A loss in feeling?

It came to me the other day that people are possibly losing the feeling of this game. While I will admit that game mechanics are very important (working out the best deck and winning - obviously) it does seem as though peoiple flow through games without a cross thought as to what it's all about. Now I'm not berating anyone for this, I justr think that the games have a danger of becoming too faceless (ie combat - card after card churned out without anyone thinking 'Hey, I just called some carrion crows, that's cool!' or at least picturing it in their heads.) I personally love this game and I'm sure you all do too. Sometimes though, it's in danger of falling into the 4 suit variety of games. What do people think? ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web ----- http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net

Ventru...@hotmail.com wrote: > > It came to me the other day that people are possibly losing the feeling of > this game. While I will admit that game mechanics are very important > (working out the best deck and winning - obviously) it does seem as though > people flow through games without a cross thought as to what it's all > about. Well, you have to realize that this game has a very complex strategy element. It's that complexity which attracts people like me to this game. I have no interest in playing the role-playing game, and while I'm mildly interested in the vampire genre (big Buffy fan!), that's not the driving force behind my interest in this game. If you personally want to play the game saying "hey, neat" and "cool" every time anyone plays a card, feel free. I, on the other hand, prefer to play on a more abstract level. When someone plays Deflection or Govern the Unaligned, I hardly ever think about what the card means in non-game terms. (For example, I just recently for the first time noticed the big glowing hand on GtU.) When you play Risk, do you get upset when people don't say "Hmm... I'm invading Kamchatka. Rejoice, Kamchatkans! I have liberated you from your oppressors!" I think most people play Risk by moving their little pieces around and rolling a bunch of dice. Someone might joke around and say the above, but the game is not being taken that seriously. > Now I'm not berating anyone for this, I just think that the games have a > danger of becoming too faceless (ie combat - card after card churned out > without anyone thinking 'Hey, I just called some carrion crows, that's > cool!' or at least picturing it in their heads.) If you want to play a game where this is the expected norm, maybe you should play the RPG instead. In an RPG, there are no "victory conditions." People aren't playing to win; they're trying to accurately portray their characters and have fun doing in. In a CCG, there are victory conditions, and people playing the CCG should be playing to win. > I personally love this game and I'm sure you all do too. Sometimes though, > it's in danger of falling into the 4 suit variety of games. Both VTES and, say, Bridge have large strategy elements. VTES has a lot more different cards, and a lot more rules. It's intriguing to me that I can get about as much enjoyment out of a game of VTES as a few rounds of Bridge. Again, it sounds like you want to turn every game of VTES into a role-playing session. Don't get upset when you encounter other people who are playing the card game for what it is. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "You seem to think you know it all Let me tell you something, you can't win." -- Pat McGee Band

>===== Original Message From Ventru...@hotmail.com ===== >It came to me the other day that people are possibly losing the feeling of >this game. While I will admit that game mechanics are very important (working >out the best deck and winning - obviously) it does seem as though peoiple >flow through games without a cross thought as to what it's all about. > >Now I'm not berating anyone for this, I justr think that the games have a >danger of becoming too faceless (ie combat - card after card churned out >without anyone thinking 'Hey, I just called some carrion crows, that's cool!' >or at least picturing it in their heads.) > >I personally love this game and I'm sure you all do too. Sometimes though, >it's in danger of falling into the 4 suit variety of games. > >What do people think? > i think you'll find that a lot of the people on this group couldn't give a rat's arse about the story/real world aspects of the game. As Rob Treasure once memorably commented to me, the pictures on the cards could be piles of dog poo for all he cares - it is the GAME and its mechanics, not the background or connection to vampires, which interests him. Also, it is often quite hard to picture what a card is "really" doing - DotS, DI, SR, ToR3, ToGP, Political Flux are ones that spring to mind as difficult to provide a real-world story for. David Zopf keeps saying [and i keep agreeing with him] that the game is an abstract and high-level representation of an Endless Conflict between indestructible ancients and it's not to be judged in terms of linkage [for example] to the frippery concerns and frank misconceptions of the ancillae as represented in the RPG. i agree that this would be a fine game even if it was about the endless conflict between piles of dog-poo but i also sympathise with the gist of your post which i take to be that it's fun to think about the doings of your minions too. This idea informs the building of the decks we use for home-play. No doubt many people will criticise me for keeping my home play-group in the dark with regard to competitive jyhad but i honestly did try to influence them in that direction and i failed - they like to play a card-based RPG, essentially, and they get bored by weird technical combos and excessively-fast games. i like playing both ways, me - hare/hounds sorta thing, but it's true! My advice would be to accept the fact that Caine's house hath many mansions and to find the one that is decorated most closely to your taste. If you like the role-playing aspect best then you can come round to my house and play in our sub-competitive games [or start a group of your own]; if you like the hard-core competitive aspect then nowanights there are x million tourneys for you to enter. All to the good, i say. ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser. ------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:38:14 -0500, James McClellan wrote: >Also, it is often quite hard to picture what a card is "really" doing - >DotS, DI, SR, ToR3, ToGP, Political Flux are ones that spring to mind >as difficult to provide a real-world story for. Eh? These cards seem quite easy to understand. The card that puzzled me for a while was Torn Signpost. I recently decided that it's just that the art is misleading. What's really meant to be happening is that the potent vampire has ripped a signpost out of the ground and is wielding it like a halberd or scythe. Right? Return to Innocence is rather mysterious but I like the art - it persuades me that there's a great story there, if I only knew it. Andrew

> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:38:14 -0500, James McClellan wrote: > >> Also, it is often quite hard to picture what a card is "really" doing - >> DotS, DI, SR, ToR3, ToGP, Political Flux are ones that spring to mind >> as difficult to provide a real-world story for. > > Eh? These cards seem quite easy to understand. The card that puzzled > me for a while was Torn Signpost. I recently decided that it's just > that the art is misleading. What's really meant to be happening is > that the potent vampire has ripped a signpost out of the ground and is > wielding it like a halberd or scythe. Right? Well, except it increases the hand damage of the minion, as opposed to being a weapon. So you can play Torn Signpost at inferior (base strength 2) and hit someone with a Bastard sword for another +1, and hit for 3. Odd, no? Not to mention that you can equip with Brass Knuckles, but since it's a weapon strike, you can't use it when Immortally Grappled. But, you still get the bonus from the Torn Signpost (kind of ruining the "halberd" image). I've heard (don't quote me on this) something about the Gangrel marking their territory by tearing up the signposts, which fits the image on the card, certainly. That kind of leads to a "I'm MAD!" use of the card, busting up the local signage/furniture/etc. in a berserk rage to get ready to rumble. Course, the Gangrel don't natively have Potence, but that another matter... -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:38:14 -0500, James McClellan wrote: > > >Also, it is often quite hard to picture what a card is "really" doing - > >DotS, DI, SR, ToR3, ToGP, Political Flux are ones that spring to mind > >as difficult to provide a real-world story for. > > Eh? These cards seem quite easy to understand. The card that puzzled > me for a while was Torn Signpost. I recently decided that it's just > that the art is misleading. What's really meant to be happening is > that the potent vampire has ripped a signpost out of the ground and is > wielding it like a halberd or scythe. Right? I always interpreted not just the art but the whole card to be an artistic allegory to suggest simply that the vampire has called on his training/discipline/blood resources or whatever to make some particularly strong punches/swipes in this combat. The "Torn Signpost" is a sign or symbol of what transpired, not the cause of it. Other cards do something like the same thing: describe an effect rather than a literal cause. "The Death of My Conscience"? Com'on! It wasn't anyone's conscience that was holding 'em back from destroying their enemies. "Blood Agony" - the user doesn't suffer the blood agony, it's the victim. Same with "Weakness". "Sacrament of Carnage" - I doubt the vampire first performs a rite of any kind and then are gifted with the boon of causing ranged damage. Like Torn Signpost, it's just a fanciful way of describing the aftermath. > Return to Innocence is rather mysterious but I like the art - it > persuades me that there's a great story there, if I only knew it. Agreed. And it's one of the things I've grown to like about the game. Magic, too. Not everything has to be so literal. Fred

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:EA9EC616210295B6.68147631...@lp.airnews.net... > Return to Innocence is rather mysterious but I like the art - it > persuades me that there's a great story there, if I only knew it. The sun-loving vampire pictured in the card was listening to a lot of Enigma and discovered certain of the arcane secrets of the Antediluvians by listening to it backwards. This unprecedented knowledge caused the vampire to go out, create a deep gouge in some Methuselah's side, then spontaneously combust. How's that work? Xian a little flip today

