rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

hey, WOTC! This is no way to run a company

9 messages from 7 participants · 19 December 1996 – 23 December 1996
original thread on Google Groups

michael charles bohlmann

I've been keeping a pretty level head during the last 6 months with the continuous lackluster support here and everywhere of V:tES, but for some reason, today, I cracked. What the heck is going on over there? People don't play this game because they like the art or because they just want to spend their money. They play(ed) because it is fun. Without support, it loses some of the fun when a group deadlocks arguing over how something should work. I, and probably most of us, realize that bumps along the way are going to happen. However, that does not mean you leave a customer hanging. If the company I work for just stopped talking to their customers and ignored all their requests for support, we'd be out of business in no time. Now just because you of That Other Game to support you shouldn't mean you can ignore us. I'm not demanding you get someone on here to support us right this minute (yet), but information from someone in your company stating why we haven't heard from John Wilkie or any other official person in so long is not too much to expect. After I got my box and a half of Sabbat, I have not bought a single pack of anything. There are plenty of important questions dealing with the Sabbat (and old questions yet to be answered regarding the rest), and I'm not about to use cards in a set that my playing group spends 10 minutes arguing about how something should work. So, just let us know what's going on. If you consider yourselves to be a real company, it is what you should do (have done), because as much as I enjoy playing this game, I would not recommend to anyone that they buy into it because of this lackluster support. Mike Bohlmann

Faethor

Do you really have that many questions about card interpretation? I've had many questions myself, but it's never reached the magnitude where it effects game-play. If this occurs so often, start setting up house rules to deal with questionable cards as they occur. Post your questions here. Most of my questions have been answered first (or entirely) by readers not affiliated with WoTC. Not that everyone responded with accurate answers, there was always enough response for me to get an answer that was almost always correct, but in any case logical enough to solve the 'problems'.. ^shrug^ -j

michael charles bohlmann

Faethor <fae...@winternet.com> writes: > Do you really have that many questions about card interpretation? >I've had many questions myself, but it's never reached the magnitude >where it effects game-play. It only takes one rules question to stall a game for 5 to 10 minutes. It shouldn't be necessary. > If this occurs so often, start setting up house rules to deal with >questionable cards as they occur. That's the whole point. If it were possible to get agreement (which we usually do in the end), we can go on. But the time is lost instead of someone saying, "Yeah, I read on the newsgroup that this is the way." > Post your questions here. Most of my questions have been answered >first (or entirely) by readers not affiliated with WoTC. Not that >everyone responded with accurate answers, there was always enough >response for me to get an answer that was almost always correct, but in >any case logical enough to solve the 'problems'.. ^shrug^ I guess I should have been more specific about what questions I was referring to. I trust LSJ a great deal. But he can't answer questions that WOTC hasn't given us answers to, ie just about anything having to do with the Sabbat. That's my whole point. After that batch of rulings we got a month or two ago, I don't know that I trust their abilities a great deal. If only Tom could have handled it.....a man can dream, can't he? Mike

