Millennium Cultist Storyline Rules

The special rules for the Millennium Cultist Storyline Event are out: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=news&articleid=616 Regards, Hardy Range Prince of Bochum, Germany

Hardy Range <hardy...@gmx.de> wrote: > The special rules for the Millennium Cultist Storyline Event are out: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=news&articleid=616 The rules say nothing about Imbued. Are Imbued limited to the 25%-not-of-the-same-clan part of the crypt? (with nothing to indicate otherwise, this is probably the answer). Or banned altogether? Or what?

[ quoted text not captured ] "· At least 75% (e.g., 9 out of 12) of the vampires in a player's crypt must be the same clan." So if 0 out of 0 vampires in my crypt are of the same clan, is that storyline legal or not? witness1 -believe the lie?

Hardy Range <hardy...@gmx.de> wrote: > The special rules for the Millennium Cultist Storyline Event are out: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=news&articleid=616 Another question: Since this event spans November 1 through Jan 31, and unofficial spoilers are inevitable, will an official spoiler list for the Cultist Deck be released? Comment: It looks like these events are going to either be overflowing with Vote Decks, or Vote Defense, or people will just decide to play a game of VTES and ignore the Cultist Deck altogether. :)

On Oct 18, 7:54 am, "Hardy Range" <hardy.ra...@gmx.de> wrote: > The special rules for the Millennium Cultist Storyline Event are out: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=news&articleid=616 The rules contain the following line: " Recalled to the Founder, True Faith, and Seeds of Corruption are banned" Recalled to Founder makes sense as usual, but I wonder if the other two are banned 'cause it was a line cut-n-pasted from the Nergal storyline (unless Vampire Preacher is both infernal and covered with very important special abilities...) -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, he is a preacher, after all, so True Faith may make sense. Banning Seeds of Corruption prevents questions of 'now what' when hitting the Preacher man. Tobias

Jozxyqk wrote: > > Comment: > It looks like these events are going to either be overflowing with Vote > Decks, or Vote Defense, or people will just decide to play a game of VTES > and ignore the Cultist Deck altogether. :) Sure, that could be so. I think you're also allowed to 'steal' the Rev if he enters play some way, so minion theft may see some play as well. But lotsa vote decks could be fun! Tobias

"tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com" <tobiasop...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1161181181.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com: > > Jozxyqk wrote: > >> >> Comment: >> It looks like these events are going to either be overflowing with >> Vote Decks, or Vote Defense, or people will just decide to play a >> game of VTES and ignore the Cultist Deck altogether. :) > > Sure, that could be so. I think you're also allowed to 'steal' the Rev > if he enters play some way, so minion theft may see some play as well. > Heh. I like that angle, but what to you have in mind? The "you may burn a card on the Preacher once each turn" rule would pre- empt a Temptation angle... Spirit Marionette typically allows only bleeds plus Heidelburg-y goodness. I guess I can see that working, especially if the Cultist deck is full of equipment/retainer tech. If there are even a few political decks going for the Preacher, I'd be afraid that they could break a theft angle pretty readily... What to do about that? DaveZ Atom Weaver

tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com <tobiasop...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jozxyqk wrote: > > > > Comment: > > It looks like these events are going to either be overflowing with Vote > > Decks, or Vote Defense, or people will just decide to play a game of VTES > > and ignore the Cultist Deck altogether. :) > Sure, that could be so. I think you're also allowed to 'steal' the Rev > if he enters play some way, so minion theft may see some play as well. It depends on how you define "would leave THE ready region"? NEW question: Is it considered "leaving the ready region" if a minion moves from one Methuselah's ready region to another Methuselah's ready region?

Jozxyqk wrote: > NEW question: > Is it considered "leaving the ready region" if a minion moves from one > Methuselah's ready region to another Methuselah's ready region? Old question, actually. The old answer of "no" still applies. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0b84594b380688f8

> Well, he is a preacher, after all, so True Faith may make sense. > Banning Seeds of Corruption prevents questions of 'now what' when > hitting the Preacher man. That's easy. His controller burns it during the untap (is this right? I forget) phase. This is a rule for the storyline event, not a special ability of the minion. I think the reason for banning Seeds of Corruption is that it is a playable card that also happens to be a clan hoser. Clan hosers don't really need to be banned since they generally don't get played, but something like Seeds, which could see play, is a problem if that player's prey is playing Setites. Does that sound right?

