Does anyone find it odd that you can designate the ordering of any of
your other phases except for the minion phase? Exceptions being where a
card states a condition of "at the beginning" or "at the end" of a
particular phase.
Per section 6 of the Rulebook
"Some actions are mandatory. For example, a ready vampire with no blood
must hunt. During your minion phase, none of your minions can take any
non-mandatory actions if any of your minions have mandatory actions yet
to perform. If you have two or more minions with mandatory actions, they
may be done in the order you choose. A minion with a mandatory action to
perform cannot perform any other action. If a single minion has two or
more different mandatory actions, then he is "stuck" and cannot take any
action (this doesn't prevent your other minions from taking
non-mandatory actions, however). "
I'd always thought it odd that Mandatory actions during your minion
phase take precedence over other Vampire actions; specifically the
hunting action.
Would it really shake up the game that much to allow a player to
determine their entire minion phase? Those Vamps that must hunt, are
still going to have to complete that action, so what inherent problems
would arise if a player would be able to alter the minion phase order?
One result would end up with some possible condition changes that could
negate the mandatory action. Say an empty Vampire is the recipient of a
5th Tradition, obviously then nullifying the need to hunt.
Thoughts and Comments?
BernieTime
Lansing, Michigan
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote:
> One result would end up with some possible condition changes that could
> negate the mandatory action. Say an empty Vampire is the recipient of a
> 5th Tradition, obviously then nullifying the need to hunt.
>
> Thoughts and Comments?
I've always thought the reason for this was mostly thematic. The most
common mandatory action is the hunt. When a vampire needs to feed, he
does it immediately and sometimes recklessly (Masquerade Endangered,
etc.).
In addition, forcing Methuselahs to take their mandatory actions first
prevents arguments about ending one's minion phase (accidentally or on
purpose) before all mandatory actions have been taken.
Doesn't seem like we'd gain a lot by changing that rule.
Matt Morgan
<berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM> wrote in message
news:3f8c5397...@netnews.comcast.net...
> Would it really shake up the game that much to allow a player to
> determine their entire minion phase? Those Vamps that must hunt, are
> still going to have to complete that action, so what inherent problems
> would arise if a player would be able to alter the minion phase order?
>
> One result would end up with some possible condition changes that could
> negate the mandatory action. Say an empty Vampire is the recipient of a
> 5th Tradition, obviously then nullifying the need to hunt.
>
> Thoughts and Comments?
While I don't think it would destroy or shake up the game a great
deal it keeps things working thematically. (why I care about theme
in a game that ignores it when neccessary I don't know probably because
I'm at work and bored 8-). )
That vampire that arises from thier nightly sleep hungrey for blood
isn't going to go and wait for that rave to supply them for blood, or rely on
another vampire's hospitality, they're going out hunting before the hunger
loosens their hold over their beast.
The only actual game effect (that I see) is lessening the dangers of being
empty. Currently
if your minion is empty of blood at the start of your minion phase they have to
hunt.
Changing the ordering restriction opens the possibility that another minion
could
protect that minion from hunting (including but not limited to Psychic Veil,
Fifth Tradition,
Raves, killing everybody who might attempt to block a hunt, another minion
gaining blood
then Heildelburging it over, etc).
I like the ordering as it has the inherent dangers of being empty and I enjoy
risk taking during card games (risk adversive in real life though... must be a
balance issue).
-JTP
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> Doesn't seem like we'd gain a lot by changing that rule.
We would "gain" one less rule. I think it's good to rule out special
cases, when possible.
David Cherryholmes
Duke Radiology
P.E.T. Facility
(919) 684-7714
david.che...@duke.edu
>While I don't think it would destroy or shake up the game a great
>deal it keeps things working thematically. (why I care about theme
>in a game that ignores it when neccessary I don't know probably because
>I'm at work and bored 8-). )
>That vampire that arises from thier nightly sleep hungrey for blood
>isn't going to go and wait for that rave to supply them for blood, or rely on
>another vampire's hospitality, they're going out hunting before the hunger
>loosens their hold over their beast.
>
>The only actual game effect (that I see) is lessening the dangers of being
>empty. Currently
>if your minion is empty of blood at the start of your minion phase they have
>to
>hunt.
>Changing the ordering restriction opens the possibility that another minion
>could
>protect that minion from hunting (including but not limited to Psychic Veil,
>Fifth Tradition,
>Raves, killing everybody who might attempt to block a hunt, another minion
>gaining blood
>then Heildelburging it over, etc).
>
>I like the ordering as it has the inherent dangers of being empty and I enjoy
>risk taking during card games (risk adversive in real life though... must be
>a
>balance issue).
Here here! I like the status quo just fine.
Halcyan 2
berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote:
> Thoughts and Comments?
Several cards depend on the concept of mandatory actions coming first.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
> Thoughts and Comments?
>
It would make Lunatic Eruption quite useless...
and it will make my LE-millicent-AUS-DaemonicPosses-deck useless...
Well it allready was useless, but i am still working on it
:-)
W
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F8D20AC...@white-wolf.com>...
> > Thoughts and Comments?
>
> Several cards depend on the concept of mandatory actions coming first.
Ahem.
An EXAMPLE of one of these cards is Cry Wolf. If you took away the
manditory action, it could be easily turned into an Abomination
without any need to untap it.
Spirit Marionette is another one. You could probably sink a big bleed
fairly easily if the prey had to decide one way or another to block
your vampires or the stolen one.
Dr. Fish
David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.031014...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
>
> > Doesn't seem like we'd gain a lot by changing that rule.
>
> We would "gain" one less rule. I think it's good to rule out special
> cases, when possible.
We would have to re-learn a rule, which would be bad. As the current
rule isn't really a problem, there is no need to change it.
/Henrik
On 15 Oct 2003 06:33:10 -0700, Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper)
scrawled:
>> Thoughts and Comments?
>>
>>>
>Oh and it would make spirit marionette slightly better...
How so, exactly? The vampire would still return to it's origional
controller after the next action, even if that action wasn't the
Spirit Marionette'ed vamp bleeding....
But, I do beleive removing the mandatory-first rule would be one of
those major nightmares that we really don't need.
A horde of old players having to relearn a rule (possibly quitting the
game because of it...you know what those old farts are like ;), a
bunch of cards suddenly having their power/utility shifted one way or
another, probably in an upward manner. Needing to rewrite any of them
that get over powered, which means more errata, then trying to work
out what to do when people try and end their minion phases without
acting with the mandatory actors, etc..
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<06urovgq0f8ngjoof...@4ax.com>...
> On 15 Oct 2003 06:33:10 -0700, Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper)
> scrawled:
>
> >> Thoughts and Comments?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Oh and it would make spirit marionette slightly better...
>
> How so, exactly? The vampire would still return to it's origional
> controller after the next action, even if that action wasn't the
> Spirit Marionette'ed vamp bleeding....
Well, you can use it to have your own vampire bleed for lots and don't
be deflected for instance (using SM as: remove a possible deflector
form your preys)
W