solve for x. > The rules doesn't tell how to handle negative numbers, if an ally with 0 bleed can do a bleed action for example (I thought it couldn't but according to your anology it should be able to). Obviously the wording has caused confusion else this thread wouldn't have started, and it's not about knowing maths or not. It's about whether the rules are clear on how to deal with this or not and why things are phrased as they are. The whole '-1 intercept' issue inclines it should be handled differently than the '+1 stealth issue' because why did they else word it differently? Where's the consistancy? But alas, I should have known that when it comes to logic, americans aren't on the edge? You can relate this to the whole hand damage and strength issue as well, which many people think are/were confusing. At least before strength was introduced, becauuse the same term (hand damage) was used both on equipment and plain hand damage which wasn't logic (and thus changed). Does that mean that before the change of terminology the people that didn't understand that weapons could give +1 hand damage were uneducated or something? I mean clearly the equipment was meant to increase the damage and since a damage from a Bastard Sword was different than damage done by a Chainsaw, there shouldn't have been any confusion u'd thin. But there still was. Instead of just accepting things as a fact maybe u should start to think of how you could IMPROVE things to the better to make it better for us all, instead of bashing people that question the status quo and think with a critical. That's what we learn in Sweden at least, and it's well-known that's something you don't in American schools. I dind't want ot write a flaming post but you asked for it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8tk62n$m40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > [ quoted text not captured ] Hoity-toity and thrice Hoity! i don't think that there's any problem with cantila's maths or logic, and i don't think it's fair to imply that there is. Nor do i think the replies to him have actually addressed the real reason for phrasing Lucita's special the way it is. IMO this is that it wouldn't actually make much sense to say that Lucita has +1 stealth against younger Sabbat Vampires. What would against mean, in this case? Would it only apply to actions that Lucita takes against vampires? Only, perhaps, to actions against younger sabbat vampires? You would have to say that Lucita has +1 stealth for the purpose of determining whether or not Younger Sabbat Vampires can attempt to block her, to avoid clogging up LSJ's mailbox with even more questions. That's, what 20 words, as opposed to the card's current 12 - in short it is a more economical way of saying the same thing clearly. i'm sure that as a lawyer Cantila will see the point of that! [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, cantila wrote: > They're not more constant than as if she had +1 stealth, duh. Erm, yes they are. "I try to block with Jimmy Dunn." "Okay, she has +1 stealth." "Bah. In that case, I block with Koko." "Erm, she's now on 0 stealth." Her stealth keeps popping up and down depending on who's blocking. Keeping track of whether you have applied her stealth, removed it if someone else tries to block, applied it back if you switch vampire, removed it again when you go to your predator and so forth is likely to lead to undue confusion when the +1 stealth would only apply against a limited subset of vampires. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8tk795$n8i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote a bunch of stuff: -paraphrased- Cantilla: Why -1 intercept instead of +1 stealth? Others: Because the text is on Lucita, and the effect on Lucita should be constant. The effect on Lucita should not change based on who tries to block. The effect is done to the blocking vampire. The effect is not done to Lucita. See page 28-30 of the Sabbat War rule book where it discusses how to Resolve Any Block Attempts. "Intercept represents the blocking minion's efforts to discover the plans of the acting minion and to stalk or chase him in order to detain him (by fighting with him) before he can accomplish his goal. To see if a block attempt succeeds, compare the acting minion's stealth to the blocking minion's intercept. The action is blocked if the blocker's intercept is equal to or greater than the acting minion's stealth." Pretty clearly handles positive and negative values to me. LOGIC - Greater Than = more than, therefore a negative amount is NOT Greater Than (or equal to), so the block attempt fails. Math is based on logic. Negative and positive values are based on logic. Complaining about a rulebook you haven't read is not based on logic. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://lasombra.tripod.com http://legbiter.tripod.com [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, cantila wrote: > Umm am I missing something here? Even with the -1 it changes depending > on the blocker. All blockers intercepts are handled independently, always. The actor's stealth is always constant. Wording Lucita as a stealth bonus over-rides this standard part of play. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, James Coupe wrote: > All blockers intercepts are handled independently, always. > > The actor's stealth is always constant. This last line is a little too blanket. It means "If I change which vampire I'm blocking with, it doesn't affect your stealth. Any vampire can attempt to block you, your stealth is constant. (Until you play another card.)" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8ti4v3$4bl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > In article <39FC7F9B...@nospam.com>, > Gene Martin <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > > This question may have already been answered in the initial wave of > > Lucita discussion, but I missed it. > > > > It says that younger Sabbat vampires have -1 intercept against > > Lucita. Does this effectively mean that she has +1 stealth on all > > her actions against younger Sabbat because they need an equal > > amount of intercept to her stealth, and since they have -1 > > intercept to her zero stealth (assuming no other modifiers)? No, it doesn't. She has zero stealth. Younger blocking Sabbat vampires have -1 intercept. As -1 intercept is not equal to or greater than 0 stealth, they cannot block Lucita without increasing their intercept. This goes for all of her actions, not just those directed at younger Sabbat vampires. > This is the correct interpretation. No, it isn't really. > Although I admit it's really stupid to word it -1 stealth instead > of +1 stealth when it effectively means that. We've had problems > with this in the past with Miranda Sanova. I'm sorry you're still having problems with math. (The offer of a tutor is still available.) Typing too I would guess, or you would have said -1 intercept, not -1 stealth, as that is the text of the Lucita card. Hey, look, its right there in the online rules too, how amazing! "Intercept represents the blocking minion's efforts to discover the plans of the acting minion and to stalk or chase him in order to detain him (by fighting with him) before he can accomplish his goal. To see if a block attempt succeeds, compare the acting minion's stealth to the blocking minion's intercept. The action is blocked if the blocker's intercept is equal to or greater than the acting minion's stealth." http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook.html Section 6.2.2.2 Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://lasombra.tripod.com http://legbiter.tripod.com [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, cantila wrote: > Yes it's all cnstant and would still be if Lucita had +1 stealth > against younger Sabbat vampires, that's my point. Lucita acts. Stealth 0 on a 0 stealth undirected action. Jimmy Dunn attempst a block. Lucita stealth = 1. Block fails after a number of cards. Jimmy plays Elder Intervention. His intercept = 2. Lucita stealth = 1. Lucita plays Shadow play. Lucita stealth = 3. Jimmy Dunn fails to block. Predator attempst to block. Predator blocks with Gitane St Clair. Lucita stealth = 2. Lucita stealth = not constant. [ quoted text not captured ]