L. Scott Johnson

Faethor <fae...@winternet.com> writes: > Post your questions here. Most of my questions have been answered >first (or entirely) by readers not affiliated with WoTC. Not that >everyone responded with accurate answers, there was always enough >response for me to get an answer that was almost always correct, but in >any case logical enough to solve the 'problems'.. ^shrug^ Some questions I asked back on November 4th: >Antonio Delgado >9 Capacity >OBT DOM POT tha >Lasombra >Sabbat Archbishop of Atlanta: If Antonio performs a successful political >action, untap him at the end of the turn. Does Antonio untap if the vote fails? (i.e., the action is successful, but not the referendum) >Blood Brother Ambush >2 blood >Brujah Antitribu >Action Modifier/Ally >Put this card in play when an action is blocked. Combat does not occur. This >card is then considered to be an ally with 3 life and 2R damage; this ally >enters combat with the blocking minion. Blood Brothers may play cards >requiring basic Potence as a vampire with a capacity of 3. Any cost in blood >is paid with life. If a card would give them blood, give them life instead. >Burn this card at the end of combat or if the combat is canceled. Can a Brujah Antitribu use this card if blocked while attempting to leave torpor? If so, will the blocker still have the option of diablerizing the acting vampire? (A 'no' to either will require official errata) >Bloodbath >1 blood >Action >Requires a ready Priscus, Cardinal, or Archbishop. >This is a +1 stealth action. >Move 2 blood from the blood bank to a ready Sabbat vampire with capacity above >4. Put this card on that vampire. The vampire with this card gains 1 >additional vote during each political action unless he or she already has a >title. A vampire may have only one Bloodbath. If the target vampire later gains a title, will that new title cause him to lose the vote he gains from Bloodbath? >Bonecraft >1 blood >Combat >Vicissitude >Strike: 1 damage >Put this card on the opposing minion. The minion with this card has -1 hand >damage. (This does not affect the Strike Resolution step this round.) He or >she may burn this card by paying 2 blood as a +1 stealth action. >* As above, but the minion with this card has -2 hand damage. Since the "does not affect resolution this round" text is in parentheses, it is intended as reminder text. However, it oversteps its bounds in this area - it should say that it doesn't affect the current strike resolution step. For it to have no effect on any additional strikes gained by the target in the current round, it shouldn't be in parentheses. So, which is it? Just the current resolution (as per the parentheses), or any additional strikes as well? >Bribes >Action modifier >Only usable during a political action before votes are cast. Gain 1 pool. Any >other Methuselah who votes in your favor and does not vote against you gains 1 >pool when the results of the vote are tallied. The acting Methuselah now gains a pool even if she doesn't vote? (for instance, if her vampire called a vote as allowed by a card in play and had no titled vampires in play.) >Camarilla Vitae Slave >2 blood >Lasombra >Retainer >Retainer with 1 life. >The vampire with this retainer increases his or her capacity by 1. During each >of his or her controller's master phases, he or she may choose a basic level >Discipline he or she possesses. He or she then has the chosen Discipline at >the superior level until his or her controller's next master phase. If the retainer is burned before your next master phase, does this text still apply "from beyond the grave"? (I assume it will still function if the retainer is stolen). >Catatonic Fear >Presence >Combat >Strike: combat ends >* As above, and the opposing minion takes 1 damage during strike resolution. Since S:CE terminates strike resolution before any damage is done [RTR], how is the superior different from the inferior? If errata is given to this card allowing the damage to be done despite the fact that there is no damage resolution phase, can Fortitude cards be played to prevent the damage (since the RT thinks that such cards can only be played during damage resolution)? If so, is this damage part of the strike (i.e., preventable by Skin of Steel)? >Code of Milan Suspended >Political Action >Political Card-Worth 1 Vote >Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth >If this vote is successful, the Methuselah with the Edge burns 1 pool. Is the target chosen at the start of the referendum, of at the end (a la Domain Challenge)? That is, if the Meth with the Edge burns the Edge for a vote during the referendum, will she lose one pool is the referendum is successful? >Communal Haven: Temple >1 pool >Sabbat >Master >Master: location >Each Sabbat vampire you control gets +1 intercept when attempting to block (D) >actions directed against other Sabbat vampires you control. A player may have >only one Communal Haven in play. The target of the (D) action doesn't get the +1 intercept, by card text, correct? >Derange >Dementation >Action >This is a +1 stealth action. >(D) Put this card on a vampire who is not a Malkavian