James McClellan <legb...@MailAndNews.com> wrote: >>===== Original Message From Ventru...@hotmail.com ===== >>Now I'm not berating anyone for this, I justr think that the games have a >>danger of becoming too faceless (ie combat - card after card churned out >>without anyone thinking 'Hey, I just called some carrion crows, that's cool!' >>or at least picturing it in their heads.) >> >> >i think you'll find that a lot of the people on this group couldn't give a >rat's arse about the story/real world aspects of the game. Then again, some people do care about the story aspect. For some games at least. Get yourself a group of players who like to role-play their games and start a Story game on JOL. > it is the GAME and its mechanics, not the >background or connection to vampires, which interests him. Also, it is often >quite hard to picture what a card is "really" doing - DotS, DI, SR, ToR3, Oh come on, that last one is so easy. It's simply an ancient vampire coming out of a long sleep. >i agree that this would be a fine game even if it was about the endless >conflict between piles of dog-poo but i also sympathise with the gist of >your post which i take to be that it's fun to think about the doings of your >minions too. This idea informs the building of the decks we use for >home-play. Surprisingly or not, some wallpaper cards become staples of role playing decks. You can't have a good Giovanni RPG deck without a Police Station to house all your corrupt cops. And clan-hosers become rightfully playable cards. >My advice would be to accept the fact that Caine's house hath many mansions >and to find the one that is decorated most closely to your taste. If you >like the role-playing aspect best then you can come round to my house and play in >our sub-competitive games [or start a group of your own]; if you like the >hard-core competitive aspect then nowanights there are x million tourneys >for you to enter. All to the good, i say. Yet again, if the role playing game is what you seek, do go and play the role playing game. If you wish to make stories about your games of Jyhad, find a group of like-minded players and ask George Fink to start a JOL Story game for you. It's fun and for once the long wait between turns is actually a boon, as you get the time to write a story to go with your turn. One that fits with the previous ones written by you and the other players. Bleu Simply plugging a concept I (and I have ten highly paid lawyers to prove it) came up with, in the quite North American fashion of grossly over-marketing an idea or show invented by an European, Leggy in this case.

Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes: > Course, the Gangrel don't natively have Potence, but that another > matter... Of course, it's a not uncommon secondary discipline. And it makes sense for a combative clan to develop some, if only so they can rip you even harder. (Basilia, Wynn and Zack North are the ones who immediately spring to mind. And Crypt Monger suggests Badger, Faruq, Angus and Katarina too. 7 Gangrel isn't bad at all.) -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "Definitely a woman" - www.thespark.com/ Standard disclaimers apply to this post. Full written details available upon request. Your statutory rights are not affected.

> Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes: > >> Course, the Gangrel don't natively have Potence, but that another >> matter... > > Of course, it's a not uncommon secondary discipline. And it makes > sense for a combative clan to develop some, if only so they can rip > you even harder. > > (Basilia, Wynn and Zack North are the ones who immediately spring to > mind. And Crypt Monger suggests Badger, Faruq, Angus and Katarina > too. 7 Gangrel isn't bad at all.) Yeah, but I was hoping not to have the idea catch on too much. I don't own enough Shadow Steps to get out of the DotB/IG/Claws/SkinOfSteel combo that way too many (say, 7) Gangrel can do. Wynn being the worst, since he keeps doing it with various rush actions Freak Driving and playing Uncontrollable Rage on each one. We get enough of that locally; I just don't want it sitting to my right at the next tournament. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Hamblin" and others wrote: > If you personally want to play the game saying "hey, neat" and "cool" > every time anyone plays a card, feel free. I, on the other hand, prefer > to play on a more abstract level. Like imagining you are playing with Dog Poo? (Damn, I love that one Legbiter) > When someone plays Deflection or > Govern the Unaligned, I hardly ever think about what the card means in > non-game terms. (For example, I just recently for the first time > noticed the big glowing hand on GtU.) The name of the card is referring to the superior power I guess. Influencing younger vampires, just like we are doing as ancient Methuselahs. Torn Signpost is a bit weird as it is an actual object, which seems to have little to do with its effect. I guess stronger vampires could rip a signpost apart easily, but that doesn't make much sense having it as a name for a card. Also, if the signpost is supposed to represent an improvised weapon, then it seems strange that the card represents only an increase in hand damage and is not a melee weapon. (I always thought a pool cue would make a nice long-reach stake in a pinch). Sacrament of Carnage is referring to one of the religious tenets of the Sabbat I think... but from the old books. I don't remember this one and don't have my books handy, but there are a lot of minor religious rites, and this could represent one (that does not explain why it is a Potence card though). 'Blood Agony' and 'Weakness' are both levels of Quietus in the RPG, similar to 'Earth Meld' or 'Wolf Claws' for Protean. One discipline is conspicuously absent from the CCG, the second level of Dominate, 'Forgetful Mind'. The strange thing is that it seems like a power that is rife with applications in Jyhad. I suppose making Dominate even MORE powerful than it already is might be unnecessary. > > Now I'm not berating anyone for this, I just think that the games have a > > danger of becoming too faceless (ie combat - card after card churned out > > without anyone thinking 'Hey, I just called some carrion crows, that's > > cool!' or at least picturing it in their heads.) While it doesn't make any difference in the end whether you play the theme or not, I think for me personally it enhances the fun imagining the struggles of ancient vampires and their minions. I totally play the game on two levels... one as a complex strategy game, and two as a huge fan of the 'World of Darkness'. For example, regardless of their effectiveness, I rarely if ever play Malkavian decks. I think this comes down to just how much I hated players who had Malkavian characters in the LARP in Detroit a few years back. I just don't like the 'theme' of Malks enough to play with them. On the other hand, I will often play with clans that I have enjoyed in the RPG or whose concept I like even if they are considered crap. I love Assamites and Setites and will play Jyhad with them even if they are nearly impossible to win with in their present form. I think it was in the original Jyhad reference-guide-book-thingee where they were discussing how the cards were developed. The designer mentioned that when they originally playtested the cards they used images that had no association at all with the card name or function. For example, I think Ulugh Beg was a picture of a rocking horse (with all the text associated with UB). This was so they could have SOMETHING for visual reference before they had to actually print the final version of the cards. After playing many test games, the rocking horse became associated with the card itself. > If you want to play a game where this is the expected norm, maybe you > should play the RPG instead. In an RPG, there are no "victory > conditions." People aren't playing to win; they're trying to accurately > portray their characters and have fun doing in. In a CCG, there are > victory conditions, and people playing the CCG should be playing to win. Actually, the very WORST kinds of role-players DO try to win, which is absurd. It's one of the aspects of RPG's that turn me off. > > I personally love this game and I'm sure you all do too. Sometimes though, > > it's in danger of falling into the 4 suit variety of games. I agree completely. If only to inject some humour into games like this, I like to elaborate on actions with a bit of silly improvisation. Anson doesn't just go to torpor, he 'dives into the ground to recover from mortal wounds'. Sela doesn't just play 'Torn Signpost', she 'rips a sign out of the ground in seething rage'. Not that my fiction in the Brujah-Antitribu newsletters are worthy of special attention, but I came up with the 'plots' based on pulling a few cards out and pasting them into something resembling a narrative. I've even been trying to leave about 10 % of each deck for cards that are just fun corner case cards. This makes the decks less effective but often a hell of a lot more fun. Sometimes cards that seem useless will pop out of nowhere and surprise everyone. In fact, this was always something I appreciated back when we played with 4CL... there was a lot less predictability in any deck we saw. There was no such thing as IG combat decks, there were no decks with 40 Weather Controls in them. Decks were a lot more random/unfocused than they are now and somehow this only added to our enjoyment of them. Whatever the game is about, it's supposed to be fun, and fuck it if we all take it too seriously. Oh well... there's my $0.02 CDN for you. I'm going to go make an Aggravated Dog Poo deck now. Cheers, WES

> Return to Innocence is rather mysterious but I like the art - it > persuades me that there's a great story there, if I only knew it. > > Andrew There are rumours about a way to become human again. But then again, there are rumours about everything. <EG>

"Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> writes: > Like imagining you are playing with Dog Poo? (Damn, I love that one > Legbiter) What's wrong with playing with dog poo? It makes it very easy to make proxies for friendly games, you know. You can get down to business once you've, erm, got down to business. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Other cards do something like the same thing: describe an effect rather >than a literal cause. "The Death of My Conscience"? Com'on! It wasn't >anyone's conscience that was holding 'em back from destroying their enemies. Well I always interpreted "The Death of My Conscience" and "The Return to Innocence" to relate to the whole Humanity vs. the Beast sort of thing (just like Command of the and Drawing out the Beast). One of the things with the game is that the older you are, the less human you become (which makes sense). Thus the whole Death of My Conscience / Return to Innocence thing becomes something that becomes much more relevant with older vampires. And yes, for the Camarilla vampires (and most anybody following the path of Humanity), it IS your conscience that keeps your beastly side in check. Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >Other cards do something like the same thing: describe an effect rather > >than a literal cause. "The Death of My Conscience"? Com'on! It wasn't > >anyone's conscience that was holding 'em back from destroying their enemies. ... > And yes, for the Camarilla vampires (and most anybody following the path of > Humanity), it IS your conscience that keeps your beastly side in check. Well, yea, I understand. But as far as this is related to the mechanics of hitting the other guy in combat, then, the card should be playable only once. (Though perhaps it should be a continuous effect.) Once your conscience dies, it can't die again. The point I was making was that this card is one of those that artfully describes the carnage going on. It does not refer to a means to an end, such as cards like "Body Flare", "Lucky Blow", "Fast Hands", or "Dodge". Fred

James McClellan <legb...@MailAndNews.com> wrote: >>===== Original Message From Ventru...@hotmail.com ===== >>snip >>What do people think? >> >i think you'll find that a lot of the people on this group couldn't give a >rat's arse about the story/real world aspects of the game. As Rob Treasure >once memorably commented to me, the pictures on the cards could be piles of >dog poo for all he cares - it is the GAME and its mechanics, not the >background or connection to vampires, which interests him. Also, it is often >quite hard to picture what a card is "really" doing - DotS, DI, SR, ToR3, >ToGP, Political Flux are ones that spring to mind as difficult to provide a >real-world story for. David Zopf keeps saying [and i keep agreeing with him] >that the game is an abstract and high-level representation of an Endless >Conflict between indestructible ancients and it's not to be judged in terms >of linkage [for example] to the frippery concerns and frank misconceptions of >the ancillae as represented in the RPG. But its a rare day that I state it so eloquently... (I'll save Ventrue Harpy my typical anti-RPG rant) My main concern is when role players attempt to make a card game into a variant method of playing their RPG. Good card games won't do that at all well, and bad ones wouldn't do it nearly well enough to satisfy any RPGer. I'm amazed most people don't recognize that. Especially tabletop roleplayers and LARPers. If there was ever a group whom I would think would avoid trying to jam the square peg in the round hole, its them. I think what they want (a more exacting mirror of VTM rules mechanics and cannon) is really unattainable, and my typically curt, often rude responses derive from their attempts to (fruitlessly) twist an exceptionally good card game to and end that is really unattainable. Its unlikely that you'll ever find a CCG that is at all capable of replacing an RPG, and why in the world would a RPGer even want to try??? I think its best to leave the mechanics of the game as they are, expand them where is prudent, and use the World of Darkness as the thematic hook. It is an interesting one, after all. >i agree that this would be a fine game even if it was about the endless >conflict between piles of dog-poo Hrmmm.... You know what? ......Naah, stick with WoD. >but i also sympathise with the gist of >your >post which i take to be that it's fun to think about the doings of your >minions too. I sympathize too, but I really think that this is more a concern to be raised among peers in each person's play group, and is not a general shortcoming of the game. If anything, the game allows almost too much latitude for a whole spectrum of fun; tactical, colllecting, building decks, competitive tournaments, and creative extrapolation like 'storytelling card games' (writing a fictional story based on documented VTES game results). I suppose my point is that tactics, deckbuilding and (to a lesser extent) tournaments are more often ranked higher than the others in most players esteem. (and rightly so for a card game) >This idea informs the building of the decks we use for >home-play. >No doubt many people will criticise me for keeping my home play-group in the >dark with regard to competitive jyhad but i honestly did try to influence >them >in that direction and i failed - they like to play a card-based RPG, >essentially, and they get bored by weird technical combos and >excessively-fast >games. i like playing both ways, me - hare/hounds sorta thing, but it's >true! Happy Families comes closest to allowing for a card based RPG to happen, but I think that your home-play group isn't looking so hard for as tight a following to VTM cannon as what most VTM players ask for. I agree with you and Ventrue Harpy, but I think what you are really striving to create is not really a card based RPG so much as it is an environment that is structured for even diverse play. Every group attains this in some way, or stagnates and dies... In Boston and Charlotte, I've tried to encourage people to be aware of what intensity of deck their peers are playing so that the games can be soemwhat evenly matched. Players always come to the (non-tournament) table with objectives different that just "gain VP", and this game delivers like no other in allowing for those alternative objectives. All thats really needed is for other players to be informed about what your goals are with a deck, and maybe wriggle a little bit to accomodate... Happy Families is great in that it sets a staged limitation that allows for more balanced play among the clans. Most of us haven't evolved that level of structure, but we get along ;-) Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver

Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > I've heard (don't quote me on this) something about the Gangrel marking >their territory by tearing up the signposts, which fits the image on the >card, certainly. That kind of leads to a "I'm MAD!" use of the card, >busting up the local signage/furniture/etc. in a berserk rage to get ready >to rumble. > Course, the Gangrel don't natively have Potence, but that another >matter... I think I'll have to step up and take the credit (blame?) for that story. This came from an old buddy of mine, John Petersen (genius actually understood the original rulebook (even if it took him 14 hours to decipher), and taught our original Jyhad group the game the day after it came out) He was an old school tabletop Storyteller, and told us that very powerful Country Gangrel were mentioned somewhere in the first edition VTM rules as marking the roadways into their territory with claw-shredded signposts, to warn of interlopers. I posted the sentiment here back in 1995 or so, and it seems to have stuck in the collective subconscious of the NG. Like you, I have _no_ way of knowing how that ended up in Potence's basket (lets all blame WotC, shall we?), but there you are. I suppose a signpost as an improvised weapon would make a good theme for a strike card, but the card does have a certain "Danger Ahead" feel to it, by increasing the damage before the maneuver phase. Cute. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 14:01:28 -0500, Pat Ricochet wrote: >> What's really meant to be happening is >> that the potent vampire has ripped a signpost out of the ground and is >> wielding it like a halberd or scythe. Right? > > Well, except it increases the hand damage of the minion, as opposed to >being a weapon. So you can play Torn Signpost at inferior (base strength 2) >and hit someone with a Bastard sword for another +1, and hit for 3. > Odd, no? Is that right? A Bastard Sword is a melee weapon and so shouldn't get the bonus from Torn Signpost. Andrew

<snip> > >Return to Innocence is rather mysterious but I like the art - it >persuades me that there's a great story there, if I only knew it. > i wrote a bit of story around that card. It's even on the net in the jolstory collated by one of the French-canadian Freds. Don't have the URL right now, but basically in that story the vampires DID find the way back to humanity, some of them anyway. >Andrew [ quoted text not captured ]

>===== Original Message From a...@csi.com ===== [ quoted text not captured ] Bastard Sword Type(s): Equipment Card Text: Melee Weapon. Strength +1 damage each strike. Torn Signpost Type(s): Combat Discipline: Potence Card Text: Only usable before range is determined. This vampire has a strength of 2 for the remainder of combat. SUP: As above, but vampire has strength of 3 for the remainder of the combat. No problem, they work fine. The older versions had Hand damage instead of stength, so an old copy of one paired with a new copy of the other might appear not to work. In any case, the Bastard Sword is crap and you want Immortal Grapples in the deck with Torn Signpost so the problem shouldn't really arise. Talbot's Chainsaw on the other hand might be fun to use. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:17:31 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> said: Andrew> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:38:14 -0500, James McClellan wrote: >> Also, it is often quite hard to picture what a card is "really" doing - >> DotS, DI, SR, ToR3, ToGP, Political Flux are ones that spring to mind >> as difficult to provide a real-world story for. Andrew> Eh? These cards seem quite easy to understand. The card that puzzled Andrew> me for a while was Torn Signpost. I recently decided that it's just Andrew> that the art is misleading. What's really meant to be happening is Andrew> that the potent vampire has ripped a signpost out of the ground and is Andrew> wielding it like a halberd or scythe. Right? I always thought Torn Signpost was obvious - it does not mean that anyone is literally weilding a signpost as a weapon, it means that the chatacter is so strong that s/he can rip metal with bare hands. It's symbolic, not literal :). //Petri

