Anarch Revolts and Antedeluvian Awakenings are stackable, right?
What about Camarilla Threat? If there are 3 on the table, do you burn
3 pool for discarding? And if you discard 2 cards in your discard
phase (using Cicariz special ability), do you pay the cost twice?
Finally: Why is Legacy of Pander not stackable? I can't quite see the
difference to e.g. Anarch Revolt. "Each Metusalah *burns one pool*" vs
"Each non-titled Pander *has one vote*", to me it seems either both
should be stackable or none (I'd say both could be interpreted either
way). IMO, if Anarch Revolt is indeed stackable LoP ought to be too
("you burn one pool for this Anarch Revolt and one for that Anarch
Revolt, so you burn 2", "Royce has one vote from this LoP and one vote
from that LoP, so he has 2"). Anarch Revolt doesn't say anything about
'addtional pool' or '1 pool for each Anarch Revolt', to be treated
differently, so why would it be stackable and LoP not (maybe my
English is at fault here?)?
Michael
mostly harmless <mostlyh...@chello.at> wrote in message
news:9ebd888f.01102...@posting.google.com...
> Anarch Revolts and Antedeluvian Awakenings are stackable, right?
Right (but Antediluvian Awakening is Unique, so it's not stackable in the
usual 'play two and add effect' sense).
> What about Camarilla Threat? If there are 3 on the table, do you burn
> 3 pool for discarding? And if you discard 2 cards in your discard
> phase (using Cicariz special ability), do you pay the cost twice?
Yes. Yes (card text).
> Finally: Why is Legacy of Pander not stackable? I can't quite see the
> difference to e.g. Anarch Revolt. "Each Metusalah *burns one pool*" vs
> "Each non-titled Pander *has one vote*", to me it seems either both
> should be stackable or none (I'd say both could be interpreted either
> way). IMO, if Anarch Revolt is indeed stackable LoP ought to be too
> ("you burn one pool for this Anarch Revolt and one for that Anarch
> Revolt, so you burn 2", "Royce has one vote from this LoP and one vote
> from that LoP, so he has 2"). Anarch Revolt doesn't say anything about
> 'addtional pool' or '1 pool for each Anarch Revolt', to be treated
> differently, so why would it be stackable and LoP not (maybe my
> English is at fault here?)?
Try this:
Each Legacy of Pander sets the number of votes each Pander gets to 1. So a
second LoP only resets it to one. But each Anarch Revolt will have an effect
where you must burn one pool. Then the following Anarch Revolt will set
another effect where you must also burn one pool. When resolving each card's
effect they are unaware of the other's existance (because there's no
explicit card text that says otherwise). If you could 'remember' the number
of pool you had to burn during your untap phase and burn it at the end of
the untap phase, then each AR/AA would set that number to 1, and it would
function in a way similar to LoP, but you must resolve each card's effect
instantaneously.
That's (AFAIK) how it works, though I understand your doubts and can see how
it could be justified the other way around. :-/
Flux
"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:3bdc...@212.18.160.197...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think the key difference is that the effect of Anarch Revolt ( and
Camarilla Threat ) makes you pay a cost. Each Anrach Revolt exerts it's own
effect so you must pay the cost for each one. Legacy of Pander however sets
the number of votes to 1, a second Legacy of Pander sets the number of votes
to 1 again.
So in general costs must be paid for each copy of the card ( Anarch Revolt,
Camarilla Threat ), set X to Y effects are applied multiple times but the
additional copies have no effect ( Legacy of Pander, Torn Signpost )
GreySeer <e...@i.think.not> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
ttpdg0f...@news.supernews.com...
> "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:3bdc...@212.18.160.197...
> >
> > mostly harmless <mostlyh...@chello.at> wrote in message
> > news:9ebd888f.01102...@posting.google.com...
> >[ quoted text not captured ]
Hm. Well, this does sound like a useful definition.
Thanks to both of you.