> X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > The rules doesn't tell how to handle negative numbers, if an ally with > 0 bleed can do a bleed action for example (I thought it couldn't but > according to your anology it should be able to). We obviously know that allies can bleed (those that have a bleed of one or greater). I don't think that there is anywhere in the rules that says that a minion with a bleed of zero can't take a bleeding action (such a vampire who has had monomacy placed on him or a gangrel with an atavism). It also does not specifically say that allies with a bleed of zero cannot take a bleeding action (however moronic taking such an action is under the current card set). So how do the rules say otherwise? Obviously the wording > has caused confusion else this thread wouldn't have started, and it's > not about knowing maths or not. It's about whether the rules are clear > on how to deal with this or not and why things are phrased as they are. > The whole '-1 intercept' issue inclines it should be handled > differently than the '+1 stealth issue' because why did they else word > it differently? Where's the consistancy? But alas, I should have known > that when it comes to logic, americans aren't on the edge? I think legbiter above had a pretty good idea why it was printed as intercept; it is less wordy. Also it has already been modeled since Jyhad was printed on Miranda Sanova, who has a similar ability against Brujah. How is that for logic? > You can relate this to the whole hand damage and strength issue as > well, which many people think are/were confusing. At least before > strength was introduced, becauuse the same term (hand damage) was used > both on equipment and plain hand damage which wasn't logic (and thus > changed). A more accurate analogy would be hand damage versus damage prevention. Does that mean that before the change of terminology the > people that didn't understand that weapons could give +1 hand damage > were uneducated or something? I think reading is an important part of education. I think math is too. Who are these people that cannot read +1 hand damage or cannot add one. I think that surely they could be confused as a newbie, as most newbies are. I think that only those players who have never seen a weapon are the ones who don't think they exist. It is part of the basic education in equipment cards. I mean clearly the equipment was meant to > increase the damage and since a damage from a Bastard Sword was > different than damage done by a Chainsaw, there shouldn't have been any > confusion u'd thin. Hence, why one says weapon and the other melee weapon. Also, why undead strength has Strike +1 hand or melee weapon damage. But there still was. Instead of just accepting > things as a fact maybe u should start to think of how you could IMPROVE > things to the better to make it better for us all, instead of bashing > people that question the status quo and think with a critical. So I guess that you complaining that a card needs a rewrite within 3 months of it being published had nothing to do with it. That's > what we learn in Sweden at least, and it's well-known that's something > you don't in American schools. Yes, we don't have whining classes over here. > I dind't want ot write a flaming post but you asked for it. Hey, I need a tan. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

I am remiss if what I said was derogatory, but -1 intercept has been around a long time. Miranda Sanova has it on her card text and she was issued in JYHAD. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

> The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Math is based on logic. Negative and positive values are based on > logic. Complaining about a rulebook you haven't read is not based > on logic. > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > Yes, we don't have whining classes over here. I love you guys. Regards, Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > The rules doesn't tell how to handle negative numbers, if an ally with > > 0 bleed can do a bleed action for example (I thought it couldn't but > > according to your anology it should be able to). > > We obviously know that allies can bleed (those that have a bleed of one > or greater). I don't think that there is anywhere in the rules that > says that a minion with a bleed of zero can't take a bleeding action > (such a vampire who has had monomacy placed on him or a gangrel with an > atavism). It also does not specifically say that allies with a bleed of > zero cannot take a bleeding action (however moronic taking such an > action is under the current card set). So how do the rules say > otherwise? The problem is the rules say nothing at all. Which leads you to believe you can do it, but you don't really know unless you've read the forums here or asked LSJ (which I believe more than 95% of all VTES players never have). > > Obviously the wording > > has caused confusion else this thread wouldn't have started, and it's > > not about knowing maths or not. It's about whether the rules are clear > > on how to deal with this or not and why things are phrased as they > are. > > The whole '-1 intercept' issue inclines it should be handled > > differently than the '+1 stealth issue' because why did they else word > > it differently? Where's the consistancy? But alas, I should have known > > that when it comes to logic, americans aren't on the edge? > > I think legbiter above had a pretty good idea why it was printed as > intercept; it is less wordy. Also it has already been modeled since > Jyhad was printed on Miranda Sanova, who has a similar ability against > Brujah. How is that for logic? Miranda wasn't logic IMO. Legbiter epxlians it pretty well but I still don't thin the reasons given justified it. Because when you play with Lucita as a player you *do* think in terms such as "okey now I'm going to bleed my predator, which vampires can block her? Ah there's one that is cap 9, well I do a Seduction on that one and s/he'll need to have intercept on the other vamps to block me". How's this different from Lucita having +1 stealth against younger vamps? It isn't, the effect is *still* that +1 intercept is needed to block it. How you choose to phrase it is just technical details that will bring out the same result. But thing is that here is what I think consistancy is important. If in doubt, then you can always compare to how other vamps are and make an anology. In this case you could compare to Lucretia to see how to solve the issue. Legbiter's explanation just doesn't make sense. If it was true, then why does some abilities say "+1 bleed against Lasombras"? In this case the vamps' ability is changing depending on the target, somehting legbiter says they want to avoid? Text should have said "Lasombras bled by X lose one extra pool" instead. Since in the bleed-case the modifiers are changing on the acting vamp's part (and that has worked perfectly fine) I don't see why +1 stealth isn't possible ina similar manner on Lucita and Miranda instead of coming up with -1 intercept. What's next, a text saying "vamps younger than X has to play one extra intercept in order to block"? The effect would be the same here, but yet another way to phrase something that basically means "+1 stealth for acting minion against younger vamps". The difference is that the many different wordings causes confusion and makes people suspect that there must be a difference in effect as well, because why are they else phrased differently? I think we all know that Jyhad has become more and more about "reading the fine print" on what the cards actually say, and I think partially that's because there's no real consistency in how the cards are worded. > > > You can relate this to the whole hand damage and strength issue as > > well, which many people think are/were confusing. At least before > > strength was introduced, becauuse the same term (hand damage) was used > > both on equipment and plain hand damage which wasn't logic (and thus > > changed). > > A more accurate analogy would be hand damage versus damage prevention. > > Does that mean that before the change of terminology the > > people that didn't understand that weapons could give +1 hand damage > > were uneducated or something? > > I think reading is an important part of education. I think math is too. > Who are these people that cannot read +1 hand damage or cannot add one. > I think that surely they could be confused as a newbie, as most newbies > are. I think that only those players who have never seen a weapon are > the ones who don't think they exist. It is part of the basic education > in equipment cards. In the original rules you could play Wolf Claws when striking with a bastard sword since a BS gave "+1 hand damage", now I think that everyone who has some imagination realises that IRL there's somehting wrong with this. Either you strike with your claws OR the sword, not both. But the rules nonetheless permitted it. Same thing with Shadow of the Wolf, where you turn into a wolf but you cans till wear a Flak Jacket or a Leather Jacket and use it? Do I need to show more examples where being educated doesn't help when playing Jyhad to prove my point? Jyhad doesn't reflect reality so trying to use reality as a way to understand how the game works will result in a half-truth at the very best. > > I mean clearly the equipment was meant > to > > increase the damage and since a damage from a Bastard Sword was > > different than damage done by a Chainsaw, there shouldn't have been > any > > confusion u'd thin. > > Hence, why one says weapon and the other melee weapon. Also, why undead > strength has Strike +1 hand or melee weapon damage. Yes but how logic is that then? You were talking about being educated here, I assume you think you are. Don't you know that a sword IS a melee weapon IRL? > > But there still was. Instead of just accepting > > things as a fact maybe u should start to think of how you could > IMPROVE > > things to the better to make it better for us all, instead of bashing > > people that question the status quo and think with a critical. > > So I guess that you complaining that a card needs a rewrite within 3 > months of it being published had nothing to do with it. Only thing I hope for is that they think more about this issue in the future. > > That's > > what we learn in Sweden at least, and it's well-known that's something > > you don't in American schools. > > Yes, we don't have whining classes over here. No because you don't even attend your classes (often preferring to smoke weed and stuff instead). [ quoted text not captured ]