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > Pat Ricochet wrote: > > Well, except it increases the hand damage of the minion, as opposed to > >being a weapon. So you can play Torn Signpost at inferior (base strength 2) > >and hit someone with a Bastard sword for another +1, and hit for 3. > > Is that right? A Bastard Sword is a melee weapon and so shouldn't get > the bonus from Torn Signpost. Card text says it does, as Pat explained. The Sword deals damage (when the minion strikes with it) based on the minion's strength, which in this case is enhanced by Torn Signpost. -- 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/

>i wrote a bit of story around that card. It's even on the net in the >jolstory >collated by one of the French-canadian Freds. Don't have the URL right now, >but basically in that story the vampires DID find the way back to humanity, >some of them anyway. Yeah, there are a few ways to get back your humanity... ...some really vulgar magick could probably do it, though you'd probably need an Oracle of Life or something and they'd be some really nasty paradox going around... ...and you can also regain "humanity" (as in becoming human, not any of that Golconda stuff) through infernalism. I *think* I recall reading from Clanbook: Baali or something that for 10 investiture points (which means your entire soul) you can become human again... Halcyan 2

On 1 Mar 2001 13:37:29 GMT, Ventru...@hotmail.com wrote: > >It came to me the other day that people are possibly losing the feeling of >this game. While I will admit that game mechanics are very important (working >out the best deck and winning - obviously) it does seem as though peoiple >flow through games without a cross thought as to what it's all about. > >Now I'm not berating anyone for this, I justr think that the games have a >danger of becoming too faceless (ie combat - card after card churned out >without anyone thinking 'Hey, I just called some carrion crows, that's cool!' >or at least picturing it in their heads.) > >I personally love this game and I'm sure you all do too. Sometimes though, >it's in danger of falling into the 4 suit variety of games. > >What do people think? I'm going to be the sad twat who likes the game for firstly the artwork and secxondly for the game mechanics - this might explain why i'm not a brillaint player. note about artwortk on cards: from the artisits i talk to, the are basically given a title, a bit of ecpalantion and left to it. normally two to three drafts are submitted and then the publisher get final choice. personally, all art is in the eye of the beholder and as for rob treasure's art could be dog poo theory, he's got two if not three originals framed and on his walls, he isn't complaining too much :) regards anam

Wes wrote: > Torn Signpost is a bit weird as it is an actual object, which seems to have > little to do with its effect. I guess stronger vampires could rip a signpost > apart easily, but that doesn't make much sense having it as a name for a > card. Also, if the signpost is supposed to represent an improvised weapon, > then it seems strange that the card represents only an increase in hand > damage and is not a melee weapon. (I always thought a pool cue would make a > nice long-reach stake in a pinch). I have a theory on this. I think what was intended is that it would basically be an improvised weapon. The V:TES version of the card says the vampire may use +2 hand damage "as a strike" for the remainder of combat. This would indicate that you could *either* do this *or* play a strike card. This would both make more sense and it would differentiate it from other potence cards. There is the rare card from the first set that you have to pay one to have basically the same effect, which becomes almost useless, there is undead strength which is virtually the same thing but less useful since it only works once. Sure either of these can be stacked, but that hardly seems like much of a difference. Somewhere along the line I think it was interpreted wrong and at this point, since nobody sees it as a problem, and many people think that changing its current use would ruin potence decks (maybe), it will never be changed. That is my theory on why it is what it is. It could very well be wrong of course. Kevin

Kevin wrote: >>The V:TES version of the card says the vampire may use +2 hand damage "as a strike" for the remainder of combat. This would indicate that you could *either* do this *or* play a strike card.>> Keep in mind that the pertinent part of the original Jyhad version (which was printed before the VTES version) of TS says: "Vampire does 2 hand damage for the remainder of combat." What does this mean? It is unclear--they apparently didn't think to hard about it when the card was originally designed, and the wording is ambigious--could be a "strike" kinda card, or it could just increase your hand damage. At some point after this card had been printed, but before the VTES version came out, it was rulled by the powers that be at the time that TS did nothing but give you 2 or 3 hand damage for the remainder of combat. Then the card was reprinted in VTES with more (different) ambigious text that seemed to run counter to the original ruling/errata for the card, so more clarification was issued that was very clear--the only effect that TS has is that it gives a vampire 2 or 3 hand damage for the remainder of combat. As there are plenty of cards (like melee weapons or Undead Strength) that are based on a minions hand damage, TS increases the damage these do as well. Yes, the card has a picture of a signpost on it. It could very well have a picture of a vampire snapping something in half on it, and that would have removed all confusion from this card. It also could have been called "Fists of Severe, But Not Fatal, Injury", and again, no confusion. It is unfortunate that someone decided to name this card "Torn Signpost", and that the artist who interpreted the art (and probably had no idea what the card actually did, let alone how the game worked...) drew a signpost, but that is neither here nor there. TS does only one thing--it increases your hand damage to 2 or 3. >>This would both make more sense and it would differentiate it from other potence cards. There is the rare card from the first set that you have to pay one to have basically the same effect, which becomes almost useless,>> Nope. Fists of Death (the rare card in question) gives you +1/+2 hand damage, rather than 2 or 3 hand damage. Thus FoD stacks with itself, TS, or other Pot cards (if you play 3 FoD at superior, you get 7 hand damage. If you play 3 TS at superior, you still only have 3 hand damage. If you play a TS and a FoD together at Superior, you have 5 hand damage for only 1 blood, as opposed to if you got that 5 hand damage by playing 2 FoD instead--TS and FoD are interlocking parts--you need both, not just one or the other). >>there is undead strength which is virtually the same thing but less useful since it only works once.>> But it is a strike, and stacks with both FoD and TS--if you play with only one of these cards, you do a maximum of 3 damage from a hand strike. If you play with 2 of them, you max out at 5 damage from a hand strike (unless you stack the FoD, but that costs a lot of blood). If you use all three, you max out a 7 hand damage from a hand strike. >>Sure either of these can be stacked, but that hardly seems like much of a difference.>> The difference is very important in a combat deck that wants do be able to reliably torporize folks without using Celerity. Yeah, if you are relying on TS/Blur for all your damage, then TS and FoD are pretty much interchangeable, with TS being mostly better, 'cause it doesn't cost anything. On the other hand, if you are the Nosferatu, Lasombra, Giovanni, or any other non Cel based clan, this isn't an option, thus you need the stackability provided by TS, FoD,and US (and this is why POT only decks generally beat POT/cel decks--the POT deck punches you the first time for 7, while the POT/cel deck hits for only 3 or 5 in the first strike, hoping to Blur...) Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

>> > Well, except it increases the hand damage of the minion, as opposed to >> >being a weapon. So you can play Torn Signpost at inferior (base strength 2) >> >and hit someone with a Bastard sword for another +1, and hit for 3. >> >> Is that right? A Bastard Sword is a melee weapon and so shouldn't get >> the bonus from Torn Signpost. > >Card text says it does, as Pat explained. The Sword deals damage (when the >minion strikes with it) based on the minion's strength, which in this case >is enhanced by Torn Signpost. ..which has got me to thinking... if the strength of a minion aids in the damage of a melee weapon, why wouldn't Kali's Fang receive this benefit? ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web ----- http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net

On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:17:01 -0500, Kevin Kelly wrote: >I have a theory on this. I think what was intended is that it would >basically be an improvised weapon. The V:TES version of the card says >the vampire may use +2 hand damage "as a strike" for the remainder of >combat. This would indicate that you could *either* do this *or* play a >strike card. This would both make more sense and it would differentiate >it from other potence cards. There is the rare card from the first set >that you have to pay one to have basically the same effect, which >becomes almost useless, there is undead strength which is virtually the >same thing but less useful since it only works once. Sure either of >these can be stacked, but that hardly seems like much of a difference. >Somewhere along the line I think it was interpreted wrong and at this >point, since nobody sees it as a problem, and many people think that >changing its current use would ruin potence decks (maybe), it will never >be changed. That is my theory on why it is what it is. It could very >well be wrong of course. It sounds right to me. I only have the VTES version of the card and hence couldn't understand what people were talking about - that card makes it clear that it provides a more powerful hand strike. I would just add that the improvised weapon theory fits with the sewer lid/gate/car cards. Stands to reason that you'd have the option of whacking someone with a piece of handy ironmongery, rather than having to throw it at them. Sticking with the VTES wording wouldn't make much difference to a potence deck - it would just mean that they couldn't use another weapon like Bastard Sword while they were wielding a signpost. But they don't use Bastard Swords anyway, right? Andrew