Michael
[ quoted text not captured ]
This being the case, how come Army of Rats is not stackable, as this
is a card which says your prey burns 1 pool in your untap phase. If
the rule is sets X to Y (or if X then Y), and each card is unaware
of each others existence, then one would be looked at, resolve, then
the second, resolve, and so on.
This may have been changed, and I might have missed a mailing, but
last time I read about it, it definitely was not stackable.
Thanks
Andy
Setite Ruler of Cambridge
http://www.geocities.com/setitesuk
--
Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of
outragous fortune, or get fat on chocolate cake, eat the cake, life
is too short to worry!
"Andy Brown" <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3BDD0BC9...@sanger.ac.uk...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Army of Rats is not stackable by errata ( it used to stack because it
followed the "pay a cost" template ). The WW page has the current card text
as:
"[ani] Put this card in play. During your untap phase, your prey burns 1
pool. You may only burn 1 pool each turn with Army of Rats cards. Any minion
can take a (D) action to burn the Army of Rats."
Strangely enough it doesn't appear in the R/C/E archive, is this because the
V:TES version printed correctly, or is it an omission?
On 28 Oct 2001 14:21:32 -0800, mostly harmless wrote:
>Finally: Why is Legacy of Pander not stackable?
Because folk generally die only once and so leave only one legacy. And
because young, thin-blooded kindred like the Pander are doing well to
get one vote, let alone several.
Andrew
GreySeer wrote:
[HUGE snip]
> Army of Rats is not stackable by errata ( it used to stack because it
> followed the "pay a cost" template ). The WW page has the current card text
> as:
> "[ani] Put this card in play. During your untap phase, your prey burns 1
> pool. You may only burn 1 pool each turn with Army of Rats cards. Any minion
> can take a (D) action to burn the Army of Rats."
>
> Strangely enough it doesn't appear in the R/C/E archive, is this because the
> V:TES version printed correctly, or is it an omission?
The former. Printed card text is the opposite of errata.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3BDD3C62...@white-wolf.com...
> GreySeer wrote:
>
> [HUGE snip]
>
> > Army of Rats is not stackable by errata ( it used to stack because it
> > followed the "pay a cost" template ). The WW page has the current card
text
> > as:
> > "[ani] Put this card in play. During your untap phase, your prey burns 1
> > pool. You may only burn 1 pool each turn with Army of Rats cards. Any
minion
> > can take a (D) action to burn the Army of Rats."
> >
> > Strangely enough it doesn't appear in the R/C/E archive, is this because
the
> > V:TES version printed correctly, or is it an omission?
>
> The former. Printed card text is the opposite of errata.
I asked the question because the Jyhad version has incorrect card text. Is
it the case with all cards that have reprints with corrected text that they
do not appear in the R/C/E archive?
Andy Brown <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<3BDD0BC9...@sanger.ac.uk>...
> This being the case, how come Army of Rats is not stackable, as this
> is a card which says your prey burns 1 pool in your untap phase. If
> the rule is sets X to Y (or if X then Y), and each card is unaware
> of each others existence, then one would be looked at, resolve, then
> the second, resolve, and so on.
>
> This may have been changed, and I might have missed a mailing, but
> last time I read about it, it definitely was not stackable.
Hi,
From the WW site:
"...Put this card in play. During your untap phase, your prey burns 1
pool. You may only burn 1 pool each turn with Army of Rats cards. Any
minion can take a (D) action to burn the Army of Rats..."
Hope this helps,
Iain Wilson
VEKN Prince of Milton Keynes
"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote
> > This may have been changed, and I might have missed a mailing, but
> > last time I read about it, it definitely was not stackable.
>
> Army of Rats is not stackable by errata ( it used to stack because it
> followed the "pay a cost" template ). The WW page has the current card
text
> as:
> "[ani] Put this card in play. During your untap phase, your prey burns 1
> pool. You may only burn 1 pool each turn with Army of Rats cards. Any
minion
> can take a (D) action to burn the Army of Rats."