antitribu. The vampire >with this card is now considered to be a Malkavian antitribu and is no longer >a member of his or her original clan. The vampire with this card may move it >to another vampire as a (D) action. >*As above, and the vampire with this card does not untap as normal. He or she >may burn 1 blood to untap. The vampire with this card can move it to a "real" Malkavian antitribu? If so is the new target no longer a member of any clan? >Detection >Master >Master >Put this card on a Lasombra. The vampire with this card does not untap during >the untap phase, but may burn 1 blood to untap. The vampire cannot cast votes. >He or she may burn this card as a (D) action. The target can pay one blood to untap at any time? Or just during the untap phase (of any Meth's turn, since it isn't specified)? >Direct Intervention >1 pool >Master >Master: out-of-turn >Burn a minion card as it is played. Any blood or pool cost burned for that >card is retrieved from the blood bank by the vampire or Methuselah who played >it. If the burned card was an action card, the acting minion remains untapped. >If the card was a strike card, the minion chooses another strike. If this card is played during the voting process of a political action (or during a Blood Hunt or Wild Hunt), is either this card or the cancelled card replaced before the vote is completed? >Dirty Little Secrets >Nosferatu Antitribu >Action Modifier >Only usable when the acting vampire successfully bleeds a Methuselah. For each >pool your vampire bleeds from that Methuselah, burn one card from the top of >that Methuselah's library. If you successfully bleed a methuselah, but another Meth pays the cost (due to a Major Boon), whose library is affected? >Ethan Locke >9 Capacity >THA DOM pot aus cel >Tremere Antitribu >Sabbat Archbishop of Toronto: As a (D) action, Ethan may steal a Master >Discipline card from another vampire if he does not already possess the >superior version of that Discipline. Is this action directed at the vampire, or just at the vampire's controller (the controlled of the skill card)? (This is important for cards like Communal Haven). If you control the skill card, but not the vampire (he's been corrupted, for instance), your Ethan cannot attempt to steal the skill card because that would make the (D) action self-directed, correct? >Fire Dance >Action >Requires a ready Priscus, Cardinal, or Archbishop. >This is a +1 stealth action. >Put this card on a Sabbat vampire. Once each combat, the vampire with this >card may change one point of damage from aggravated to normal. A vampire may >have only one Fire Dance. Is this a (D) action if you put the card on a vampire that some other Meth controls? ("yes", by definition of directed; "no" by RT standards) >Goth Band >2 pool >Toreador Antitribu >Ally >Unique Ally with 2 life. >1 hand damage, 0 bleed. >As a +1 stealth (D) action, the Goth Band may move one counter from any master >card in play to a master card you control that uses counters. If you move vandal counters to your Powerbase, are they still vandal counters, or are they just powerbase counters? (Errata required to transmute the counters). If you move Investment/Powerbase/Sphinx counters to a Vicissitude Poisoning that you control, do they transform into poison counters? If you move currency counters to a Vicissitude Poisoning card that you control, do they morph into poison counters? (Incidentally, except for "blood" counters used by Investments, Blood Puppy, and (arguably) Acq.Ventrue Assets, Ravnos Cache, Grand Temple of Set, Powerbases and Wassershloss Anif) the counters used by cards should be treated as different things - not capable of being used on master cards requiring other types of counters. Especially, the "history" counters used by Strained Viate Supply and Dreams of the Sphinx should be viewed as inviolate - the only reason that counters are used at all is that history isn't supposed to be kept in a CCG (although several cards; like 6th Tradition, Lextalionis, and Compel the Spirit; make their own exceptions (and these exceptions lead to confusion in certain cases). Mucking with history counters is a trait best left to that other game. >Legacy of Caine >Master >Master >Put this card on a vampire with a capacity above 6 controlled by another >Methuselah. When the vampire with this card hunts, he or she steals 1 blood >from another vampire as a (D) action instead of performing the usual hunting >action. Can he steal 1 blood from a vampire in Torpor? What happens if there are no vampires with blood on them? Does he still (D) hunt on one of them? What if there are no other vampires at all? >Machine Blitz >Thaumaturgy >Combat >Choose a weapon possessed by the opposing minion. >Strike: ranged; X damage, where X is the amount of damage inflicted by a >weapon the opposing minion controls >* As above, with +1R damage. This means "amount of damage that would be inflicted by the weapon"? Or "amount the weapon actually inflicts this round/strike"? Will it work if the weapon is burned before Machine Blitz resolves? >March Halcyon >1 Capacity >for >Pander >If March is diablerized, no one can call a