>===== Original Message From pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) ===== >thus you need the stackability provided by TS, >FoD,and US (and this is why POT only decks generally beat POT/cel decks--the >POT deck punches you the first time for 7, while the POT/cel deck hits for only >3 or 5 in the first strike, hoping to Blur...) Nonsense. When POT/cel sees your TS + FoD, we just maneuver long and wave. :-) Or just agree a table split and beat up the bleeders. [ quoted text not captured ]

>===== Original Message From a...@csi.com ===== [ quoted text not captured ] I think of Torn Signpost as a little warmup exercize to the proper bloodletting. Just getting a vampire equivalent of adrenaline flowing. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>It sounds right to me. I only have the VTES version of the card and hence couldn't understand what people were talking about - that card makes it clear that it provides a more powerful hand strike.>> Sadly, as I mentioned elsewhere, the VTES wording was a garbled version of the Jyhad version, which is only slightly more clear about the function of the card. The Jyhad version had somewhat ambigious wording (although not that ambigious). The clarification to the card was that it worked as it did now (there is no way to determine one way or the other what the original intention of the card was other then conjecture). When it got reprinted in VTES, it was inadvertently given even more ambigious text (note how it says strike, but doesn't use the standard Strike: template), so was re-clarified. >>I would just add that the improvised weapon theory fits with the sewer lid/gate/car cards. Stands to reason that you'd have the option of whacking someone with a piece of handy ironmongery, rather than having to throw it at them.>> Again, all well and good, but not really important. The card is very simple. It gives you 2 or 3 hand damage for the remainder of combat. That is all. Just pretend it is named "Fists of Severe, But Not Fatal, Injury" instead of Torn Signpost, and everything works out ok. >>Sticking with the VTES wording wouldn't make much difference to a potence deck - it would just mean that they couldn't use another weapon like Bastard Sword while they were wielding a signpost.>> Well, no, as the VTES wording isn't particularly any more clear than the Jyhad text. It uses a non standard template, and isn't completely clear as to what it does. Thus, it is clarified. Well, that and it is reprinted in Sabbat War, making all of this completely moot. [ quoted text not captured ]

jpar...@scu.edu.au wrote: > > ..which has got me to thinking... if the strength of a minion aids in the > damage of a melee weapon, why wouldn't Kali's Fang receive this benefit? A minion's strength only adds to the damage if the card says so. Compare: Bastard Sword: Equipment, 1 pool Melee Weapon. Strength+1 damage each strike. to Kali's Fang: Equipment, Assamite, 3 pool Unique melee weapon. 2 aggravated damage each strike. Bastard Sword's damage is clearly dependent on a minion's Strength. A Disarmed vampire would do less damage with the Sword, but the same amount with Kali's Fang. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "You seem to think you know it all Let me tell you something, you can't win." -- Pat McGee Band

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > Sticking with the VTES wording wouldn't make much difference to a > potence deck - it would just mean that they couldn't use another > weapon like Bastard Sword while they were wielding a signpost. But > they don't use Bastard Swords anyway, right? Well, it would also have meant that you wouldn't be able to combine it with Undead Strength or Pushing the Limit; a severe disadvantage. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 08:59:07 -0600, James Hamblin wrote: >> they don't use Bastard Swords anyway, right? > >Well, it would also have meant that you wouldn't be able to combine it >with Undead Strength or Pushing the Limit; a severe disadvantage. If you're not using a weapon then you'd use Increased Strength with the Torn Signpost instead. Andrew

On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:40:22 -0500, Tom Kassel wrote: >I think of Torn Signpost as a little warmup exercize to the proper >bloodletting. Just getting a vampire equivalent of adrenaline flowing. If I spot a cheap box of Rage starters, I must pick it up as it occurs to me that this is the game that you really want to be playing. Do folk have opinions on the old game versus the remake - I've not tried either. Andrew

On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 18:10:17 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Doesn't work. Increased strength only adds to potence based strikes. TS isn't a strike, so TS. The strike limitation hurts Inceased strength a lot and is why you don't see it much in POT/anything deck listings. TS works fine alone, better obviously with a nice strike. Increased Strength alone gives you precisely nothing. Not good. Tom

On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 18:11:43 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:40:22 -0500, Tom Kassel wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I bought a little of the first version. It really sucked. It also managed to use a less readable font than even L5R which is a considerable achievement. I realize, of course, that you are jesting. The true combat bully only likes beating up the helpless, never a fair fight. Tom

On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 18:26:29 GMT, Tom Kassel wrote: >Doesn't work. Increased strength only adds to potence based strikes. >TS isn't a strike, so TS. I'm not talking about the errataed form of TS but the VTES version that I have. The strikes that this enables are potence-based strikes. Andrew

On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 18:29:22 GMT, Tom Kassel wrote: >>If I spot a cheap box of Rage starters, I must pick it up as it occurs >>to me that this is the game that you really want to be playing. Do >>folk have opinions on the old game versus the remake - I've not tried >I bought a little of the first version. It really sucked. It also >managed to use a less readable font than even L5R which is a >considerable achievement. > >I realize, of course, that you are jesting. Not entirely. The game has its fans; the remake might have been cleaned up enough to be playable and ought to be dirt cheap. But first, I'm going to take a closer look at Mythos... Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > If I spot a cheap box of Rage starters, I must pick it up as it occurs > to me that this is the game that you really want to be playing. Do > folk have opinions on the old game versus the remake - I've not tried > either. Not having played either, most opinions work like this: The original is a fun game to play with people if you're just having fun. It can be broken very, very easily if played "properly". The remake is a much, much better "playable" game but, as a result, loses some of the fun element. Depends what you want, then. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "Definitely a woman" - www.thespark.com/ Standard disclaimers apply to this post. Full written details available upon request. Your statutory rights are not affected.

On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 19:47:56 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 18:26:29 GMT, Tom Kassel wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] OK, fine. That would work as long as you play games before Sabbat War is released. Your time-machine in good order? Tom

[ quoted text not captured ] But not TOO far before Sabbat War or you'll get to the Jyhad version, which has the correct text. Really, Andrew, your trolls are becoming transparent these days. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

On 06 Mar 2001 13:43:15 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >Sadly, as I mentioned elsewhere, the VTES wording was a garbled version of the >Jyhad version, which is only slightly more clear about the function of the >card. The Jyhad version had somewhat ambigious wording (although not that >ambigious). The clarification to the card was that it worked as it did now >(there is no way to determine one way or the other what the original intention >of the card was other then conjecture). When it got reprinted in VTES, it was >inadvertently given even more ambigious text (note how it says strike, but >doesn't use the standard Strike: template), so was re-clarified. Garbled? Inadvertent? Where are you getting this from? The Jyhad version was unclear. The VTES version added the strike clause to try make it clear. It didn't use the standard "strike:" template because you don't play it as a strike - it's a pre-range action - something that the game has no template for at all. The mystery here is why the rules team didn't then stick by their revision of the card. The usual WotC flip-flop and lack of continuity, I suppose - it was SOP in Magic at that time too. And now we have the usual anti-VTES, pro-combat bias too. I suppose that the card has been a football because it's not clear what it's supposed to represent. So much for the "dog-poo" school of game design. Andrew