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. > Or banned altogether? No. > Or what? Moot. -Robert (doing his best LSJ impression) Robert Goudie V:EKN Storyline Director vtes...@white-wolf.com

Jozxyqk wrote: > Hardy Range <hardy...@gmx.de> wrote: > > The special rules for the Millennium Cultist Storyline Event are out: > > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=news&articleid=616 > > Another question: > > Since this event spans November 1 through Jan 31, and unofficial > spoilers are inevitable, will an official spoiler list for the > Cultist Deck be released? That would be the intention. Just a question of "getting around to it". -Robert [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Goudie wrote: > > Are Imbued limited to the 25%-not-of-the-same-clan part of the crypt? > > (with nothing to indicate otherwise, this is probably the answer). > > Correct. > Do you mean to say "At least 75% (e.g., 9 out of 12) of the vampires in a player's crypt must be the same clan." (Storyline Tournament Rule #1) should really read "At least 75% (e.g., 9 out of 12) of the cards in a player's crypt must be the same clan." Or does my proposed go-around (75% of 0 is 0) still work? -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > Robert Goudie wrote: > > > Are Imbued limited to the 25%-not-of-the-same-clan part of the crypt? > > > (with nothing to indicate otherwise, this is probably the answer). > > > > Correct. > > Do you mean to say > > "At least 75% (e.g., 9 out of 12) of the vampires in a player's crypt > must be the same clan." (Storyline Tournament Rule #1) > > should really read > > "At least 75% (e.g., 9 out of 12) of the cards in a player's crypt must > be the same clan." Yes, this is the intention. If imbued don't fit with future storylines, we'll make this more clear next time. -Robert

Robert Goudie wrote: > Jozxyqk wrote: > > Hardy Range <hardy...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > The special rules for the Millennium Cultist Storyline Event are out: > > > > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=news&articleid=616 > > > > The rules say nothing about Imbued. > > > > Are Imbued limited to the 25%-not-of-the-same-clan part of the crypt? > > (with nothing to indicate otherwise, this is probably the answer). > > Correct. > > > Or banned altogether? > > No. > > > Or what? > > Moot. I'm torn between thinking "Well, that's entirely reasonable" and thinking "Well, fuck you, White Wolf." Is there any particular reason that the imbued are effectively banned from participating in this event? John Eno

Hardy Range <hardy...@gmx.de> wrote: > The special rules for the Millennium Cultist Storyline Event are out: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=news&articleid=616 Another rules query.. If I already control the Reverend, and I have the Edge, can I call the referendum to take control of him anyway? (i.e. to fuel a Voter Cap?) I presume that even if this is true, he does not gain a blood when this referendum is successful, since control didn't change...

[ quoted text not captured ] It's possible that the Cultists deck does not play well with the Imbued. It's obvious that the method of gaining control of the Vampire was not designed for the Imbued, and they want to ensure that he gets some play. But I must wonder how on Earth the Imbued could stay away from this event. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kushiel wrote: > I'm torn between thinking "Well, that's entirely reasonable" and > thinking "Well, [shucks], White Wolf." Is there any particular reason > that the imbued are effectively banned from participating in this > event? Most prominently: the search for a winning clan. "Players are required to build and play decks with crypts composed mainly of a single clan of vampires. Results from events around the world are then tallied and the clan that wins the most events is typically rewarded with a card in a future V:TES expansion." http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=news&articleid=599

Kushiel wrote: > > I'm torn between thinking "Well, that's entirely reasonable" and > thinking "Well, fuck you, White Wolf." Is there any particular reason > that the imbued are effectively banned from participating in this > event? Feel free to direct any F-you at me. This is really the one event per year where there's an emphasis on story over pure game play and mechanics. The Imbued don't really fit the story well. This is something that's been in the pipeline for a long time so the Imbued angle really wasn't considered back when we started the process. Next storyline, maybe there will be an opportunity to consider the impact of the Imbued on the story. Ignoring that for a moment, there are also problems in the "what if they win?" category (storywise, reward card logistics, etc.). After the Ravnos almost took Baltimore and after Nergal's unexpected landslide victory, I'm not ruling out victory for anybody. -Robert [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Kushiel wrote: > > I'm torn between thinking "Well, that's entirely reasonable" and > > thinking "Well, [shucks], White Wolf." Is there any particular reason > > that the imbued are effectively banned from participating in this > > event? > > Most prominently: the search for a winning clan. > > "Players are required to build and play decks with crypts composed mainly of a > single clan of vampires. Results from events around the world are then tallied > and the clan that wins the most events is typically rewarded with a card in a > future V:TES expansion." That's copy/pasted from the storyline writeups that were done before NoR was released though, correct? I don't see a good metagame reason that it's impossible to count "imbued" as a clan. John Eno