>
> Strangely enough it doesn't appear in the R/C/E archive, is this because
the
> V:TES version printed correctly, or is it an omission?
Just a clarification... Army of Rats *is* stackable but the damage to your
prey is *not*.
You can still play several cards, and it is sometimes beneficial to do so.
Cheers,
WES
GreySeer wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message> > Printed card text is the opposite of errata.
>
> I asked the question because the Jyhad version has incorrect card text. Is
> it the case with all cards that have reprints with corrected text that they
> do not appear in the R/C/E archive?
Yes. Or rather, it should be. If you see any otherwise, let me know.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
2AB86BFB8C0C7ACC.A930400E...@lp.airnews.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Mind you that my question was about game mechanics and card texts, not about
storytelling reasons. :)
I agreee with you that LoP *should* be non-stackable, but by just reading
the card text and comparing it to other cards one could think differently.
Anyway, I think the 'pay X/set X to Y' formula that has been suggested above
can serve as a viable rules explanation.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:54:44 GMT, mostly harmless wrote:
>> Because folk generally die only once and so leave only one legacy. And
>> because young, thin-blooded kindred like the Pander are doing well to
>> get one vote, let alone several.>Mind you that my question was about game mechanics and card texts,>not about storytelling reasons. :)
Storytelling reasons are the best ones. Despite what folk keep saying,
there is an alternate reality here that the game is trying to model. If
the game were entirely arbitrary, a formless universe of "dog poo",
then you wouldn't need so much errata - you could just follow the
literal text in every case and let the chips fall where they may.
I was reading up on the background to the Rotschreck card this morning.
You could rule that either way (and they did) but it's ended up the way
you see for reasons of authenticity, as much as anything else. The same
seems to be true of Legacy of Pander. The PTB think that it's bad to
have Panders controlling the Sabbat so easily - it's just not the way a
WoD game should go.
>I agreee with you that LoP *should* be non-stackable, but by just reading
>the card text and comparing it to other cards one could think differently.
>Anyway, I think the 'pay X/set X to Y' formula that has been suggested above
>can serve as a viable rules explanation.
You'll find that, in the real world, folk are more flexible in the way
that they interpret written text. Text is just a fallible means of
communication. Believing that a sacred text is the literal word of God
is the realm of fundamentalists like the Moslems. Whatever one thinks
of that, we can be sure that VTES cards did not come down to us on
tablets of stone or plates of gold.
Andrew
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
> I was reading up on the background to the Rotschreck card this morning.
> You could rule that either way (and they did) but it's ended up the way
> you see for reasons of authenticity, as much as anything else.
It ended up being the way you see because of card text, pure and simple.
> The same
> seems to be true of Legacy of Pander. The PTB think that it's bad to
> have Panders controlling the Sabbat so easily - it's just not the way a
> WoD game should go.
LoP is the way it is for designer intent and balance.
> [written-text interpretational flexibility with religious parallels snipped].
Card text isn't poetry, you know. It's designed to be inflexibly read,
often resulting in cumbersome adn stilted language. The process of
producing card text is fallible, of course. See the E/R/C list for
proof of that. But it's quite a stretch (or a troll) to move from that
to religion.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Mind you that my question was about game mechanics and card texts, not
about
> storytelling reasons. :)
You should ignore most of what Andrew says. It is bait or it is
intentionally meant to confuse you. He thinks it is cute.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:43:50 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>Card text isn't poetry, you know.
It's not computer code either - if it were, it would crash. It's in
English and that means different things to different people. As we saw
with Rotschreck.
>It's designed to be inflexibly read, often resulting in cumbersome and
>stilted language.
That's your personal paradigm. Other games (and legal systems) have a
more or less naturalistic style. L5R has an amusingly in-your-face
"wanker" rule as a catch-all for folk who try to read their texts too
narrowly and literally. X-Files sticks in my mind as having nicely
rigorous card templates. I expect you'd like to have the same but
you're building on WotC's sandy foundations.