Blood Hunt against the acting >vampire. Can you call a Wild Hunt? Can you call a Blood Hunt if the diabolist is not the acting vampire? >Mind Rape >2 blood >Dominate >Action >(D) Bleed with +2 bleed. >* (D) Put this card on a younger vampire; you gain control of that vampire. >Put two ego counters on this card. Each untap phase, burn one ego counter on >this card. Burn this card when the last counter on it is removed. Do you lose control of the vampire when the Mind Rape is burned? (you should, but other minion cards that xfer control of vampires have continuous effects; perhaps a little errata here?) >Mistaken Identity >1 blood >Reaction >Requires a ready vampire. >Play during a hunting action attempted by a Ventrue antitribu. This action is >considered blocked, and the acting vampire goes into torpor. Must you wait until the hunt is successful (like XTC or Foul Blood)? >Nephandus (Mage) >2 Pool >Tremere Antitribu >Ally >Ally with 2 life. >1R damage, 1 bleed. >Nephandus gets an optional press each combat. Opposing minions inflict -1 >damage to her during combat. As a (D) action, Nephandus may burn a vampire in >torpor to gain an additional life. Does "-1 during combat" mean effectively "Nephandus can prevent 1 damage each combat" (per card text)? Or was it intended to mean "Opposing minions have inflict -1 damage each strike" (and do you wish to issue errata to that effect?) If the "burn a vamp in torpor" action is successful, but the vampire plays a Reform Body, does Nephandus still gain a life? >Primal Instincts >1 blood >Combat >Auspex >Strike: dodge >* Only usable by the acting vampire after the opposing minion has chosen his >or her strike. Cancel this vampire's strike and choose a new one. If the acting minion plays Rapid Thought (which uses a much better template to identify the vampire that this card assumes is the acting vampire), can the blocker then use superior Primal Instincts after choosing strikes? >Propaganda >2 blood >Presence >Combat >(D) Bleed with +1 bleed. Vampires with titles cannot block this action. >* As above, and the Methuselah you are bleeding taps one of his or her ready >minions. Can the target choose to tap one of her tapped minions (to no effect)? >Quickness >1 blood >Celerity >Combat >Additional strike >* As above, but this strike does not count against this vampire's additional >strikes for this round. A vampire may only play one Quickness each round. [Again, since the point seems to have been missed:] Since this card (an additional strike card) counts against the vampire's additional strike card limit (of one) [Sec 21], the vampire cannot play any more cards to gain additional strikes after playing superior Quickness, right? (Or is errata forthcoming?) >Reform Body >Vicissitude >Combat/Reaction >Only usable when this reacting vampire is burned; he or she is sent into >torpor instead. >* As above, but the vampire gains 2 blood from the blood bank. If a diabolist succeeds, but is faced with a Reformed Body, does the Diabolist still get the blood and/or equipment from the Reformer? If not, can a Blood Hunt or Wild Hunt still be called? If a vampire is burned in combat, but Reforms, can the opposing vampire play Amaranth or Behead to (re)burn him? If so, can the Reformed vampire play another Reform Body to save himself a second time (and gain two more blood)? If the vampire is burned via Goodnight Sweet Prince or a Sabbat Inquisitor, can he play Reform Body to become controlled (in torpor)? >Shadow Step >Obtenebration >Combat >Maneuver >* Only usable at the beginning of a round. This vampire burns 2 blood to set >the range for that round. If he or she does so, skip the Establish Range step >for this round. Is the 2 blood the cost for playing superior Shadow Step? If so, can it be reduced by the Citadel or ignored by Dragos? If not, can a vampire with 0 blood use the effect (ignoring burn blood effects past his current blood supply?) >Sword of Judgment >2 pool >Brujah Antitribu >Equipment >Unique melee weapon >The Brujah antitribu with this equipment gets +1 hand damage with each strike; >he or she gains an optional additional strike each round of combat. A non-Brujah antitribu cannot use this weapon (if it is stolen)? Can a non-Assamite use a Kali's Fang (if it is stolen)? >Thanks for the Donation >Dominate >Action >This is a +1 stealth action. >Put this card on a card you are contesting with another Methuselah; not usable >on a card that bestows a title. Your cost to avoid yielding the contested card >is now paid by your prey. (You still decide whether you will yield.) This card >may be burned by any minion as a (D) action. Since minion cards played "on" contested cards are out of play (except w.r.t. being contested themselves), this card has no effect, correct? -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Confidence occurs when you http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | are ignorant of the facts. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Confidence occurs when you http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | are ignorant of the facts. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