Robert Goudie wrote: > Kushiel wrote: > > > > I'm torn between thinking "Well, that's entirely reasonable" and > > thinking "Well, fuck you, White Wolf." Is there any particular reason > > that the imbued are effectively banned from participating in this > > event? > > Feel free to direct any F-you at me. I haven't decided which way I'm leaning yet, but I'll let you know once I do. :) > This is really the one event per year where there's an emphasis on > story over pure game play and mechanics. The Imbued don't really fit > the story well. For once, I agree with Gregory Stuart Pettigrew. I don't buy your reasoning here - this kind of publicized supernatural event is exactly the kind of thing that would draw imbued from all over the country, if not the world. > This is something that's been in the pipeline for a > long time so the Imbued angle really wasn't considered back when we > started the process. This is much more reasonable to me, and if that's the only reason, that's fine. I think I'm just worried about the imbued becoming even more marginalized than they already are. > Next storyline, maybe there will be an > opportunity to consider the impact of the Imbued on the story. > > Ignoring that for a moment, there are also problems in the "what if > they win?" category (storywise, reward card logistics, etc.). After > the Ravnos almost took Baltimore and after Nergal's unexpected > landslide victory, I'm not ruling out victory for anybody. I don't understand how, if the imbued did somehow manage to eke out a win, this would be problematic either storywise or with reward card logistics. Storywise...um, you work the imbued into the story. Not seeing how that's problematic. Most of the reward cards have been disciplineless with a benefit for specific clan; why couldn't there be a disciplineless card with a benefit specific to imbued if they hypothetically won? John Eno

Kushiel wrote: > Robert Goudie wrote: > > This is really the one event per year where there's an emphasis on > > story over pure game play and mechanics. The Imbued don't really fit > > the story well. > > For once, I agree with Gregory Stuart Pettigrew. I don't buy your > reasoning here - this kind of publicized supernatural event is exactly > the kind of thing that would draw imbued from all over the country, if > not the world. Agreed, mostly, though it's also not difficult to pretend that this particular storyline is happening just as the imbued are first coming into existence, before the creation of hunter-net and similar means of networking with other hunters. > > This is something that's been in the pipeline for a > > long time so the Imbued angle really wasn't considered back when we > > started the process. > > This is much more reasonable to me, and if that's the only reason, > that's fine. I think I'm just worried about the imbued becoming even > more marginalized than they already are. Certainly. I'd definitely like to see them integrated to whatever degree possible into the next storyline event. But it definitely looks like this one wasn't prepared for the imbued, and that's fine. > > Next storyline, maybe there will be an > > opportunity to consider the impact of the Imbued on the story. > > > > Ignoring that for a moment, there are also problems in the "what if > > they win?" category (storywise, reward card logistics, etc.). After > > the Ravnos almost took Baltimore and after Nergal's unexpected > > landslide victory, I'm not ruling out victory for anybody. > > I don't understand how, if the imbued did somehow manage to eke out a > win, this would be problematic either storywise or with reward card > logistics. Unless they have a particular reward in mind that doesn't fit well with the imbued, though I personally wouldn't mind if the imbued "reward" was the satisfaction of knowing that none of those evil vampire factions are going to get their hands on X. > Storywise...um, you work the imbued into the story. Not seeing how > that's problematic. But since they weren't worked into the story from the beginning, and can't interact with this storyline on the same level as vampires (i.e., can't call the vote to control the reverend), they aren't really integrated. That's not insurmountable in future storylines, but working them into this one may not be an option. Currently, though, they're separated. > Most of the reward cards have been disciplineless with a benefit for > specific clan; why couldn't there be a disciplineless card with a > benefit specific to imbued if they hypothetically won? If it was something that was specifically meant to provide benefits only to vampires, or for some other reason just wasn't compatible with the imbued. Like, imagine that you'd already sketched out Baltimore Purge, but you just didn't know which clan was going to win the storyline, only to have to rework it (and quite probably re-playtest it) after the fact because the imbued won. In future storylines, they'll hopefully be able to take this into account from the beginning, but I'm fine with this one. Besides, those 9 Tupdogs can call a referendum to steal the Reverend anyway, once your imbued take the edge :) > John Eno Witness1 -believe the lie