Andrew
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> GreySeer wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > > Printed card text is the opposite of errata.
> >
> > I asked the question because the Jyhad version has incorrect card text.
Is
> > it the case with all cards that have reprints with corrected text that
they
> > do not appear in the R/C/E archive?
>
> Yes. Or rather, it should be. If you see any otherwise, let me know.
This is probably the worst product-support idea I can think of.
A player who only has old cards must individually read the online
card texts of every one of his cards to be assured that changes
in text have not occurred. He must do this after each new
set is released for re-printed cards in that set, and must
pore over the new set's card list to find out whether old
cards have been re-printed and how the text might have
changed.
Any other solution, as far as I am aware, requires the V:tES player
to consult resources outside of the official White Wolf web site.
But it's actually worse than that, because a player unfamiliar with
the distinction between errata and text changes in re-prints
(a distinction that never occurred to me until it was explained
as WW's policy) will come away from the R/C/E page confident
that the cards not mentioned there have no changes.
There is no hint of this distinction on the R/C/E page.
This is enormously frustrating, considering that the list
of changed card texts is finite and easily compiled, and
already exists on Lasombra's web site.
- Jason Bell
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OSkD7.36975$jq6.11...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think that the R/C/E page should have the corrected card text for cards
that were reprinted for the exact reason Jason has stated, it could also be
noted which version has the correct card text. The current situation is fine
for people like us who keep up with things but no good for new/casual
players who are using a mixture of old and new cards.
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:BD5B1D1EC1187B66.CDEC01DF...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:43:50 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>
> >Card text isn't poetry, you know.
>
> It's not computer code either - if it were, it would crash. It's in
> English and that means different things to different people. As we saw
> with Rotschreck.
The only problem I had with Rotschreck was the phrase "That vampire", to me,
seemed ambiguous.
> >It's designed to be inflexibly read, often resulting in cumbersome and
> >stilted language.
Problems usually arrive when people try to guess the card's intent or bring
story telling into it as opposed to just taking the card's text literally.
Other times it's just some munchkin making creative interperetations of card
text.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
F6BC94ECD7222DC0.4B33A43E...@lp.airnews.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ok, first of all, let me say that the reason I enjoy this game so much is
indeed the RPG background. Nevertheless this is a card game and not a RPG
and a game like this one needs rules. I can play Vampire: The Masquerade
without any rulebooks or dice just fine, but this is a different kind of
game. And while I think that the more the rules reflect the storytelling
background the better, they are a seperate system that has to stand on its
own and people who don't know the RPG background that well still have to be
able to make sense of the cards. Plus game balance still comes first IMO. I
don't think I'd enjoy a game that even though it would perfectly reflect the
World of Darkness in every detail, would be severly unbalanced.
Your real world and fundamentalism statements is are uncalled for, insulting
and completely unfitting. This isn't a philosophical debate about human
rights. These are game rules we are talking about and people want them to be
as clear as possible, so they can spend more time enjoying the game and less
time thinking and debating about its rules. This has nothing to do with
narrow-mindedness.
Oh, and Moslems are not a subgroup of the fundamenalists. Many
fundamentalists might be of islamic belief but not all Moslems are
fundamentalists. Not that this has anything to do with the card game but
since you brought it up, I wanted to make that clear.
Michael
GreySeer wrote:
> > This is enormously frustrating, considering that the list
> > of changed card texts is finite and easily compiled, and
> > already exists on Lasombra's web site.
>
> I think that the R/C/E page should have the corrected card text for cards
> that were reprinted for the exact reason Jason has stated, it could also be
> noted which version has the correct card text. The current situation is fine
> for people like us who keep up with things but no good for new/casual
> players who are using a mixture of old and new cards.
I second the motion. Especially since I started playing with a group of
new players. Oh the head aches!
Raille
Raille <rai...@mich.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
3BDE7AA3...@mich.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I agree. An official page with all the cards that had their text changed
would be a great help.