>===== Original Message From a...@csi.com ===== >The mystery here is why the rules team didn't then stick by their >revision of the card. The usual WotC flip-flop and lack of >continuity, I suppose - it was SOP in Magic at that time too. And now >we have the usual anti-VTES, pro-combat bias too. > Your accusation of pro-combat bias is mildly amusing but, as usual, completely wrong. A few counter examples: Immortal Grapple - once applied the hand strike restriction to the entire combat. Now it only lasts one round. Disarm - once usuable when going to torpor. No longer. Pulled Fangs - once inflicted an additional point of aggravated damage. Now it's normal damage. The only recent pro-combat change that I can think of was Elysium:The Arboretum which now only ends combat between Camarilla vampires. (Curiously Monger and the errata list are both missing this ruling. It is only present on the card list at the White Wolf site. Has some anti-combat wimp been infiltrating?). >I suppose that the card has been a football because it's not clear >what it's supposed to represent. So much for the "dog-poo" school of >game design. As you well know, the dog-poo concept has nothing whatever to do with design. It concerns the relevance or otherwise of the background from the player's point of view. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tom Kassel wrote: > The only recent pro-combat change that I can think of was Elysium:The > Arboretum which now only ends combat between Camarilla vampires. (Curiously > Monger and the errata list are both missing this ruling. It is only present > on the card list at the White Wolf site. Has some anti-combat wimp been > infiltrating?). I'm not about Monger but this probably isn't on the errata list because it is not now nor ever has been "errata". The Elysium change (like Legacy of Pander and Misdirection and maybe one or two other examples) only happened at the time Sabbat War was printed and is only effected by the play-by-the-latest-printing- of-a-card policy. The other stuff you mentioned actually got errataed before being reprinted with the errata. I believe these should technically be removed from the official errata at this time if they haven't been. Fred

>===== Original Message From James Coupe <jr...@srcf.ucam.org> ===== >Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > >> If I spot a cheap box of Rage starters, I must pick it up as it occurs >> to me that this is the game that you really want to be playing. Do >> folk have opinions on the old game versus the remake - I've not tried >> either. > >Not having played either, most opinions work like this: > >The original is a fun game to play with people if you're just having >fun. It can be broken very, very easily if played "properly". > >The remake is a much, much better "playable" game but, as a result, >loses some of the fun element. > >Depends what you want, then. > >-- >James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D Completely agree with the above. Classic rage was actually the first game in which i deployed the idea of creating a suit of balanced decks for people to pick one up and play. It is a HUGE game, BTW - TWO basic sets and four expansions [Umbra, Wyrm, Amazon War and Legacy of the Tribes - well over 1000 different cards]. The card quality has never been bettered - you can and often do spill beer on them and it won't matter, and the foils are mostly really good, and really REALLy rare. It bristles with terrific concepts and memorable characters and is very funny to boot - lots of sly references to things WoD or not [Beavis and Butthead, the X-files and Pulp Fiction all have little walk-on parts]. Justin Achilli had a lot to do with its design, i think i'm right in saying - anyway an ex-WW staffer who sold me a lot of foils cheap once told me that Justin was responsible for ALL the MANY spelling mistakes in War of the Amazon. It actually reflects the WoD better than Jyhad/VTES - you can build pretty respectable Vampire, Wraith, mage and Changeling Rage decks, plus Pentex, Bane, Evil Werewolves [my favourite!] and of course all the various tree-hugging clans. New rage redesigned by Luke Peterschmidt is a better game qua game, but a lot of the humour is missing and it is MUCH slower. One really brilliant thing about it is that the Umbra is the world of Werewolf the Wild West. Whoever thought of that deserves MUCH kudos, and Doomtown players particularly should appreciate the alternative Gothic Steam-punk perspective of Rage II. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>Garbled? Inadvertent? Where are you getting this from? The Jyhad version was unclear.>> I fail to see how the Jyhad version is any less clear than the VTES version. the Jyhad version says that the vampire using it "does 2 hand damage for the remainder of combat." This strikes (ahem...) me as rather clear. The VTES version uses non standard verbiage to say, essentially, the same thing. The VTES version says "...can inflict 2 hand damage as a strike..." If you have 2 hand damage (or strength, as the case may currently be), yes, you can inflict 2 hand damage as a strike. You can also use Undead strength to cause an additional point (assuming inferiror) for a total of 3. The wording of the VTES TS does not indicate that you *can't* use a stackable Pot card along with the TS. The wording is simply not there. Thus, it is garbled. That, and the card had already been well defined by the time that the VTES version came out, and the wording of the VTES version could be, by those inclined, interpreted as working differently than the Jyhad version, and the clarified version, and there was no particular reason that the VTES version got the wording it did--no ruling was overturned, and no one intended that TS work any differently. >>The VTES version added the strike clause to try make it clear.>> It failed. >>It didn't use the standard "strike:" template because you don't play it as a strike - it's a pre-range action - something that the game has no template for at all.>> That is correct. TS is not a strike. Nor does it preclude using another strike card to add to its damage. And the VTES version is not worded to work any differently than this. >>The mystery here is why the rules team didn't then stick by their revision of the card.>> Because there was no revision. TS was set in the way it worked. Someone, somewhere wrote the VTES version differently, probably because they were confused, not because someone deliberately decided to overturn the previous rulings on the card. >>The usual WotC flip-flop and lack of continuity, I suppose - it was SOP in Magic at that time too. And now we have the usual anti-VTES, pro-combat bias too.>> Oh, Andrew. Please lay off the crack. Crack is wack. >>I suppose that the card has been a football because it's not clear what it's supposed to represent. So much for the "dog-poo" school of game design.>> This is clear--again, it is unfortunate that the card was named Torn Signpost, and that the artist who illustrated the card (who in all likelyhood had no idea whatthe card did or how the game worked) painted a signpost. This is unfortunate. But unimportant now, as TS was reprinted in SW with *very* clear text. The ambiguity is all gone, as is the ruling. The current (clear) text over rides all the previous (unclear) texts. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > > Tom Kassel wrote: > > The only recent pro-combat change that I can think of was Elysium:The > > Arboretum which now only ends combat between Camarilla vampires. (Curiously > > Monger and the errata list are both missing this ruling. It is only present > > on the card list at the White Wolf site. Has some anti-combat wimp been > > infiltrating?). > > I'm not about Monger but this probably isn't on the errata list because it is > not now nor ever has been "errata". The Elysium change (like Legacy of Pander > and Misdirection and maybe one or two other examples) only happened at the time > Sabbat War was printed and is only effected by the play-by-the-latest-printing- > of-a-card policy. Oops! (And beating others to the punch by self-flaming...) I think I take that back. Elysium *Fields* is a Sabbat War reprint. Elysium: *The Arboretum* was not reprinted but simply announced as being changed in White Wolf's "Changes found in Sabbat War" web page, http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Changes_SabbatWar.html: "Elysium: The Arboretum: while not reprinted in the set, the errata begun in the [RTR 10-NOV-1995] and printed in the Sabbat rules sheet as been extended. Only Camarilla vampires can call the referendum to burn the Elysium and, for the same reason, the Elysium can only be tapped to end combat involving two Camarilla vampires. Other minions do not recognize / acknowledge the Elysium. [10.1]" However, there is no errata mentioned for the card itself in the official errata. I guess they figured that simply changing the rulebook (rule 10.1 of the newest rulebook, as cited), was sufficient. This is something I'd like to see added to the clarifications/ rulings/errata page. Or perhaps to the "Card Text Migrations", which right now only mentions that if can be used by the controller of a combatant. I think if someone were pressed to find the official rule in a VEKN tournament, they might very well forget to look in the rulebook for this change. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > However, there is no errata mentioned for the card itself in the official errata. I > guess they figured that simply changing the rulebook (rule 10.1 of the newest rulebook, > as cited), was sufficient. This is something I'd like to see added to the clarifications/ > rulings/errata page. Or perhaps to the "Card Text Migrations", which right now only > mentions that if can be used by the controller of a combatant. I think if someone were > pressed to find the official rule in a VEKN tournament, they might very well forget to > look in the rulebook for this change. > > Fred One of the hardest things I have found while introducing new players to this game has been explaining 'errata' to cards like Elysium the Arboretum and Misdirection. I'm not sure how to fix this really... I know that Shadowrun's producing company Z-Man Games had some kind of promo where they would replace old outdated versions of cards with the new versions. I'm not sure how successful this was but frankly I was impressed that the company was willing to do that for their fans. Cards like Elysium: The Arboretum could probably be replaced with new, correct versions in future expansions without too much trouble. Those with old cards however (like many of my local newbies) will still be confused. When one of the newbies was describing to me the fantastic deck he had built last week, he said he had a card that 'taps all your prey's minions as long as you pay some pool'... I just had to cringe. I recognize that a lot of this was unavoidable. When Jyhad was designed, nobody ever considered that future expansions like the Sabbat would require earlier cards to be altered. I don't blame anyone for this but I do think White Wolf might want to do something in order to 'fix' it. Any ideas how this can be done without me mailing 3000 cards to White Wolf to be replaced? Cheers, WES