> -paraphrased- > > Cantilla: Why -1 intercept instead of +1 stealth? > > Others: Because the text is on Lucita, and the effect > on Lucita should be constant. The effect on Lucita > should not change based on who tries to block. The > effect is done to the blocking vampire. The effect > is not done to Lucita. It makes more sense to me now, but read my post to X_Zealot as to why it's a bad argument. Just look at Stravisky's ability: "Sabbat Archbishop of Mexico City: Stravinsky gets an additional +1 bleed against any Methuselah who controls a younger ready Tzimisce." His bleed changes based on the vamps the Meth he's bleeding has. Instead of +1 bleed it could just as well have said +1 stealth (and removing the word 'additional'). It doesn't say that Meth's bled by Stravinsky and controlling a younger ready Tzimisce are bled for one extra, which is what it should have been phrased by using your explanation. [ quoted text not captured ]

cantila wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > The intercept or stealth a *given minion* has is constant for the > > action (barring modifiers). > > > > The blocker either has 0 intercept or -1 intercept. Whichever > > he has, it is constant. > > Lucita has 0 stealth. Constant. > > Yes it's all cnstant and would still be if Lucita had +1 stealth > against younger Sabbat vampires, that's my point. There's no case where No - that means that Lucita's stealth would not be constant, which is the point. Lucita announces her bleed action (0 stealth). Younger Sabbat vampire attempts to block (Lucita's stealth changes to +1). Younger Sabbat vampire fails to block (Lucita's stealth drops back to 0). > it matters if Lucita has +1 against younger Sabbat vamps or if she > makes them have -1 intercept instead. But the ngative thing with > phrasing it -1 intercept instead of +1 stealth is that it causes > confusion since this term is normally not used compared to the the +1 > stealth terminology. -1 intercept shouldn't cause any more trouble with understanding than +1 stealth does - the players should be expected to be able to subtract as well as they can add. Having the stealth vary depending on who is currently attempting to block, conversely, *would* cause confusion. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8tkeak$u19$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > > > -paraphrased- > > > > Cantilla: Why -1 intercept instead of +1 stealth? > > > > Others: Because the text is on Lucita, and the effect > > on Lucita should be constant. The effect on Lucita > > should not change based on who tries to block. The > > effect is done to the blocking vampire. The effect > > is not done to Lucita. > > It makes more sense to me now, but read my post to X_Zealot as to why > it's a bad argument. Just look at Stravisky's ability: > > "Sabbat Archbishop of Mexico City: Stravinsky gets an additional +1 > bleed against any Methuselah who controls a younger ready Tzimisce." Stravinsky's ability is not comparable. Bleeding is not comparable with stealth in this instance, they are different mechanics, but, you are almost right when you state that it could have been written more clearly on vampires that get conditional plus bleed. Miranda Sanova's ability is comparable. It is almost identical. Miranda: "(Any Brujah) gets -1 intercept when attempting to block Miranda." Lucita: "(Sabbat vampires younger than Lucita) get -1 intercept when attempting to block Lucita." On both vampires, target blockers get -1 intercept. If the targets have sport bikes, they are effectively nullified. If they don't have permanent intercept, they will have to play cards to block. None of your arguments addressed the rules. Here they are again for your reference: "Intercept represents the blocking minion's efforts to discover the plans of the acting minion and to stalk or chase him in order to detain him (by fighting with him) before he can accomplish his goal. To see if a block attempt succeeds, compare the acting minion's stealth to the blocking minion's intercept. The action is blocked if the blocker's intercept is equal to or greater than the acting minion's stealth." http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook.html Section 6.2.2.2 Notice the important part, COMPARE the acting minion's stealth to the blocking minion's intercept. DO the math. Are they equal? Is the intercept greater than the stealth? If not, then no block happens. If so, the vampire has a chance to increase stealth. They intent was not to give Lucita stealth, it was to reflect the inability of younger Sabbat vampires to work up the courage, wit, skill, and intelligence necessary to catch her. Camarilla vampires don't have this problem, as they don't know her reputation the way the younger Sabbat vampires will. Sabbat vampires the same age and older will not have this problem either. Therefore, stealth is inappropriate. Negative intercept is appropriate. Nothing new is being introduced with Lucita. > Stravinksy's bleed changes based on the vamps the > Meth he's bleeding has. And it goes the same for: Vasantasena, Sigrid Bekker, Rebekka - Chantry Elder of Munich, Ranjan Rishi - Camarilla Scholar, Queen Anne, Luther, Kemintiri, Katarina, Elisabetta Romano, and Cornelius Ottavio. Both Stravinsky and Lucita are following patterns and text wordings that have been around since Jyhad and Dark Sovereigns. Where is the inconsistency? Conditional +1 bleed is worded a certain way, and it is repeated that way on all the vampires with it. Conditional -1 intercept is worded a certain way, and is repeated that way on all the vampires with it. Patterns are followed to increase understanding. Unfortunately, you aren't looking for the patterns, you are looking across the patterns. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://lasombra.tripod.com http://legbiter.tripod.com [ quoted text not captured ]