Jason Bell wrote:
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> > GreySeer wrote:
> > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > > > Printed card text is the opposite of errata.
> > >
> > > I asked the question because the Jyhad version has incorrect card text.
> Is
> > > it the case with all cards that have reprints with corrected text that
> they
> > > do not appear in the R/C/E archive?
> >
> > Yes. Or rather, it should be. If you see any otherwise, let me know.
>
> This is probably the worst product-support idea I can think of.
I'm sure you could think of some worse ones if you tried. :-)
> Any other solution, as far as I am aware, requires the V:tES player
> to consult resources outside of the official White Wolf web site.
Yep.
I've posted a list of card text migrations on several occasions.
That list is archived on Lasombra's web site, as you noted elsewhere.
Lasombra's site also houses the FAQ.
Similar to the way my personal web site used to archive the E/R/C in the
early days before I became officially associated with the game.
This is not the worst of all worlds.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> Jason Bell wrote:
> >
> > This is probably the worst product-support idea I can think of.
>
> I'm sure you could think of some worse ones if you tried. :-)
Bah, I hate it when I'm called on my hyperbole :-/.
> > Any other solution, as far as I am aware, requires the V:tES player
> > to consult resources outside of the official White Wolf web site.
>
> Yep.
> I've posted a list of card text migrations on several occasions.
> That list is archived on Lasombra's web site, as you noted elsewhere.
>
> Lasombra's site also houses the FAQ.
>
> Similar to the way my personal web site used to archive the E/R/C in the
> early days before I became officially associated with the game.
>
> This is not the worst of all worlds.
So, is there some politics inside WW that precludes including the FAQ,
and especially card text updates on the official site, or am I missing
something else?
- Jason Bell
In message <lrHD7.52663$%B6.20...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes:
>So, is there some politics inside WW that precludes including the FAQ,
>and especially card text updates on the official site, or am I missing
>something else?
The FAQ is not a White Wolf document, and is updated by a player or
players. I would be extremely surprised to see it on the site.
I would, however, support the card text migration document being added
somewhere.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
If I had a dick, I'd go get laid. We can do the B457CA213D7E6
next best thing. Let's kill people. Oh, not *you*. 68C3695D623D5D
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <lrHD7.52663$%B6.20...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
> Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes:
> >So, is there some politics inside WW that precludes including the FAQ,
> >and especially card text updates on the official site, or am I missing
> >something else?
>
> The FAQ is not a White Wolf document, and is updated by a player or
> players. I would be extremely surprised to see it on the site.
>
> I would, however, support the card text migration document being added
> somewhere.
I agree. A FAQ seems reasonable enough as a player-maintained document.
I've seen game companies create and maintain them but I can understand a
reluctance to do so. The issue of what should be present in a FAQ, how they
should best be organized, and how the questions are answered is so nebulous
and debatable, it's probably much easier and better to leave them to the
work of more involved players like Jeff who are prepared to commit the time
and are in regular contact with a lot of other players.
On the other hand, a document listing card text updates - suitably organized
so that out-of-date versions of cards in older editions can easily be
identified by players - strikes me as something that's very official, precise,
and vital to the tournament game - to the point of being standard-issue judge
material even. I've always been surprised to see the apparent disinterest
on White Wolf's part in the concept of attaching it to their VEKN pages.
Especially considering the direct connection these have to the E/R/C pages
in terms of being the place official errata goes to die.
Fred
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <lrHD7.52663$%B6.20...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
> Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes:
> >So, is there some politics inside WW that precludes including the FAQ,
> >and especially card text updates on the official site, or am I missing
> >something else?
>
> The FAQ is not a White Wolf document, and is updated by a player or
> players. I would be extremely surprised to see it on the site.
>
> I would, however, support the card text migration document being added
> somewhere.
I agree.
There are any number of things that I would support being added to the
website. So they are prioritized and handled as time permits.
[ quoted text not captured ]