On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:31:30 -0500, Wes wrote: >When one of the newbies was describing to me the fantastic deck he had built >last week, he said he had a card that 'taps all your prey's minions as long >as you pay some pool'... I just had to cringe. It's clear now why your newbies take such pleasure in pounding on you. <grin> >I recognize that a lot of this was unavoidable. The Misdirection errata looked unnecessary to me. The game had survived since the start with Misdirection as an X card and so it had earned grand-father status. Andrew

On 07 Mar 2001 23:16:45 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >That, and the card had already been well defined by the time that the VTES >version came out, and the wording of the VTES version could be, by those >inclined, interpreted as working differently than the Jyhad version, and the >clarified version, and there was no particular reason that the VTES version got >the wording it did--no ruling was overturned, and no one intended that TS work >any differently. I only have the VTES version and take exactly the same view of the SW version - that it overturns the current (VTES) version of the card for no good reason. Why should I accept the SW rewrite when you didn't accept the VTES rewrite? >>>The mystery here is why the rules team didn't then stick by their >revision of the card.>> > >Because there was no revision. TS was set in the way it worked. Someone, >somewhere wrote the VTES version differently, probably because they were >confused, not because someone deliberately decided to overturn the previous >rulings on the card. What, the pixies crept in overnight and did it? It seems self-evident that the VTES wording was created with specific intent by those who worked on the set. I assume that this intent was ignored by wilful players in the same way as players ignored or fought much that came after Jyhad. >This is clear--again, it is unfortunate that the card was named Torn Signpost, >and that the artist who illustrated the card (who in all likelyhood had no idea >whatthe card did or how the game worked) painted a signpost. Er, what would you expect him to paint - a pile of dog-poo? Andrew

>===== Original Message From a...@csi.com ===== [ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps a vampire slipping on a pile of dog-poo, sliding into a signpost which gets torn and then getting up mad as hell. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

Tom Kassel <TomK...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message news:3AB8...@MailAndNews.com... > >===== Original Message From a...@csi.com ===== [snip] Maybe slipping in the poo, landing in it, picking it up to see what you trod in and THEN getting really pissed. Rob PS. Ill mail you later today Tom. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On 07 Mar 2001 23:16:45 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: > > >That, and the card had already been well defined by the time that the VTES > >version came out, and the wording of the VTES version could be, by those > >inclined, interpreted as working differently than the Jyhad version, and the > >clarified version, and there was no particular reason that the VTES version got > >the wording it did--no ruling was overturned, and no one intended that TS work > >any differently. > > I only have the VTES version and take exactly the same view of the SW > version - that it overturns the current (VTES) version of the card for > no good reason. Why should I accept the SW rewrite when you didn't > accept the VTES rewrite? Look, Andrew. It's not our fault you're ignorant. You could go find a Jyhad Torn Signpost for about a quarter, and then everyone will be happy. Do you not accept the Trap rewrite, either? Even though the new wording on Trap is the clearest, most non-ambiguous wording that card has ever had? > What, the pixies crept in overnight and did it? It seems self-evident > that the VTES wording was created with specific intent by those who > worked on the set. I assume that this intent was ignored by wilful > players in the same way as players ignored or fought much that came > after Jyhad. It was admitted soon after VTES was released that the change of wording on Torn Signpost was intended to "clean up" the card, not change its functionality. At the time (or soon after) we had incompetent nincompoops like "Scalpel" as our netreps. This guy knew about 5% as much as LSJ about this game. If people like him were in charge of wording changes, I'm not surprised TS got "changed." > >This is clear--again, it is unfortunate that the card was named Torn Signpost, > >and that the artist who illustrated the card (who in all likelyhood had no idea > >whatthe card did or how the game worked) painted a signpost. > > Er, what would you expect him to paint - a pile of dog-poo? How about a big angry vampire going "GRRRRR!" with a ripped up signpost in the background? At least the picture isn't that of a vampire _wielding_ the signpost. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:20:55 -0600, James Hamblin wrote: >Look, Andrew. It's not our fault you're ignorant. You could go find a >Jyhad Torn Signpost for about a quarter, and then everyone will be >happy. When I took up the game last year, I deliberately avoided buying Jyhad cards because I wanted a uniform set with the latest graphics and card texts. I now find that I have been cruelly deceived. Who do I sue? >Do you not accept the Trap rewrite, either? Trap has this problem too!? Excuse me while I go and tear up a signpost ... aaaargghhh!!! >At the time (or soon after) we had incompetent >nincompoops like "Scalpel" as our netreps. This guy knew about 5% as >much as LSJ about this game. If people like him were in charge of >wording changes, I'm not surprised TS got "changed." Now this I believe. It's the old problem of "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" And I'll grant that LSJ is trying to make the best of a bad job. But when you're in a hole, you should stop digging - i.e. no more new errata like Misdirection please. And try to make the game available in an updated, accessible form, e.g. a new base edition and/or a comprehensive rulebook like the Shadowfist one which includes all the latest revised card texts. Andrew

On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 11:07:53 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] When Misdirection was designed and printed, the following vampires did not exist: Gloria Giovanni (DS) Ohanna (AH) Mustafa Rahman (AH) Royce (Sabbat) Christine Boscacci (Sabbat) Samson (Sabbat) Cameron (Sabbat) Brooke (Sabbat) Ingrid Russo (Sabbat) In Jyhad, the cheapest vampire with Dominate was Jing Wei, a 3-cap. She was the only 3-cap. There were five 4-caps with inferior Dominate. The cheapest vampire with superior Dominate was Didi Meyers, and she was the ONLY one. Weenie Presence bleed or weenie Computer Hacking was always reasonably viable even in the Jyhad days, but they had their own problems; namely, no way to gain stealth (no Bonding), no way to get their guys out on the cheap (Enchant Kindred was not at stealth), and no way to bleed for more than 3 (no PRE bleed modifiers). Weenie Misdirection/Dominate bleed really came into its own with the release of the Sabbat, and its plethora of little-bitty guys who could all come and bleed you for 4-6 in a single action, depending on which modifier and what stealth was used. It seems clear to me that you have never played against a weenie Dominate bleed deck, or you wouldn't claim that the Misdirection errata was unnecessary. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 11:43:46 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: >It seems clear to me that you have never played against a weenie >Dominate bleed deck, or you wouldn't claim that the Misdirection >errata was unnecessary. I'm no expert but I didn't notice any squawking about this issue prior to SW. How come this wasn't done long before, e.g. in the 7/7 upheaval? My perspective on this is that I have yet another swathe of cards which don't do what they say (if playing by VEKN rules). And I'm not going to buy lots of SW cards to replace them. You smart guys should figure out how to fix the game without making so many cards obsolete or misleading. Andrew

On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 17:32:03 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 11:43:46 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] How about applying the NRA rule to all one's minions for the turn? One bleed a turn would close down those nasty weenies. I could probably live with going 50/50 Bum's Rush and Ambush. Tom

On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 17:32:03 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 11:43:46 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: > >>It seems clear to me that you have never played against a weenie >>Dominate bleed deck, or you wouldn't claim that the Misdirection >>errata was unnecessary. > >I'm no expert but I didn't notice any squawking about this issue prior >to SW. How come this wasn't done long before, e.g. in the 7/7 >upheaval? Two ways to look at that. First, right around 7/7 they weren't so terribly common yet and it may not even have been realized that Misdirection was the problem. SECOND, there was plenty changed in 7/7 that was even more necessary - Misdirection could stand to wait. Which of these is true is not information I am privy to, but I'd bet it was one or the other. >My perspective on this is that I have yet another swathe of cards >which don't do what they say (if playing by VEKN rules). And I'm not >going to buy lots of SW cards to replace them. You smart guys should >figure out how to fix the game without making so many cards obsolete >or misleading. Cry me a river, or better yet, go cry Wizards of the Coast a river, since they were the ones who made such a hash of things. In the meantime, just DEAL. Or don't play. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> > >When one of the newbies was describing to me the fantastic deck he had built > >last week, he said he had a card that 'taps all your prey's minions as long > >as you pay some pool'... I just had to cringe. > > It's clear now why your newbies take such pleasure in pounding on you. > <grin> I cringed because I felt bad. It is hard enough to teach new players the game without having to explain how their favourite new cards are not as powerful as they think. For the record, I WANT a challenge... in fact, so far my solution has been to allow them to play cards like Fame or Misdirection in the old way because it gives me and the other veteran a slight handicap. I generally explain to them that the card has changed slightly and the reason for it, but for the game they play it in we will usually just go with the text as written. Part of the problem in this case is that three of the new players teamed up and bought a few boxes of Jyahd starters. They got a lot of great cards but of course they aren't aware of the changes until I or Chris tell them. I have however given them the White Wolf site and have been planning to print out some of the errata/clarification shit for them. Why do you think this would make them want to pound on me? Does it sound like I am doing something to deserve this or are you seeing similarities with your own poundings? I imagine the reason people pound on you is a totally different animal. Cheers, WES