Steven Bucy

Faethor <fae...@winternet.com> wrote in article <59bk13$b2b$3...@blackice.winternet.com>... > > Do you really have that many questions about card interpretation? > I've had many questions myself, but it's never reached the magnitude > where it effects game-play. Maybe I have too many "creative" people in my group, but this is becoming a real problem. We used to have a question once or twice a month, but now it is almost every game. We actually have heated arguments on occasion. The worst part is there is never any conclusion... > If this occurs so often, start setting up house rules to deal with > questionable cards as they occur. We have been trying to avoid this, but it seems are going to need to set up house rules. > Post your questions here. Most of my questions have been answered > first (or entirely) by readers not affiliated with WoTC. Not that > everyone responded with accurate answers, there was always enough > response for me to get an answer that was almost always correct, but in > any case logical enough to solve the 'problems'.. ^shrug^ Most of us have decided to take L. Scott's rulings as law, however without official statis some always have doubts about his rulings. These are all good ideas to help solve a group's problems, but they still don't excuse WotC from failing V:TES so Totally. There lack of support is unexcusable. Steve Bucy I'd be better off undead... "I was dead, but I am better now" - John Sheridan

Faethor

Ouch. I stand corrected. -j

Michal Kranc

In article <59bj59$j...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mboh...@students.uiuc.edu says... [ quoted text not captured ] Michal Kranc AKA HORUS <> I agree completely , and that's why we should start to tell them what we think !!!!! , i'll post an article with more about this

James Puzzo

Michal Kranc (ho...@intergate.bc.ca) wrote: : In article <59bj59$j...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mboh...@students.uiuc.edu says: : > : >What the heck is going on over there? People don't play this game because : >they like the art or because they just want to spend their money. They : >play(ed) because it is fun. Without support, it loses some of the fun : >when a group deadlocks arguing over how something should work. : : I agree completely , and that's why we should start to tell them what : we think !!!!! , i'll post an article with more about this Tee hee hee. Someone should just troll through DejaNews and dig up all of the posts which were made regarding filling customer support mail boxes with our complaints last time... namely when we didn't feel that Shawn was working out. Let's face it, there doesn't appear to be any interest on the part of WotC to support this game. This time, just as last time, I support your decision to make yourself known, but I continue to hold the cynical view that anything useful will come of it. Face it: what did we get last time we complained? Someone not as familiar with the game as some, who supplied us with some nonsensical rules overturns, little more support than we were getting, and general mayhem. Woo hoo. RIP Jyhad. -spongy

Justin

In article <59bple$o...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, michael charles bohlmann <mboh...@students.uiuc.edu> writes >> Do you really have that many questions about card interpretation? >>I've had many questions myself, but it's never reached the magnitude >>where it effects game-play. > >It only takes one rules question to stall a game for 5 to 10 minutes. >It shouldn't be necessary. What helps is, after decks have been made but before playing begins, is to show the card you think might be a little bit ambiguous and get a ruling on it there and then. James Coupe.