cantila wrote: > > It also does not specifically say that allies with a bleed of > > zero cannot take a bleeding action (however moronic taking such an > > action is under the current card set). So how do the rules say > > otherwise? > > The problem is the rules say nothing at all. Which leads you to believe > you can do it, but you don't really know unless you've read the forums > here or asked LSJ (which I believe more than 95% of all VTES players > never have). The rules address bleeding with minions whose bleed is zero: 6.1.1. Bleed To bleed a Methuselah, announce the action and tap the acting minion (the minion who is taking the bleed action). If the action is successful, the target Methuselah burns an amount of pool equal to the bleed amount. By default, all vampires have a bleed amount of one, while allies have a bleed amount of zero. > Legbiter's explanation just doesn't make sense. If it was true, then > why does some abilities say "+1 bleed against Lasombras"? In this case > the vamps' ability is changing depending on the target, somehting > legbiter says they want to avoid? Text should have said "Lasombras bled > by X lose one extra pool" instead. Since in the bleed-case the Lasombras don't have pool. Methuselahs have pool. Yes, the bleed amount might change by being bounced to a Methuselah who doesn't control a ready Lasombra. But this doesn't cause the confusion that a variable stealth depending on current block attempts would. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > The problem is the rules say nothing at all. Which leads you to believe > you can do it, but you don't really know unless you've read the forums > here or asked LSJ (which I believe more than 95% of all VTES players > never have). You above statement contradicts your earlier post "the rules doesn't tell how to handle negative numbers, if an ally with 0 bleed can do a bleed action for example (I thought it couldn't but according to your anology it should be able )" Notice how you say in the quoted text that you said that you thought you couldn't, but now you say that the rules lead you to believe you can. You are contradicting yourself. This arguement fails. > > > > Obviously the wording > > > has caused confusion else this thread wouldn't have started, and > it's > > > not about knowing maths or not. It's about whether the rules are > clear > > > on how to deal with this or not and why things are phrased as they > > are. > > > The whole '-1 intercept' issue inclines it should be handled > > > differently than the '+1 stealth issue' because why did they else > word > > > it differently? Where's the consistancy? But alas, I should have > known > > > that when it comes to logic, americans aren't on the edge? > > > > I think legbiter above had a pretty good idea why it was printed as > > intercept; it is less wordy. Also it has already been modeled since > > Jyhad was printed on Miranda Sanova, who has a similar ability against > > Brujah. How is that for logic? > > Miranda wasn't logic IMO. Shows how much your opinion is worth. Legbiter epxlians it pretty well but I still > don't thin the reasons given justified it. Because when you play with > Lucita as a player you *do* think in terms such as "okey now I'm going > to bleed my predator, which vampires can block her? Ah there's one that > is cap 9, well I do a Seduction on that one and s/he'll need to have > intercept on the other vamps to block me". How's this different from > Lucita having +1 stealth against younger vamps? What is your point? Are you arguing that you don't understand what Lucita's text is? Are you arguing that if you had designed the card that you would have done a better job than LSJ? You are talking in circles. But, to answer your last question, in play there is no difference except who is affected. The presence of Lucita performing an action affects the younger vampire, not the other way around. Lucita makes the younger vampire less able to block her. Lucita does not make herself any stealthier. It isn't, the effect is > *still* that +1 intercept is needed to block it. How you choose to > phrase it is just technical details that will bring out the same > result. But thing is that here is what I think consistancy is > important. If in doubt, then you can always compare to how other vamps > are and make an anology. In this case you could compare to Lucretia to > see how to solve the issue. What is inconsistant about stealth and intercept? Again I will show consistancy by comparing Lucita to Miranda Sanova. > Legbiter's explanation just doesn't make sense. If it was true, then > why does some abilities say "+1 bleed against Lasombras"? They don't. It says +1 bleed against a Methuselah who controls a Lasombra. You can only bleed Methuselahs. You cannot bleed not minions. In this case > the vamps' ability is changing depending on the target, somehting > legbiter says they want to avoid? Text should have said "Lasombras bled > by X lose one extra pool" instead. Once again you cannot bleed Lasombras because Lasombras are minions. Since in the bleed-case the > modifiers are changing on the acting vamp's part (and that has worked > perfectly fine) I don't see why +1 stealth isn't possible ina similar > manner on Lucita and Miranda instead of coming up with -1 intercept. You could do it that way, but the current method is more accurate. > What's next, a text saying "vamps younger than X has to play one extra > intercept in order to block"? Sure, why not? If X = Lucita then we already have a card that does that. But it is worded much better than that. The effect would be the same here, but > yet another way to phrase something that basically means "+1 stealth > for acting minion against younger vamps". The difference is that the > many different wordings causes confusion and makes people suspect that > there must be a difference in effect as well, because why are they else > phrased differently? There are many ways to say the same thing. I agree, but I think that the text on Lucita is the best way to say it. I think we all know that Jyhad has become more and > more about "reading the fine print" on what the cards actually say, and > I think partially that's because there's no real consistency in how the > cards are worded. Actually, it is more about reading in general. If you can't read, or are too lazy to read the card all the way then perhaps you shouldn't play with Lucita or any card with more than a few words printed on it. > > > > I think reading is an important part of education. I think math is > too. > > Who are these people that cannot read +1 hand damage or cannot add > one. > > I think that surely they could be confused as a newbie, as most > newbies > > are. I think that only those players who have never seen a weapon are > > the ones who don't think they exist. It is part of the basic > education > > in equipment cards. > > In the original rules you could play Wolf Claws when striking with a > bastard sword since a BS gave "+1 hand damage", now I think that > everyone who has some imagination realises that IRL there's somehting > wrong with this. Either you strike with your claws OR the sword, not > both. But the rules nonetheless permitted it. Same thing with Shadow of > the Wolf, where you turn into a wolf but you cans till wear a Flak > Jacket or a Leather Jacket and use it? Do I need to show more examples > where being educated doesn't help when playing Jyhad to prove my point? > Jyhad doesn't reflect reality so trying to use reality as a way to > understand how the game works will result in a half-truth at the very > best. so what is your point? Exactly what did I say that you are arguing against? I believe you are trying to put words in my mouth that I never said. Perhaps you should focus more on reading before writing a response. > > > > I mean clearly the equipment was meant > > to > > > increase the damage and since a damage from a Bastard Sword was > > > different than damage done by a Chainsaw, there shouldn't have been > > any > > > confusion u'd thin. > > > > Hence, why one says weapon and the other melee weapon. Also, why > undead > > strength has Strike +1 hand or melee weapon damage. > > Yes but how logic is that then? You were talking about being educated > here, I assume you think you are. Don't you know that a sword IS a > melee weapon IRL? Yes, but a chainsaw is not. > > > > But there still was. Instead of just accepting > > > things as a fact maybe u should start to think of how you could > > IMPROVE > > > things to the better to make it better for us all, instead of > bashing > > > people that question the status quo and think with a critical. > > > > So I guess that you complaining that a card needs a rewrite within 3 > > months of it being published had nothing to do with it. > > Only thing I hope for is that they think more about this issue in the > future. It is important that cards are worded correctly, but you are mistaken if you think that Lucita or Miranda Sanova are incorrectly worded. > > > > That's > > > what we learn in Sweden at least, and it's well-known that's > something > > > you don't in American schools. > > > > Yes, we don't have whining classes over here. > > No because you don't even attend your classes (often preferring to > smoke weed and stuff instead). How do you know anything about me beyond what I type on the net? Certainly you do not know how old I am or if I am even in school. So, your unfounded accusations of drug use only serve to make you look immature and foolish. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:23:34 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: >Legbiter epxlians it pretty well but I still >> don't thin the reasons given justified it. Because when you play with >> Lucita as a player you *do* think in terms such as "okey now I'm going >> to bleed my predator, which vampires can block her? Ah there's one >that >> is cap 9, well I do a Seduction on that one and s/he'll need to have >> intercept on the other vamps to block me". How's this different from >> Lucita having +1 stealth against younger vamps? > >What is your point? Are you arguing that you don't understand what >Lucita's text is? Are you arguing that if you had designed the card >that you would have done a better job than LSJ? You are talking in >circles. But, to answer your last question, in play there is no >difference except who is affected. The presence of Lucita performing an >action affects the younger vampire, not the other way around. Lucita >makes the younger vampire less able to block her. Lucita does not make >herself any stealthier. Idle side note: Veiled Sight is useless against Lucita, as her stealth is inherently 0 already. However, the Ravnos are not younger Sabbat, so they don't need to worry about it. :) >It isn't, the effect >is >> *still* that +1 intercept is needed to block it. How you choose to >> phrase it is just technical details that will bring out the same >> result. But thing is that here is what I think consistancy is >> important. If in doubt, then you can always compare to how other vamps >> are and make an anology. In this case you could compare to Lucretia to >> see how to solve the issue. Lucretia and Jost Werner get an unconditional +1 stealth on all their actions. The blocking minions are irrelevant, therefore they are not referenced in the card text. Lucita's benefit is conditional, and the condition involved relates directly to which minion is attempting to block her - therefore the condition is phrased accordingly. Using "-1 intercept" directs one's attention to the blocking minion who is affected by the condition and has the opportunity to change the condition. Using any variant of "+1 stealth against younger minions" does not cover a bleed, vote, or hunt action, which are not directed against any minions; causing significantly more confusion than the "-1 intercept when attempting to block" wording... as evinced by your repeated insistence on your position. A "+1 bleed against a Methuselah who controls a Lasombra" is conditional upon the Methuselah being bled, not which of that Methuselah's minions is involved in the action, and is referenced accordingly. If the Methuselah being bled changes, then the condition changes. Card text -does- exist to give minions -1 bleed as well (Monomancy comes to mind), so there is plenty of precedent there. It really IS that simple. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

In article <8tklbq$4n2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <X_Ze...@email.msn.com> wrote: [responding to Cantila, indicated with >>] >The effect would be the same here, but >> yet another way to phrase something that basically means "+1 stealth >> for acting minion against younger vamps". The difference is that the >> many different wordings causes confusion and makes people suspect that >> there must be a difference in effect as well, because why are they >else >> phrased differently? Exactly. Therefore, to keep variant wordings at a minimum, Lucita is worded consistently with Miranda. No variant wordings, no confusion. >> In the original rules you could play Wolf Claws when striking with a >> bastard sword since a BS gave "+1 hand damage", No you bloody well could not. This was never legal. The strength wording has been adopted to clear up the difference between a hand strike and a weapon strike whose damage depends on hand damage (among other things), but the distinction is not, and has never been, new. Proof by repeated assertion may be a valid argumentation technique in Sweden, but it won't play in the newsgroup. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote in message <8tklbq$4n2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... [other crap cut for humanity's sake] >> Yes but how logic is that then? You were talking about being educated >> here, I assume you think you are. Don't you know that a sword IS a >> melee weapon IRL? > >Yes, but a chainsaw is not. But a "Gas-Powered" Chainsaw IS. The original Chainsaw is not gas-powered, therefore the damage it causes must be psychological damage, because a non-gas-powered chainsaw won't cut butter on the beach. How does this thing work? If it did real, PHYSICAL damage, it could be modified by "Mighty Grapple" (check out my Army of Darkness Deck on the Austin website) or even a "Lucky Blow". Actually, now that I think about it, a "Lucky Blow" could cause psychological damage to a bystander not involved in the act... [cut to more interesting stuff] >> No because you don't even attend your classes (often preferring to >> smoke weed and stuff instead). > >How do you know anything about me beyond what I type on the net? >Certainly you do not know how old I am or if I am even in school. So, >your unfounded accusations of drug use only serve to make you look >immature and foolish. Norm, I can see Cantila's logic in this one: 1. If you are not in school, there is a pretty good chance you are not attending classes (just let me venture out on that one). 2. If you are in school, you are probably not attending YOUR classes. We all know in America, you attend the PRETTY BLONDE SWEDISH GIRL's classes and do all her homework for her (which frees up time for her to play cards like "Lucky Blow"... As for the "smoke weed and stuff", I prefer the stuff. Mike Ooi Insane Prince of Houston, TX Home of the functionally-named Houston Texans NFL Team sh...@texas.net

X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote in message <8tkauf$qlg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... [prune to the point] >We obviously know that allies can bleed (those that have a bleed of one >or greater). Hell yeah allies can bleed! Lots of them English Nancies bled when we took Normandy from the Japs! YEEHAW!!! Actually, any minion can take the action to bleed unless under some sort of game effect (Minor Boon, for example). Minions with zero or negative bleeds can bleed for zero (which would be unsuccessful). Minions with zero or negative bleeds can still get laptops and use Computer Hacking and if the numbers add up, they can bleed successfully. Part of the American Dream, to rise up from nothing (a zero bleeder) and to make something of yourself (a one or even TWO bleeder), usually by suing someone who ran over your lawn flamingo (that's a garden gnome for you dirty LegBiters) for enough money to retire. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <RNsL5.46275$d57.4...@news4.aus1.giganews.com>, "Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> wrote: > > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote in message <8tkauf$qlg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... > > [prune to the point] > > >We obviously know that allies can bleed (those that have a bleed of one > >or greater). > > Hell yeah allies can bleed! Lots of them English Nancies bled when we took > Normandy from the Japs! YEEHAW!!! Hehehe ... have you ever seen The Longest Day, brother? GREAT film, and one of the many terrific tragicomic moments in it is when a GI machine- guns a load of shrieking germans who take him by surprise, then turns to his buddy and says "i wonder what "Kamerad" means" > > Actually, any minion can take the action to bleed unless under some sort of > game effect (Minor Boon, for example). Minions with zero or negative bleeds > can bleed for zero (which would be unsuccessful). Minions with zero or > negative bleeds can still get laptops and use Computer Hacking and if the > numbers add up, they can bleed successfully. Part of the American Dream, to > rise up from nothing (a zero bleeder) and to make something of yourself (a > one or even TWO bleeder), usually by suing someone who ran over your lawn > flamingo (that's a garden gnome for you dirty LegBiters) for enough money to > retire. We had a garden Gnome when we moved to Legbiter mansions. The day we moved in, Michael and i took it to a secluded part of the garden and ceremoniously hacked it to death with the Bo-Ken i used to use for Tai Chi. > > Mike Ooi > Insane Prince of Houston, TX > Home of the functionally-named Houston Texans NFL Team > sh...@texas.net > > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, cantila wrote: > His bleed changes based on the vamps the Meth he's bleeding has. > Instead of +1 bleed it could just as well have said +1 stealth (and > removing the word 'additional'). There is no other sensible way to word Stravinsky. There is with Lucita - the way it was done. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Mike Ooi wrote: > >Yes, but a chainsaw is not <a melee weapon>. > > But a "Gas-Powered" Chainsaw IS. The original Chainsaw is not gas-powered, > therefore the damage it causes must be psychological damage, because a > non-gas-powered chainsaw won't cut butter on the beach. How does this thing > work? Magic. It was supposed to be errata-ed to require Thaumaturgy. (Note: this is sarcasm.) [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> > > Proof by repeated assertion may be a valid argumentation technique > in Sweden, but it won't play in the newsgroup. > > gomi > -- I don't think Linneaus or Swedenborg would have fallen for that kind of argument, nor Kierkegaard [maybe he was Danish, come to think of it]. But poor old cantila's problem is that they are "training" him to be a LAWYER. Lawyers may start off as fine honest upstanding jyhad-playing, aquavit-drinking fellow[ette]s with clear blue eyes and blonde hair, but sadly and inevitably they all descend into the Mire of dishonest argument, special pleading and general ad hoc bollocks. This is why everyone hates lawyers. Except, of course, in America, where i understand that lawyers have to adopt cunning disguises when they go out so's not to be mobbed by their many shrieking fans. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] And it's astonishing how many of those shrieking fans are carrying small-caliber handguns, too. I had no idea that lawyer-groupieism was matched up so closely with membership in the NRA! [ quoted text not captured ]

> > No because you don't even attend your classes (often preferring to > > smoke weed and stuff instead). > > How do you know anything about me beyond what I type on the net? > Certainly you do not know how old I am or if I am even in school. So, > your unfounded accusations of drug use only serve to make you look > immature and foolish. > The term "you" referred to Americans in general and not you as a person, thought that was pretty clear since we were speaking of peoples, but I guess not. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Legbiter epxlians it pretty well but I still > >> don't thin the reasons given justified it. Because when you play with > >> Lucita as a player you *do* think in terms such as "okey now I'm going > >> to bleed my predator, which vampires can block her? Ah there's one > >that > >> is cap 9, well I do a Seduction on that one and s/he'll need to have > >> intercept on the other vamps to block me". How's this different from > >> Lucita having +1 stealth against younger vamps? > > > >What is your point? Are you arguing that you don't understand what > >Lucita's text is? Are you arguing that if you had designed the card > >that you would have done a better job than LSJ? You are talking in > >circles. But, to answer your last question, in play there is no > >difference except who is affected. The presence of Lucita performing an > >action affects the younger vampire, not the other way around. Lucita > >makes the younger vampire less able to block her. Lucita does not make > >herself any stealthier. But this really doesn't matter when it comes to the card, you should use what's best for people to understand not to try reflect reality as much as possible (since it obviously doesn't work in the long run anyway). > > Idle side note: Veiled Sight is useless against Lucita, as her > stealth is inherently 0 already. However, the Ravnos are not younger > Sabbat, so they don't need to worry about it. :) Here you actually got something that makes a difference, I give you credit for that. [ quoted text not captured ] Conditions changes depending of target as you just said above, and that's also why I don't agree on that Lucita should give -1 intercept instead of having +1 stealth. And to say that Lucita's stealth this way is constant and instead it's the blocker's intercept that is the variable here sin't really true either since Ignis Fatuus for example can change her stealth for someone else (compare with the Jimmy Dunn argument someone gave). [ quoted text not captured ]

cantila wrote: > > Conditions changes depending of target as you just said above, and > that's also why I don't agree on that Lucita should give -1 intercept > instead of having +1 stealth. And to say that Lucita's stealth this way > is constant and instead it's the blocker's intercept that is the > variable here sin't really true either since Ignis Fatuus for example > can change her stealth for someone else (compare with the Jimmy Dunn > argument someone gave). No, Ignis Fatuus changes the acting minions stealth. Period. It doesn't matter who is trying to block. Ignis Fatuus 1 blood -- Chimerstry -- Reaction The acting minion gets -1 stealth for the remainder of the turn. (S) Reduce a bleed against any Methuselah by 1. See? It changes the stealth value of the acting minion. The way Lucita is worded now, the acting minion (Lucita) has a set stealth value (initially 0) and each other minion has a set intercept value (0 or -1 depending on that particular minion). I would argue that this is much less confusing than having Lucita's stealth value change every time someone new attempted to block. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "She does raindances and she knows the score / All the back alley banjo boys lie down and die on the floor." -- Shivaree

On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:40:31 -0600, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: >No, Ignis Fatuus changes the acting minions stealth. Period. It >doesn't matter who is trying to block. > >Ignis Fatuus > 1 blood -- Chimerstry -- Reaction > The acting minion gets -1 stealth for the remainder of the turn. > (S) Reduce a bleed against any Methuselah by 1. > >See? It changes the stealth value of the acting minion. > >The way Lucita is worded now, the acting minion (Lucita) has a set >stealth value (initially 0) and each other minion has a set intercept >value (0 or -1 depending on that particular minion). I would argue that >this is much less confusing than having Lucita's stealth value change >every time someone new attempted to block. Not to mention that he didn't address the most important part: A wording of "+1 stealth against younger minions", in any form, does not properly address bleed, hunt, and vote actions. Cards like Restoration, etc. come to mind as well - basically, any UNDIRECTED ACTION cannot be properly handled by a conditional +1 stealth, and will result in significant confusion regarding Lucita's actual stealth at any given point... especially if people start chucking Blanket of Night and Elder Impersonation around. The proper wording is PLAINLY "younger minions attempting to block get -1 intercept", which allows for no confusion whatsoever unless you can't do integer math. The sum total of people playing this game who cannot recognize that "-1 is less than 0" can be counted on the fingers of one foot. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <iabvvsggec3pa02g1...@4ax.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I disagree. Sure you'd have to calculate the stealth depending on the minion blocking, but it's the SAME as it's worded now. But instead you ahve to figure out the intercept for the minion attempting to block. The *process* is still there though, whether it's stealth or intercept doesn't really matter. You will still have to recalculate depending on who blocks. And I don't think it's more confusing just because it's stealth and not intercept really, why should it be? > > The proper wording is PLAINLY "younger minions attempting to block get > -1 intercept", which allows for no confusion whatsoever unless you > can't do integer math. The sum total of people playing this game who > cannot recognize that "-1 is less than 0" can be counted on the > fingers of one foot. > > -- Derek [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, cantila wrote: > I disagree. Sure you'd have to calculate the stealth depending on the > minion blocking, but it's the SAME as it's worded now. But instead you > ahve to figure out the intercept for the minion attempting to block. Intercept is calculated independently for all minions blocking anyway. Stealth is assumed to remain constant. That's How The Game Works. (tm) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:47:12 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >In article <iabvvsggec3pa02g1...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Not to mention that he didn't address the most important part: A >> wording of "+1 stealth against younger minions", in any form, does not >> properly address bleed, hunt, and vote actions. Cards like >> Restoration, etc. come to mind as well - basically, any UNDIRECTED >> ACTION cannot be properly handled by a conditional +1 stealth, and >> will result in significant confusion regarding Lucita's actual stealth >> at any given point... especially if people start chucking Blanket of >> Night and Elder Impersonation around. > >I disagree. Sure you'd have to calculate the stealth depending on the >minion blocking, but it's the SAME as it's worded now. But instead you Which is why you phrase the conditional effect in terms of the minion blocking as opposed to the acting minion. >ahve to figure out the intercept for the minion attempting to block. Which is why you phrase the conditional effect in terms of the minion blocking as opposed to the acting minion. >The *process* is still there though, whether it's stealth or intercept >doesn't really matter. You will still have to recalculate depending on >who blocks. And I don't think it's more confusing just because it's Which is why you phrase the conditional effect in terms of the minion blocking as opposed to the acting minion. >stealth and not intercept really, why should it be? Well, you just explained why three times. The two wordings are NOT the same. I will assume that English is not your first language since you are from Sweden, and as a native speaker I will tell you that only the amounts (+1, -1) are the same - the *connotations* are significantly different. The -1 wording handles ALL the attempts, without any clarification encessary. The +1 stealth wording requires exceptions and "what-ifs". The fact that you are still attempting to argue that "more complicated is better" makes me shake my head and wonder. See below, AGAIN. >> The proper wording is PLAINLY "younger minions attempting to block get >> -1 intercept", which allows for no confusion whatsoever unless you >> can't do integer math. The sum total of people playing this game who >> cannot recognize that "-1 is less than 0" can be counted on the >> fingers of one foot. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

> > I disagree. Sure you'd have to calculate the stealth depending on the > > minion blocking, but it's the SAME as it's worded now. But instead you > > ahve to figure out the intercept for the minion attempting to block. > > Intercept is calculated independently for all minions blocking anyway. > > Stealth is assumed to remain constant. But it isn't since you can play stealth cards and others can play Ignis Fatuus and Veiled Sight. If you mean constant between minions blocking then it's true, but it really doesn't make the game less complicated since you still have to make a new calculation whenever a blocker changes (because that new blocking minion may not have the same intercept as the previous blocker) and then you could easily check for the stealth again as well. > That's How The Game Works. (tm) I never said it didn't, it doesn't mean I think it's the best way though. It's not really that big deal to me though. I just sympathise with people who are confused by the wording (and that has nothing to do with inability of doing the proper maths). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8tpc8k$14$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > > > > I disagree. Sure you'd have to calculate the stealth depending on > the > > > minion blocking, but it's the SAME as it's worded now. But instead > you > > > ahve to figure out the intercept for the minion attempting to block. > > > > Intercept is calculated independently for all minions blocking anyway. > > > > Stealth is assumed to remain constant. > > But it isn't since you can play stealth cards and others can play Ignis > Fatuus and Veiled Sight. If you mean constant between minions blocking > then it's true, but it really doesn't make the game less complicated > since you still have to make a new calculation whenever a blocker > changes (because that new blocking minion may not have the same > intercept as the previous blocker) and then you could easily check for > the stealth again as well. Actually, I believe what he means is that stealth is a constant when determining the proper amount of intercept nesasary to block the action. Also, you may not add more stealth than is nessasary. So from the beginning you know where you stand if you have to add interecept or not to block. This does not prevent the acting minion from adding more stealth. which would then give you a new constant. > > That's How The Game Works. (tm) Correctamundo, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, cantila wrote: > But it isn't since you can play stealth cards and others can play Ignis > Fatuus and Veiled Sight. But if I then immediately swap to another blocker, the stealth that vampire has doesn't change. That is what I mean by the use of the term "constant" in this situation, as I have already explained. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0011011821180.6743- 100...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, cantila wrote: > > But it isn't since you can play stealth cards and others can play Ignis > > Fatuus and Veiled Sight. > > But if I then immediately swap to another blocker, the stealth that > vampire has doesn't change. > > That is what I mean by the use of the term "constant" in this situation, > as I have already explained. > Yes but you'd have to reclalc the intercept again, so if you do you could as well do it for the stealth too. It really isn't that hard to add/substract just another stealth. As you've pointed out, everybody should know such basic maths. It's just the terminology that makes it confusing. Or made it mayeb I should say. In the rule book online it's pretty clear but it wasn't always so. To me it's not confusing anymore but it was when we played Jyhad many years ago. I don't have the printed rulebook where I live right now, but I don't think the VTES rulebook is as clear either. With SW it should be better though (if the printed rulebook is exactly the same as the online one). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, cantila wrote: > Yes but you'd have to reclalc the intercept again, You calculate intercept independently for all vampires already. Lucita is nothing new. You do not, however, calculate stealth differently when swapping blocker. adding that to Lucita would be adding a hitherto unused and unnecessary game mechanic. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8tnsm6$rmv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] That doesn't actually make it any better, you know. Not that I expect you to realize that, coming as you do from a nation of drunken, violent Socialists[*]. gomi [*] I don't actually believe the statement above, and it is included for illustrative purposes only. cantila probably isn't really a Socialist. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0011012324180.25595- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, cantila wrote: > > Yes but you'd have to reclalc the intercept again, > > You calculate intercept independently for all vampires already. Lucita is > nothing new. > > You do not, however, calculate stealth differently when swapping > blocker. adding that to Lucita would be adding a hitherto unused and > unnecessary game mechanic. Well -1 intercept is in itself a new game mechanic. I don't recall any card whatsoever giving a minion -1 intercept, correct me if I'm wrong. Action modifiers adds stealth, they don't give -1 intercept to all blocking minions (which they very well could have done and would have simplified it even more then). [ quoted text not captured ]

"cantila" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:8tqdbs$ump$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > Well -1 intercept is in itself a new game mechanic. I don't recall any > card whatsoever giving a minion -1 intercept, correct me if I'm wrong. It's been mentioned before. Tura Vaughn. Xian -- I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. --_Shellshock_, New Order www.waste.org/~xian

In article <W13M5.1510$Hi.2...@news.uswest.net>, > "cantila" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message > news:8tqdbs$ump$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > > Well -1 intercept is in itself a new game mechanic. I don't recall > > any card whatsoever giving a minion -1 intercept, correct me if I'm > > wrong. Don't we always? Here it was the first time: http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=687649056 Here it is again. Lucita brings NOTHING new to the game. She has almost identical text to Miranda Sanova. "Miranda Sanova's ability is comparable. It is almost identical. Miranda: "(Any Brujah) gets -1 intercept when attempting to block Miranda." Lucita: "(Sabbat vampires younger than Lucita) get -1 intercept when attempting to block Lucita." On both vampires, target blockers get -1 intercept." Xian mis-stated: It's been mentioned before. Tura Vaughn. Tura Vaughn gets +1 intercept vs Brujah. Miranda is the one I mentioned, and will mention again. Miranda Sanova. http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/monger/showvamp.html?ID=144 Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://lasombra.tripod.com http://legbiter.tripod.com [ quoted text not captured ]

"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote: > "cantila" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message > > Well -1 intercept is in itself a new game mechanic. I don't > > recall any > > card whatsoever giving a minion -1 intercept, correct me if I'm > > wrong. > > It's been mentioned before. Tura Vaughn. Not Tura. Tura gets +1 intercept. But see instead: Christine Boscacci Hugo Leon Miranda Sanova Richard Tauber -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8tqhlk$2h4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I knwo this since I've mentioned her before, but I'm speaking of minion cards when saying "card". [ quoted text not captured ]

cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > "cantila" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message > > > Well -1 intercept is in itself a new game mechanic. I don't > > > recall any card whatsoever giving a minion -1 intercept, > > > correct me if I'm wrong. > > Miranda Sanova. > > http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/monger/showvamp.html?ID=144 > > I knwo this since I've mentioned her before, but I'm speaking of > minion cards when saying "card". "any card whatsoever" implies otherwise, but if we do in fact restrict ourselves to minion cards, then the whole topic of conversation goes away: Lucita is a crypt card, like Miranda. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:43:41 GMT, cantila <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0011012324180.25595- >100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, > James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, cantila wrote: >> > Yes but you'd have to reclalc the intercept again, >> >> You calculate intercept independently for all vampires already. >Lucita is >> nothing new. >> >> You do not, however, calculate stealth differently when swapping >> blocker. adding that to Lucita would be adding a hitherto unused and >> unnecessary game mechanic. > >Well -1 intercept is in itself a new game mechanic. I don't recall any >card whatsoever giving a minion -1 intercept, correct me if I'm wrong. You mean besides Miranda Samova, who Brujah get -1 intercept against, and Leon, who Gangrel Antitribu get -1 intercept against? This is not a "new" game mechanic - it was present in the original Jyhad, it was re-used in Sabbat, and it was re-used for Sabbat War with Lucita. What "new" are you talking about? Oh, wait, there's Christine Boscacci too, who gets -1 intercept against any minion attempting to bleed. The converse is also true, ALSO in Jyhad: Brujah get +1 intercept against Nik. Should the card say "Nik gets -1 stealth when a Brujah attempts to block him"? Of course not - the terminology is so complicated by comparison, it is ridiculous. Chandler gets +1 intercept when attempting to block Gangrel. Royce gets -1 stealth on his bleed actions, though, because the -1 stealth is conditional on Royce's action, and it doesn't matter who blocks. I have to agree with the other poster; if proof by repeated assertion is what they teach in Sweden, give me American schools anytime. -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, cantila wrote: > Well -1 intercept is in itself a new game mechanic. Miranda Sanova, as has already been pointed out to you, several times. It would help your argument if you read and digested the responses to it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, James Coupe wrote: > On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, cantila wrote: > > Well -1 intercept is in itself a new game mechanic. > > Miranda Sanova, as has already been pointed out to you, several times. Bah, the other one. Oh well, it's a big Brujah. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, James Coupe wrote: > On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, James Coupe wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, cantila wrote: > > > Well -1 intercept is in itself a new game mechanic. > > > > Miranda Sanova, as has already been pointed out to you, several times. > > Bah, the other one. Oh well, it's a big Brujah. Oh double bah. I know what I mean. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:Pine.SOL.4.21.00110...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk... > > Bah, the other one. Oh well, it's a big Brujah. > > Oh double bah. I know what I mean. I'm glad someone does. :) Oh wait, that's "I'm glad someone knows what *I* mean..." [ quoted text not captured ]