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:20:55 -0600, James Hamblin wrote: > >Do you not accept the Trap rewrite, either? > > Trap has this problem too!? Excuse me while I go and tear up a > signpost ... aaaargghhh!!! Only if you didn't use the rulings on Trap, either, and played, for instance, that once trap was played neither player could play any more cards that combat. Like Torn Signpost, Trap functions just the way it always has (accoring to the rulings of the then-current net.rep and rules teams for the 1994 Jyhad and the 1995 VTES versions). Trap simply has clearer card text now, as does Torn Signpost. -- 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/

[ quoted text not captured ] Besides being unbalancingly harsh on bleed decks, vote decks, and Corruption decks, this rule fails on the "making cards obsolete" metric that was cited above: Cryptic Rider and Charming Lobby are both unusable under the proposed system. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>I only have the VTES version and take exactly the same view of the SW version - that it overturns the current (VTES) version of the card for no good reason. Why should I accept the SW rewrite when you didn't accept the VTES rewrite?>> 'Cause the VTES "rewrite" wasn't a rewrite. Listen--The Jyhad version had wording that was clear enough. The intention of the card could be garnered from the wording on the card. The problem came up because people decided to invent ways that the card worked, based on the picture (or title), completely ignoring the way the card was written to, and did, work. Thus, a clarification was written, and quite early in the evolution of the game. Right. Then, the VTES set came out, and frankly, the VTES reprint was something of a hack job--more typos/errors/and misprints were put into the VTES set than were taken out. The VTES wording of TS was meant to be a clarified card text, making the effect of the card, as clarified by the rules/design team, clearer. Sadly, it simply muddled the issue more, and immediately after the reprint of TS, the rules/design team said "Ooops. We didn't intend to change the card. The wording was meant as a clarification. Here is the clarification again..." Now, with the SW reprint of TS, the rules/design team, who did a *much* better job than their predecessors, made sure the card read the way it was meant to, with no room for misinterpretation. >>What, the pixies crept in overnight and did it?>> Maybe. Maybe it was the same pixies that made, say, Malkavian Dementia require a controlled Malkavian, or Hector Sosa have inferior Potence. They were very busy pixies. >>It seems self-evident that the VTES wording was created with specific intent by those who worked on the set.>> Maybe, but if that was the case, that specific intent ran contrary to the actual working of the card, and it was quickly stated that the rewording of TS in the VTES reprint was specifically *not* intended to change the working of the card. That, and the VTES wording does not necessarily contradict the wording of the Jyhad version, nor the SW version. It could if you wanted it to, but it could just as easily not. That is the genius of ambigious text--it can be interpreted in multiple ways... >>I assume that this intent was ignored by wilful players in the same way as players ignored or fought much that came after Jyhad.>> Nope. It was immediately re-clarified by the rules/design team, as the card has worked the same since day one, and still does. >>Er, what would you expect him to paint - a pile of dog-poo?>> Maybe a vampire breaking a signpost? [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>When I took up the game last year, I deliberately avoided buying Jyhad cards because I wanted a uniform set with the latest graphics and card texts. I now find that I have been cruelly deceived. Who do I sue?>> Umm, the card makers? The folks who slipped all the misprints and errors into the VTES reprint? My mom? Oh, Andrew, I feel your pain. In fact, I weep for you. You, and the children. >>Trap has this problem too!? Excuse me while I go and tear up a signpost ... aaaargghhh!!!>> See? And now you have 2 hand damage, but aren't using any sort of "improvised hand weapon" or anything. >>Now this I believe. It's the old problem of "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" And I'll grant that LSJ is trying to make the best of a bad job. But when you're in a hole, you should stop digging - i.e. no more new errata like Misdirection please. And try to make the game available in an updated, accessible form, e.g. a new base edition and/or a comprehensive rulebook like the Shadowfist one which includes all the latest revised card texts.>> That'd be nice. [ quoted text not captured ]

>===== Original Message From LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> ===== >Tom Kassel wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 17:32:03 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> >> wrote: >> >My perspective on this is that I have yet another swathe of cards >> >which don't do what they say (if playing by VEKN rules). And I'm not >> >going to buy lots of SW cards to replace them. You smart guys should >> >figure out how to fix the game without making so many cards obsolete >> >or misleading. >> > >> How about applying the NRA rule to all one's minions for the turn? >> One bleed a turn would close down those nasty weenies. >> >> I could probably live with going 50/50 Bum's Rush and Ambush. > >Besides being unbalancingly harsh on bleed decks, vote decks, and >Corruption decks, this rule fails on the "making cards obsolete" metric >that was cited above: Cryptic Rider and Charming Lobby are both >unusable under the proposed system. > Oops, left off the smiley. The suggestion was meant as humour. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 11:43:46 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: > > >It seems clear to me that you have never played against a weenie > >Dominate bleed deck, or you wouldn't claim that the Misdirection > >errata was unnecessary. > > I'm no expert but I didn't notice any squawking about this issue prior > to SW. How come this wasn't done long before, e.g. in the 7/7 > upheaval? I can state that discussion regarding such possible changes was around. Maximising it at, two, say. The impetus to change it, however, wasn't as apparent. People thought "Yeah, it might be possible to break it pretty bad" but no-one really *had* yet. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "Definitely a woman" - www.thespark.com/ Standard disclaimers apply to this post. Full written details available upon request. Your statutory rights are not affected.

<Any ideas how this can be done without me mailing 3000 cards to White Wolf to be replaced?> I hate to pull the rug out from under newbies and say "uh nope, that card is changed". How about WW printing up a few pages of little text stickers that fit over the old text box with the new and correct wordings for the most common and important ones. Maybe get a set with a SASE. They wouldn't have to reprint anything and could focus on Final Nights. If I was new, I'd much rather have it on the card itself then on a computer print out. Jeff Moore Prince of Cleveland "Wake up sucker! We're thieves and we're bad guys, that's EXACTLY what we are!" Peter, "Dawn of the Dead"

Either play the game and enjoy it or just sod off and get a life... if you want to rules lawyer go and play magic Dark Howler

Also are you going to complain that on the card "ambush" that the quote from the Lasombra Cameron is talking about them attacking from the shadows and when you look at Camerons card he doesn't have Obtenabration...? Dark Howler

Trut...@webtv.net wrote: ><Any ideas how this can be done without me mailing 3000 cards to White >Wolf to be replaced?> >I hate to pull the rug out from under newbies and say "uh nope, that >card is changed". How about WW printing up a few pages of little text >stickers that fit over the old text box with the new and correct >wordings for the most common and important ones. Maybe get a set with a >SASE. Good idea, but can't everyone do that themselves with a home PC? Why leave it up to WW when it was WotC that screwed the pooch...? If its confusing to new players, just encourage them to buy the new stuff, only, until they get the hang of the game. By the time your newbies get into it, WW will have hopefully gotten a reprint of the base set together, with all the corrected text and whatnot. my change on your $0.02 ;-) Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver

darkh...@bastardsquad.org (Dark Howler) writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Obtenebration is about controlling shadows. You don't need it to stand in one. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >It seems clear to me that you have never played against a weenie > >Dominate bleed deck, or you wouldn't claim that the Misdirection > >errata was unnecessary. > I'm no expert but I didn't notice any squawking about this issue prior > to SW. How come this wasn't done long before, e.g. in the 7/7 > upheaval? I'm coming in on this late, but you really do need to check the NG archives, Andrew. This issue has been discussed and ranted about for *years*. A few things you can use for your search: +"Robert Goudie" (the dom weenie misdirection king) +"Dominate" +"Weenie" +"Misidrection" +"Steve Lint" +"Camarilla Segragation" +"Tournament" There'll be a plethora of reading material for you to catch up on... Sorrow --- I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me. They ask me if I feel remose and I answer, "Why of course! There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!" So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy