[LSJ] Lunatic Erruption

A minion with Lunatic Erruption enters combat via the Lunatic Erruption and plays Majesty sup and thus untaps. He cannot enter combat via Lunatic Erruption again, so can he perform an action e.g. bleed or is he stuck unable to do anything ? additionaly, if there is a Haven on a minion of his prey, is he forced to enter combat via the Haven if he untaps with majesty sup ? i think not, but i'd like to be sure.

"Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message news:c6a50f81.04110...@posting.google.com... > A minion with Lunatic Erruption enters combat via the Lunatic > Erruption and plays Majesty sup and thus untaps. > He cannot enter combat via Lunatic Erruption again, so can he > perform an action e.g. bleed or is he stuck unable to do anything ? He can act. Google: lunatic untaps author:LSJ > additionaly, if there is a Haven on a minion of his prey, is he forced > to enter combat via the Haven if he untaps with majesty sup ? i think > not, but i'd like to be sure. Not. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2umuelF...@uni-berlin.de>... > "Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message > news:c6a50f81.04110...@posting.google.com... > > A minion with Lunatic Erruption enters combat via the Lunatic > > Erruption and plays Majesty sup and thus untaps. > > He cannot enter combat via Lunatic Erruption again, so can he > > perform an action e.g. bleed or is he stuck unable to do anything ? > > He can act. > Google: lunatic untaps author:LSJ > > > additionaly, if there is a Haven on a minion of his prey, is he forced > > to enter combat via the Haven if he untaps with majesty sup ? i think > > not, but i'd like to be sure. > > Not. Additionaly, if you place 2 Lunatic Erruptions on the same minion, then if he enters combat via the first and then untaps in some way (e.g. play Majesty) then he is forced to enter combat because of the 2nd, right ?

Jyhad_addict wrote: > Additionaly, if you place 2 Lunatic Erruptions on the same minion, > then if he enters combat via the first and then untaps in some way > (e.g. play Majesty) then he is forced to enter combat because of the > 2nd, right ? No. He cannot enter combat with either because he must enter combat with the other. -- 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/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> escribió en el mensaje news:Uw3id.831405$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Jyhad_addict wrote: > > Additionaly, if you place 2 Lunatic Erruptions on the same minion, > > then if he enters combat via the first and then untaps in some way > > (e.g. play Majesty) then he is forced to enter combat because of the > > 2nd, right ? > > No. He cannot enter combat with either because he must enter combat > with the other. > > So it cannot act at all? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Smiling Tom" <tma...@almadrava.net> wrote in message news:2us1qfF...@uni-berlin.de... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> escribió en el mensaje > news:Uw3id.831405$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > Jyhad_addict wrote: > > > Additionaly, if you place 2 Lunatic Erruptions on the same minion, > > > then if he enters combat via the first and then untaps in some way > > > (e.g. play Majesty) then he is forced to enter combat because of the > > > 2nd, right ? > > > > No. He cannot enter combat with either because he must enter combat > > with the other. > > > So it cannot act at all? Correct. A minion with two (or more) mandatory actions is stuck and can take no action. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2us3nkF...@uni-berlin.de>... > "Smiling Tom" <tma...@almadrava.net> wrote in message > news:2us1qfF...@uni-berlin.de... > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> escribió en el mensaje > > news:Uw3id.831405$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > Jyhad_addict wrote: > > > > Additionaly, if you place 2 Lunatic Erruptions on the same minion, > > > > then if he enters combat via the first and then untaps in some way > > > > (e.g. play Majesty) then he is forced to enter combat because of the > > > > 2nd, right ? > > > > > > No. He cannot enter combat with either because he must enter combat > > > with the other. > > > > > So it cannot act at all? > > > Correct. > A minion with two (or more) mandatory actions is stuck and can take > no action. yes, but it is the same kind of mandatory action. Does he still get stuck ? are you going to consider changing this rule about a minion having to perform 2 mandatory actions, when both are the same kind of action ? I don't say you should, but i believe that if you do, none will disagree.

On 3 Nov 2004 23:12:54 -0800, Jyhad_addict <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote: >> Correct. >> A minion with two (or more) mandatory actions is stuck and can take >> no action. > > yes, but it is the same kind of mandatory action. Does he still get > stuck ? > > are you going to consider changing this rule about a minion having to > perform 2 mandatory actions, when both are the same kind of action ? > > I don't say you should, but i believe that if you do, none will > disagree. I think it is fine the way it is. Each card has its own effect, which is helpful if you have multiple effects contradicting eachother. At least the rules are player-friendly and facilitate understanding. :D -- Bye, Daneel

Jyhad_addict wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2us3nkF...@uni-berlin.de>... >>"Smiling Tom" <tma...@almadrava.net> wrote in message >>>"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> escribió en el mensaje >>>>No. He cannot enter combat with either because he must enter combat >>>>with the other. >>>> >>>So it cannot act at all? >> >>Correct. >>A minion with two (or more) mandatory actions is stuck and can take >>no action. > > yes, but it is the same kind of mandatory action. Does he still get > stuck ? Yes. See above. > are you going to consider changing this rule about a minion having to > perform 2 mandatory actions, when both are the same kind of action ? No. "Same kind of action" would lead to gray areas, the likes of which lead to the change to the NRA rule (away from "same types" to what we have now). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > Additionaly, if you place 2 Lunatic Erruptions on the same minion, > > > then if he enters combat via the first and then untaps in some way > > > (e.g. play Majesty) then he is forced to enter combat because of the > > > 2nd, right ? > > > > No. He cannot enter combat with either because he must enter combat > > with the other. > > > > > So it cannot act at all? > Except to hunt.

> > are you going to consider changing this rule about a minion having to > > perform 2 mandatory actions, when both are the same kind of action ? > > No. "Same kind of action" would lead to gray areas, the likes of > which lead to the change to the NRA rule (away from "same types" > to what we have now). What i am saying is different. I am talking about Mandatory actions and only for them. Not the NRA rule, which is near perfect if you ask me. I am saying that it is stupid for a minion not to be able to do anything, when there are more than 1 mandatory actions, when permited by different cards in play and especialy when the mandatory actions are of the same kind of action. (e.g. lunatic eruption permited action) So, by the current rule you mean to say that the minion can't "decide" which mandatory action to take first, the game rules don't help him "decide", so he stucks unable to perform any of the 2 mandatory actions. This is not jyhad, it is the "letter" of the law and not the spirit. Additionaly some guy in an earlier posting said something like this "this is a fine rule, because it is totaly understandable". I am sorry to say this, but this is crap. Rules should be created to help the game run smoothly and achieve its purpose. What crap is this ? How on earth can somebody possibly say that a rule is good if it is just understandable and so people don't get confused. Anyway, i believe that you (LSJ) can change the rule to something like the following and still not cause any trouble: "if a minion must perform 2 or more mandatory actions the controling meth orders the sequence, exception is the mandatory hunt action which must be performed before any other mandatory action" or at least: "when a minion must perform 2 or more mandatory actions ordered by different copies of the same card in play (e.g. 2 Lunatic Eruptions) he is not stuck" Because by wearing 2 Lunatic erruptions and geting stuck by doing this does not enhance V:tes experience. It shows that the "letter" of the law, outlaws the "spirit" of the law.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 06:43:58 -0500, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] can't hunt either. well, unless he's empty. if he's empty, Lunatic Eruption doesn't give him a mandatory action to take, by card text. which i guess is what you were getting at. but it might have confused a few people. like me. :) salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On 4 Nov 2004 16:58:44 -0800, Jyhad_addict <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote: > Because by wearing 2 Lunatic erruptions and geting stuck by doing > this does not enhance V:tes experience. It shows that the "letter" of > the law, outlaws the "spirit" of the law. I disagree. Think of it this way: You have an extra option with the card. If you play one Lunatic Eruption on a minion, they will go on and attack vampires of their prey. If you play another, they become so insane they will only giggle and babble. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