Kushiel wrote: > Robert Goudie wrote: > > Kushiel wrote: > > > > > > I'm torn between thinking "Well, that's entirely reasonable" and > > > thinking "Well, fuck you, White Wolf." Is there any particular reason > > > that the imbued are effectively banned from participating in this > > > event? > > > > Feel free to direct any F-you at me. > > I haven't decided which way I'm leaning yet, but I'll let you know once > I do. :) > > > This is really the one event per year where there's an emphasis on > > story over pure game play and mechanics. The Imbued don't really fit > > the story well. > > For once, I agree with Gregory Stuart Pettigrew. I don't buy your > reasoning here - this kind of publicized supernatural event is exactly > the kind of thing that would draw imbued from all over the country, if > not the world. Getting away from the storyline rules and discussing just the story for a minute... I realize things might be perceived differently than what is in my head when I'm writing, but my intention was not to infer that the general public has now acknowledged (due to the newspaper article) that there's a supernatural event taking place. Even many of the local residents aren't buying it. The paper is from Lexington, KY. Hardly anything from Lexington is ever going to get out on the AP wire. Add in the fact that some churchgoers' claim to have witnessed miracles is hardly newsworthy. Skeptics would simply ignore it as a scam or delusion, and so on. The "miracles" haven't been delineated in the story and Rev. Adams hasn't done anything like raise the dead for the TV news cameras. One person in the Camarilla has just become aware of this. The Sabbat has had someone checking it out for a short while. No Imbued are aware of this. [ quoted text not captured ]

> One person in the Camarilla has just become aware of this. The Sabbat > has had someone checking it out for a short while. No Imbued are aware > of this. Except for me because when we say "Imbued", we really mean "Touched in the Head". Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp P.S. It's not just Kentucky. It's all things Kentucky. Kenturcky Fried Chicken is the Devil's Bird and Colonel Sanders is Satan himself with his wee beady eyes, "Would you like to try my chicken." Oh yeah, he's trying to take over the world.

> Ignoring that for a moment, there are also problems in the "what if > they win?" category (storywise, reward card logistics, etc.). After > the Ravnos almost took Baltimore and after Nergal's unexpected > landslide victory, I'm not ruling out victory for anybody. I guess this isn't quite on topic, but why was Nergal's landslide victory unexpected? I mean, the Baali were the only clan in the storyline to be automatically present at ever finals table, so of course they won. Any result other than a landslide victory for Nergal would have been very surprising. Jesse who thinks it's ok to exclude the Imbued from the storyline

CthuluKitty wrote: > > Ignoring that for a moment, there are also problems in the "what if > > they win?" category (storywise, reward card logistics, etc.). After > > the Ravnos almost took Baltimore and after Nergal's unexpected > > landslide victory, I'm not ruling out victory for anybody. > > I guess this isn't quite on topic, but why was Nergal's landslide > victory unexpected? I mean, the Baali were the only clan in the > storyline to be automatically present at ever finals table, so of > course they won. Any result other than a landslide victory for Nergal > would have been very surprising. I felt like the deck was strong in playtest but it seemed like it would be easy to gang up on Nergal and take him down. The wildcard was the players. Would they gang up and stick together? Would they fracture and get greedy when Nergal offered to oust their prey for them? It was just a big question mark. My best guess is that Nergal would win a number of games early on and that, after players saw Nergal doing well in the tally, they'be be more likely to unite in the later events. Early on I received a phone call from a concerned player who, after playing Nergal in their event, felt that Nergal wouldn't win any games at all. The player in question is a darn good player and I think that's probably the main reason they ganged up and nobody let up on Nergal. Frankly, I felt kinda ill. Releasing a wallpaper card is not so bad. Releasing a wallpaper storyline is a very bad thing. :-) Anyway, I felt better within hours after some Nergal victories came in. -Robert

Robert Goudie wrote: > Getting away from the storyline rules and discussing just the story for > a minute... > > I realize things might be perceived differently than what is in my head > when I'm writing, but my intention was not to infer that the general > public has now acknowledged (due to the newspaper article) that there's > a supernatural event taking place. Even many of the local residents > aren't buying it. > > The paper is from Lexington, KY. Hardly anything from Lexington is ever > going to get out on the AP wire. Add in the fact that some churchgoers' > claim to have witnessed miracles is hardly newsworthy. Skeptics would > simply ignore it as a scam or delusion, and so on. The "miracles" > haven't been delineated in the story and Rev. Adams hasn't done > anything like raise the dead for the TV news cameras. > > One person in the Camarilla has just become aware of this. The Sabbat > has had someone checking it out for a short while. No Imbued are aware > of this. Okay. I can buy this, combined with witness's "The imbued are new!" justification. "Fuck you" aborted! :) John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh good. I was staying up late waiting for your decision to come down. I guess I can go to sleep now. :-) -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1161318600....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] In the Phoenix storyline, the players _did_ gang up on Nergal as much as they were able. It was just that he seemed utterly invincible. He always had the cards he needed, his pool was bottomless, and he rapidly destroyed vampires with aplomb. In the Tucson storyline, Nergal got completely crushed. His start was uncertain and from there, he just went downhill. I might have been the first player ousted (terrible draw, terrible metagame position, and Nergal picked on me almost exclusively as his first victim) or maybe Nergal got ousted before I did, I don't recall. But certainly no one was else was ousted before Nergal was. He never stood a realistic chance of fulfilling his victory conditions. Still, Jesse's logic above is impeccable. Given that Nergal is in every final and all the other clan victories were to be split at least 21 ways (not counting the ones the Bloodlines steal), Nergal would have had to get ganged up on and ousted a HELL of a large percentage of the time in order not to have won. His victory, ergo, was highly predictable. Fred

Robert Goudie wrote: > > This is really the one event per year where there's an emphasis on > story over pure game play and mechanics. The Imbued don't really fit > the story well. I have no problem with that. I'd go farther in terms of what the imbued dont fit in fact. > This is something that's been in the pipeline for a > long time so the Imbued angle really wasn't considered back when we > started the process. Next storyline, maybe there will be an > opportunity to consider the impact of the Imbued on the story. > Maybe. Maybe not. =] G

Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > the story well. This is something that's been in the pipeline for a > long time so the Imbued angle really wasn't considered back when we > started the process. Rob, on a different note, along these lines (sorta), this is also the first storyline since Draftferior was invented. If there's a future storyline with special event-only cards, would it be possible to have a similar "DRAFT:" or "STORYLINE:" box with the special text for those cards, and also have them have the legal-for-play text, so the special cards aren't completely wasted after the event is over? Even a special STORYLINE box for the vampires, so you don't have to print 2 different ones? (of course there could still be *some* cards that are unplayable outside of the format, but it seems wasteful that I can't play Nergal's Telepathic Counter as a regular Telepathic Counter later on) Just a thought...

Hardy Range wrote: > The special rules for the Millennium Cultist Storyline Event are out: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=news&articleid=616 Updated (same URL) with rule #12: 12. Any Methuselah can use a master phase action to put a manipulation counter on Reverend Adams. During the referendum to change control of Reverend Adams, each manipulation counter represents a vote in favor of the referendum. Burn all manipulation counters whenever control of Reverend Adams changes.

[ quoted text not captured ] Who gets the votes from the manipulation counters? Adams' current controller? The player who added the counter? The acting player? No one? I'm thinking of cards like Bribes here. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I'd say "no one". They're uncancellable, unmodifiable, like the counters on National Guard Support.

[ quoted text not captured ] The counters on NGS represent actions of the ordinary citizenry and government. The counters on Adams, OTOH, represent direct action by the methuselahs. Hence the question. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Josh is correct. The idea of NGS citizenry is represented by counters that represent votes in favor. The idea of whatever is behind Reverend Adams is represented by counters that represent votes in favor. Card/rule text is as far as either idea is expressed. The (parallel) text functions the same way in both cases: counters representing votes in favor.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Josh is correct. ... Um.. that is all. :)

[ quoted text not captured ] Just to clarify (English is a 2nd language) Methuselah A,B,C and D all put counters on the Reverned during their master pahses. (4 Counters) Meth E calls the referendum to change control of Reverend. Excluding any and all votes on the table at this point in time, there are now an automatic 4 votes in favour of Meth E gaining control of the Reverend? or do I have the kitty by the tail....

SPOILER (sorta) ALERT!! The following question deals with specific card text from the Cultist Deck! SPOILER !!!!!!! SPOILER !!!!!! SPOILER !!!!!!! RE: rule #9: 9. Cultists (minions with the Cultist keyword) cannot block other Cultists and cannot take actions to enter combat with Cultists. Can I get confirmation that Rev. Adams is possessing the "Cultist" keyword? Cultists Creation Rites says it creates a 'cultist' vampire, but is the reference to 'Reverend Adams, Millenium Cultist' in his card text a denotation of 'cultist' status? We all assumed so, but the question was raised when we came upon an opprotunity for RA to block a CCR. Arguments were*: "Of course he's a cultist. Duh!" and "Intention might be that he does not have the 'cultist' keyword so that he can block other cultists for thematic purposes. The leader of the cult being able to cull his minions, thus making stealing control of him more beneficial, and encouraging the mechanic." * Paraphrased. Explicit card text withheld to avoid complete spoiling.

Wookie813 wrote: > SPOILER (sorta) ALERT!! The following question deals with specific card > text from the Cultist Deck! > > > SPOILER > !!!!!!! > > SPOILER > !!!!!! > > > SPOILER > !!!!!!! > > RE: rule #9: > > 9. Cultists (minions with the Cultist keyword) cannot block other > Cultists and cannot take actions to enter combat with Cultists. > > Can I get confirmation that Rev. Adams is possessing the "Cultist" > keyword? He does not possess the Cultist keyword. > Cultists Creation Rites says it creates a 'cultist' vampire, > but is the reference to 'Reverend Adams, Millenium Cultist' in his card > text a denotation of 'cultist' status? No. It is a reference to Reverend Adams, Millenium Cultist. Similarly, Muddled Vampire Hunter is not a vampire, even though his card text contains a reference to Muddled Vampire Hunter.

LSJ wrote: > He does not possess the Cultist keyword. > > > is the reference to 'Reverend Adams, Millenium Cultist' in his card > > text a denotation of 'cultist' status? > > No. It is a reference to Reverend Adams, Millenium Cultist. > > Similarly, Muddled Vampire Hunter is not a vampire, even though his card text > contains a reference to Muddled Vampire Hunter. I propose an addendum to rule #9 that explicitly states this. If the participants of my local game are representative of the worldwide community, the Rev could be assumed a 'cultist' in enough games to perhaps effect the outcome of the SL.

[ quoted text not captured ] "Similarly"? I understand that game rules are a law unto themselves, but by, like, the rules of the English language, there are no grounds to claim MVH is a Vampire, but one may reasonably claim that he is, in fact, a Hunter. Bad analogy! No cookie! ~ Aby

[ quoted text not captured ] Prior to the release of Third Edition, Ventrue Investment lacked the "Investment" keyword and was therefore not an investment card--despite the appearance of the word "investment" in the card title. -Robert

Robert Goudie wrote: > Prior to the release of Third Edition, Ventrue Investment lacked the > "Investment" keyword and was therefore not an investment card--despite > the appearance of the word "investment" in the card title. > > -Robert It would seem the "intuition" of the players was that RA was a 'cultist'. Regardless of precedents and/or intent, the reality is that it was missed at the event I attended. The point didn't even come up until heads up at the final table, when it was decided to continue playing the way we had the whole tournament for consistency sake. I just want the Powers That Be to understand that it happened in my game, might be happening in other games, and the integrity of the SL might be jeopardized as a result. An addendum to to rule #9 could alleviate this.

On Nov 21, 12:50 pm, "Wookie813" <veknpont...@yahoo.com> wrote: > It would seem the "intuition" of the players was that RA was a > 'cultist'. Regardless of precedents and/or intent, the reality is that > it was missed at the event I attended. The point didn't even come up > until heads up at the final table, when it was decided to continue > playing the way we had the whole tournament for consistency sake. > > I just want the Powers That Be to understand that it happened in my > game, might be happening in other games, and the integrity of the SL > might be jeopardized as a result. An addendum to to rule #9 could > alleviate this. Would player's intuition find that Huang, Blood Cultist is a Cultist? I know mine doesn't. A rules addendum is not necessary. A clarification or ruling, perhaps. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 20, 6:15 pm, "Abysmal Horror" <abysmal_hor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Similarly, Muddled Vampire Hunter is not a vampire, even though his card text > > contains a reference to Muddled Vampire Hunter. > "Similarly"? I understand that game rules are a law unto themselves, > but by, like, the rules of the English language, there are no grounds > to claim MVH is a Vampire, but one may reasonably claim that he is, in > fact, a Hunter. Bad analogy! No cookie! > Only because Hunter is not a game term. [ quoted text not captured ]

<gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1164133306....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 21, 12:50 pm, "Wookie813" <veknpont...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> It would seem the "intuition" of the players was that RA was a >> 'cultist'. Regardless of precedents and/or intent, the reality is that >> it was missed at the event I attended. The point didn't even come up >> until heads up at the final table, when it was decided to continue >> playing the way we had the whole tournament for consistency sake. >> >> I just want the Powers That Be to understand that it happened in my >> game, might be happening in other games, and the integrity of the SL >> might be jeopardized as a result. An addendum to to rule #9 could >> alleviate this. > > Would player's intuition find that Huang, Blood Cultist is a Cultist? > I know mine doesn't. Are those two situations located even within 15 trillion miles of each others? > A rules addendum is not necessary. A clarification or ruling, perhaps. I'm not sure it matters what one calls it. As long the point is accessible and clear to people running the tournaments and playing in them. The other guy is right: it's horribly counter-intuitive under the circumstances, even if the true answer can be determined by card text. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > <gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1164133306....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> On Nov 21, 12:50 pm, "Wookie813" <veknpont...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> It would seem the "intuition" of the players was that RA was a >>> 'cultist'. Regardless of precedents and/or intent, the reality is that >>> it was missed at the event I attended. The point didn't even come up >>> until heads up at the final table, when it was decided to continue >>> playing the way we had the whole tournament for consistency sake. >>> >>> I just want the Powers That Be to understand that it happened in my >>> game, might be happening in other games, and the integrity of the SL >>> might be jeopardized as a result. An addendum to to rule #9 could >>> alleviate this. >> Would player's intuition find that Huang, Blood Cultist is a Cultist? >> I know mine doesn't. > > Are those two situations located even within 15 trillion miles of each > others? Yes. Those two are the same situations: whether being identified as a Cultist in card title is the same as being marked as having the cultist trait in card text. See also Kyle Strathcona, the previous versions of Ventrue Investment, Gargoyle Slave, and so on. >> A rules addendum is not necessary. A clarification or ruling, perhaps. > > I'm not sure it matters what one calls it. As long the point is accessible > and clear to people running the tournaments and playing in them. The > other guy is right: it's horribly counter-intuitive under the circumstances, > even if the true answer can be determined by card text. Horribly counter-intuitive is a gross exaggeration, even for the newsgroup. The true answer can be found in this thread and card text. The number of people who would 1) misunderstand the card text and 2) play in an environment where no one could decode card text and make/enforce a correct ruling based on card text and 3) not receive the answer from this thread or from some player who has read this thread is very small, if not zero. That said, there's no reason not to clarify the web page as well. I'm sure it's already in the queue of updates to be made.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:VfI8h.8828$6t....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> <gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1164133306....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> On Nov 21, 12:50 pm, "Wookie813" <veknpont...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> It would seem the "intuition" of the players was that RA was a >>>> 'cultist'. ... >>> Would player's intuition find that Huang, Blood Cultist is a Cultist? >>> I know mine doesn't. >> >> Are those two situations located even within 15 trillion miles of each >> others? > > Yes. > > Those two are the same situations: whether being identified as a Cultist in card title is the same as being marked as having the > cultist trait in card text. Was Huang, Blood Cultist a card first issued in the Millennium Blood Cultist tournament packs? If not, then the situations are not even remotely the same. Finding _some_ similarities between two situations does not make them the same. What's kind of annoying here is that I think everyone who's resisted this point intuitively understands what happened and why it happened. At least, I would hope it's not that hard to understand. I believe you're all just trying to make the point that group of people at the poster's tournament made a mistake. We know they made a mistake. Thank you for the information and hopefully everyone reading the thread will take the 'heads up' and not make it in the future. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether it's likely to happen again given that lots of people won't read this specific thread. > The true answer can be found in this thread and card text. The number of people who would 1) misunderstand the card text and 2) > play in an environment where no one could decode card text and make/enforce a correct ruling based on card text and 3) not receive > the answer from this thread or from some player who has read this thread is very small, if not zero. Apparently it's not zero. Plus, I think sometimes people who might have the correct answer get discouraged from offering it if the people who first make a determination seem more certain of their facts than is, in retrospect, justified. So this may be a more common occurance than you think. > That said, there's no reason not to clarify the web page as well. I'm sure it's already in the queue of updates to be made. OK, thank you. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> Those two are the same situations: whether being identified as a Cultist in card title is the same as being marked as having the >> cultist trait in card text. > > Was Huang, Blood Cultist a card first issued in the Millennium Blood Cultist > tournament packs? If not, then the situations are not even remotely the same. > Finding _some_ similarities between two situations does not make them the > same. If you want to view the same situation as not being the same by virtue of the date of release, fine. >> The true answer can be found in this thread and card text. The number of people who would 1) misunderstand the card text and 2) >> play in an environment where no one could decode card text and make/enforce a correct ruling based on card text and 3) not receive >> the answer from this thread or from some player who has read this thread is very small, if not zero. > > Apparently it's not zero. How do you get "apparently"? What storyline has been held since the answer was given in this thread in which the wrong ruling was made?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:S%I8h.8840$6t....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>> Those two are the same situations: whether being identified as a Cultist >>> in card title is the same as being marked as having the cultist trait in card text. >> >> Was Huang, Blood Cultist a card first issued in the Millennium Blood Cultist >> tournament packs? If not, then the situations are not even remotely the same. >> Finding _some_ similarities between two situations does not make them the >> same. > > If you want to view the same situation as not being the same by virtue of the > date of release, fine. No. The relevant point here is that Reverend Adams, Millenium Cultist is issued in a tournament pack for the Millenium Cultist Storyline tournament with a an arm-length long backstory written about his participation as the leader of a cult group. Therefore, if there are any Storyline tournament rules or cards issued with card text hinging on the attribute of 'Cultist' and if every other minion (or I guess potential minion would be more accurate) in the tournament pack has the attribute of 'Cultist', it is at least somewhat logical to assume Reverend Adams, Millenuium Cultist might have it as well. If viewed that way, the fact that he doesn't strikes me as a tiny bit ironic even if the omission was deliberate. >>> The true answer can be found in this thread and card text. The number of >>> people who would 1) misunderstand the card text and 2) play in an environment >>> where no one could decode card text and make/enforce a correct ruling based >>> on card text and 3) not receive the answer from this thread or from some player >>> who has read this thread is very small, if not zero. >> >> Apparently it's not zero. > > How do you get "apparently"? > > What storyline has been held since the answer was given in this thread in which the wrong ruling was made? Why the "since the answer was given in this thread" clause? For people who don't read this thread, the before/after-this-thread distinction is moot. Fred

On Nov 21, 3:34 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Therefore, if there are any Storyline tournament rules or cards issued with > card text hinging on the attribute of 'Cultist' and if every other minion (or > I guess potential minion would be more accurate) in the tournament pack has > the attribute of 'Cultist', it is at least somewhat logical to assume Reverend > Adams, Millenuium Cultist might have it as well. If viewed that way, the > fact that he doesn't strikes me as a tiny bit ironic even if the omission was > deliberate. It is far more logical to assume that since they have it and he doesn't, he doesn't. Here's another relevant question: Is Justine Chen, Innocent an Innocent? She was released after NoR. Unlike our poor friends Huang, Marlene, Al-Muntaquim, Anatole, The Baron, Calebros, Kyle, Ranjan, Roland, etc., she was printed *after* a word in her title became a a game keyword. [ quoted text not captured ]

<gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1164142512.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 21, 3:34 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> Therefore, if there are any Storyline tournament rules or cards issued with >> card text hinging on the attribute of 'Cultist' and if every other minion (or >> I guess potential minion would be more accurate) in the tournament pack has >> the attribute of 'Cultist', it is at least somewhat logical to assume Reverend >> Adams, Millenuium Cultist might have it as well. If viewed that way, the >> fact that he doesn't strikes me as a tiny bit ironic even if the omission was >> deliberate. > > It is far more logical to assume that since they have it and he > doesn't, he doesn't. > > Here's another relevant question: > Is Justine Chen, Innocent an Innocent? She was released after NoR. In an "Innocent Storyline Tournament" pack? With a whole bunch of backstory about how she's "leader of the Innocents"? I don't recall anything like that. Fred

LSJ wrote: > > That said, there's no reason not to clarify the web page as well. I'm sure it's > already in the queue of updates to be made. An ounce of prevention... Thanks for the clarification.

Hardy Range wrote: > The special rules for the Millennium Cultist Storyline Event are out: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=news&articleid=616 > > Regards, > > Hardy Range > Prince of Bochum, Germany Regarding rule 6: 6. The Cultist's ash heap and library are not your own, however, and cannot be targeted by effects which target your ash heap or library. Other Methuselahs are also limited to targeting your hand and may not target the Cultist's hand (for example, with Cull the Herd). I can still target the Cultist's ash heap with cards like Grasp the Ghostly, right? Does the Cultist ash heap count as "another Methuselah's ash heap" or not? Merlin

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry, that should be "no". While it is an ash heap, it is not any Methuselah's ash heap.