In article <c6a50f81.04110...@posting.google.com>, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote: >> No. "Same kind of action" would lead to gray areas, the likes of >> which lead to the change to the NRA rule (away from "same types" >> to what we have now). > > > What i am saying is different. I am talking about Mandatory actions >and only for them. Not the NRA rule, which is near perfect if you ask >me. I am saying that it is stupid for a minion not to be able to do >anything, when there are more than 1 mandatory actions, when permited >by different cards in play and especialy when the mandatory actions >are of the same kind of action. >(e.g. lunatic eruption permited action) The new NRA is more perfect precisely because it does not involve having to determine what is the "same kind of action". > This is not jyhad, it is the "letter" of the law and not the >spirit. Additionaly some guy in an earlier posting said something like >this "this is a fine rule, because it is totaly understandable". I am >sorry to say this, but this is crap. Rules should be created to help >the game run smoothly and achieve its purpose. What crap is this ? How >on earth can somebody possibly say that a rule is good if it is just >understandable and so people don't get confused. Wait a minute. Are you actually saying, with a straight face, that a rule that is easily understandable and doesn't confuse people is NOT good? :) -- charles lechasseur - da...@novideospamtron.ca

Jyhad_addict wrote: >>>are you going to consider changing this rule about a minion having to >>>perform 2 mandatory actions, when both are the same kind of action ? >> >>No. "Same kind of action" would lead to gray areas, the likes of >>which lead to the change to the NRA rule (away from "same types" >>to what we have now). > > What i am saying is different. What you are now saying in this post (below) is different, yes. What you said above was to change the current ruling to allow sometimes a minion otherwise "stuck" with two actions to perform one of the actions (and then possibly untap and perform the other) based on a condition that the two mandatory actions be "the same kind of action" (as each other). Hinging the condition on "same type" would lead to gray areas. > I am talking about Mandatory actions > and only for them. Not the NRA rule, which is near perfect if you ask > me. I am saying that it is stupid for a minion not to be able to do > anything, when there are more than 1 mandatory actions, when permited > by different cards in play and especialy when the mandatory actions > are of the same kind of action. > (e.g. lunatic eruption permited action) It is not stupid. A minion who must hunt can do nothing other than hunt. A minion who must bleed can do nothing other than bleed. A minion who must bleed and must hunt can do nothing, since he cannot do the bleed (it isn't a hunt) and cannot do the hunt (it isn't a bleed). > So, by the current rule you mean to say that the minion can't > "decide" which mandatory action to take first, the game rules don't > help him "decide", so he stucks unable to perform any of the 2 > mandatory actions. Correct. > This is not jyhad, Incorrect. This has been Jyhad since the beginning (empty with Talbot's). > it is the "letter" of the law and not the > spirit. Incorrect again. This is the spirit as well. > Additionaly some guy in an earlier posting said something like > this "this is a fine rule, because it is totaly understandable". I am > sorry to say this, but this is crap. Rules should be created to help > the game run smoothly and achieve its purpose. What crap is this ? How > on earth can somebody possibly say that a rule is good if it is just > understandable and so people don't get confused. Far out of field. The rules are understandable so that the game is playable. > Anyway, i believe that you (LSJ) can change the rule to something > like the following and still not cause any trouble: > > "if a minion must perform 2 or more mandatory actions the controling > meth orders the sequence, exception is the mandatory hunt action which > must be > performed before any other mandatory action" With the exception of the arbitrary exception for hunting, you're correct, it is conceivable that I would, yes. But that change is not warranted, so I won't be making that change anytime soon. Note the absence of the problematic "same type" you had keyed on before. > or at least: > "when a minion must perform 2 or more mandatory actions ordered by > different copies of the same card in play (e.g. 2 Lunatic Eruptions) > he is not stuck" Again, something that I could conceivably change to, but given the extreme corner-caseness of the case in question, such a rule would not hold its weight, so would not be implemented. > Because by wearing 2 Lunatic erruptions and geting stuck by doing > this does not enhance V:tes experience. Incorrect. > It shows that the "letter" of > the law, outlaws the "spirit" of the law. As does wearing two Flak Jackets. The letter of the law is needed to ensure the playability of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:<opsgzd07...@news.chello.hu>... [ quoted text not captured ] hahaha, yes, i love it....

da...@novideospamtron.ca (Charles Lechasseur) wrote in message news:<danov-05110...@192.168.1.4>... > In article <c6a50f81.04110...@posting.google.com>, > geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote: > > >> No. "Same kind of action" would lead to gray areas, the likes of > >> which lead to the change to the NRA rule (away from "same types" > >> to what we have now). > > > > > > What i am saying is different. I am talking about Mandatory actions > >and only for them. Not the NRA rule, which is near perfect if you ask > >me. I am saying that it is stupid for a minion not to be able to do > >anything, when there are more than 1 mandatory actions, when permited > >by different cards in play and especialy when the mandatory actions > >are of the same kind of action. > >(e.g. lunatic eruption permited action) > > The new NRA is more perfect precisely because it does not involve having > to determine what is the "same kind of action". > there is no such thing as "more perfect". Either something is perfect, near perfect, not perfect or sucks... "more perfect" makes no sense. > > This is not jyhad, it is the "letter" of the law and not the > >spirit. Additionaly some guy in an earlier posting said something like > >this "this is a fine rule, because it is totaly understandable". I am > >sorry to say this, but this is crap. Rules should be created to help > >the game run smoothly and achieve its purpose. What crap is this ? How > >on earth can somebody possibly say that a rule is good if it is just > >understandable and so people don't get confused. > > Wait a minute. Are you actually saying, with a straight face, that a rule > that is easily understandable and doesn't confuse people is NOT good? :) No, i am saying that a rule being "understandable" and not confuse people, does not mean that is right.

Jyhad_addict wrote: > > there is no such thing as "more perfect". Either something is perfect, > near perfect, not perfect or sucks... "more perfect" makes no sense. > So there are four levels of perfection, in your mind, but they are arranged such that they cannot be compared with 'more' or 'less'? Perhaps a diagram would help us understand. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article <c6a50f81.0411...@posting.google.com>, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote: >da...@novideospamtron.ca (Charles Lechasseur) wrote in message news:<danov-05110...@192.168.1.4>... >> The new NRA is more perfect precisely because it does not involve having >> to determine what is the "same kind of action". >> > >there is no such thing as "more perfect". Either something is perfect, >near perfect, not perfect or sucks... "more perfect" makes no sense. Sorry. I am not a native english speaker. It must be my bad english. >> Wait a minute. Are you actually saying, with a straight face, that a rule >> that is easily understandable and doesn't confuse people is NOT good? :) > > No, i am saying that a rule being "understandable" and not confuse >people, does not mean that is right. So you're saying that a rule that is understandable and does not confuse people is wrong? You're the one confusing me, not the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <c6a50f81.04110...@posting.google.com>, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote: >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<PJJid.66932$OD2....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> Far out of field. The rules are understandable so that the game is >> playable. >> > >yes, but this alone does not prove a rule to be right. So you're saying that rules should not make the game playable? I'm sorry to keep bringing it up, but I'm seriously confused about what you think are good rules. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

> i am not calling this stupid, this is right. A minion "wearing" 2 > Lunatic Eruptions getting stuck, by being unable to "decide" in which > to "obey" first is stupid. > No, it makes perfect sense for a minion wishing to immediately lash out at 2 different people to be paralyzed with the inability to pick one "first." > you are the rule-master, you figure out what the rule's exact words > should be. Compose the rule and before you make it official, you can let > the group know what the rule says (if you feel like doing such a thing) > and we can try and find some "weak" spots of the rule. In other words > something that it is not according to the "spirit" of the law, but can > manipulated to do something you shouldn't do. > Let the reverse be true. He announces the rule, and we try and poke holes in it. Since we fail to find any flaws in his rule, the rule stays.

da...@novideospamtron.ca (Charles Lechasseur) wrote in message news:<danov-05110...@192.168.1.4>... [ quoted text not captured ] What i am saying is simple: A good rule is one who is understandable and not confusing. All rules who are understandable and not confusing are not necessarily good. It just don't work both ways. That's my point. I can't make it more explicit. I hope you get what i mean.

Adam Ramadan <ram...@parcplace.ca> wrote in message news:<418c1eb8$1...@127.0.0.1>... > Jyhad_addict wrote: > > > > there is no such thing as "more perfect". Either something is perfect, > > near perfect, not perfect or sucks... "more perfect" makes no sense. > > > > So there are four levels of perfection, in your mind, but they are > arranged such that they cannot be compared with 'more' or 'less'? > > Perhaps a diagram would help us understand. > perfect means unflawed. Something either is perfect on is not. That's what i said. So, are you in here to talk about use of English language or jyhad ? :P

da...@novideospamtron.ca (Charles Lechasseur) wrote in message news:<danov-05110...@192.168.1.4>... [ quoted text not captured ] What i am saying is simple: A good rule is understandable and not confusing. A rule, that is understandable and not confusing, is not necessarily a good rule. It doesn't work both ways. So, the 2 or more mandatory actions stuck thingie is understandable and not confusing. It is a good rule when the 2 mandatory actions are different e.g. hunt and rush, but it is not a good rule (but a silly one) when the 2 actions are 2 hunts or 2 rushes. I hope this explains what i believe.

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message news:<2004110619...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>... > > i am not calling this stupid, this is right. A minion "wearing" 2 > > Lunatic Eruptions getting stuck, by being unable to "decide" in which > > to "obey" first is stupid. > > > > No, it makes perfect sense for a minion wishing to immediately lash out at > 2 different people to be paralyzed with the inability to pick one "first." > People don't need to be different. and what about 2 hunts ? can't decide where to go hunting ??? vampire thoughts: "should i go hunting to the Rack or should i go hunting somewhere else ? can't decide..." this shows that your above argument is not based well.

In message <c6a50f81.04110...@posting.google.com>, Jyhad_addict <geo...@for.auth.gr> writes: > People don't need to be different. > >and what about 2 hunts ? can't decide where to go hunting ??? > >vampire thoughts: "should i go hunting to the Rack or should i go >hunting somewhere else ? can't decide..." > > this shows that your above argument is not based well. You're confusing having simple, playable rules with having rules that obey an individual view of how the game should conform to a WoD storyline. Many aspects of the WoD are trampled over in the quest to have a playable game. What about this particular violation of backstory warrants a rule change? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<xspvlVCU...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <c6a50f81.04110...@posting.google.com>, > Jyhad_addict <geo...@for.auth.gr> writes: > > People don't need to be different. > > > >and what about 2 hunts ? can't decide where to go hunting ??? > > > >vampire thoughts: "should i go hunting to the Rack or should i go > >hunting somewhere else ? can't decide..." > > > > this shows that your above argument is not based well. > > You're confusing having simple, playable rules with having rules that > obey an individual view of how the game should conform to a WoD > storyline. > > Many aspects of the WoD are trampled over in the quest to have a > playable game. What about this particular violation of backstory > warrants a rule change? I know this and i don't have a problem with this. I don't expect V:tes to completely conform with the WoD, because this is not possible due to the need for playability, game balance and other issues. What you are saying is not what i said nor what i meant to imply, you just misunderstood my intentions. The problem that i have is with rules that have a good general effect, but produce a silly effect in specific occasions. Like the 2 or more mandatory actions-vampire getting stuck rule, when all mandatory actions are practicaly the same action (e.g. 2 or more XTC laced blood or Lunatic Eruptions) I am truly bored of repeating myself in this thread, but you guys keep skipping the main point, so this time i'll try to be crystal clear in what i want to say trying to avoid future misunderstandings. A vampire having to perform 2 or more mandatory actions that e.g. are any number of hunts and rushes, is welcome to get stuck because it is logical not to be allowed to do one of them before the other. But a vampire having to perform 2 or more mandatory actions, that are really the same action e.g. 2 rushes due to 2 eruptions, getting stuck seems silly. So, a rule that in general is a good rule, has a silly effect when the 2 or more mandatory actions are practicaly the "same" action, dictated by different copies of the same card. Thus my reccomendation is to make an exception for such cases, i do not intend to criticize the whole rule, or to suggest that we should discard the rule. I characterize the effect produced in certain cases as silly and suggest that an exception should be made for such cases. Thus, i asked from LSJ to compose an exception to this rule that will have as outcome a better and more playable produced effect, in such cases. So, as you understand (i hope) the playability of the game and the existence of logic in it is my mail concerns and not the compliance with the WoD. It is like having a program that has a bug, so when you try to do a thing you get a wrong effect. You don't dismiss the whole program, you just add some code to fix the bug. The "vampire thoughts" i mentioned in my previous postings were not an attempt to "link" v:tes with the WoD, it was mistakenly took as one. It was an attempt to show that the effect in these cases is silly and do not comply with the "spirit" of v:tes, as i have known it up to now. Don't forget that the rules are just the means with which it is made certain that in each case the game produces an effect which complies with its needs. When reading a rule, one can understand which effects produced in certain cases were meant, by the rule creator, to be produced and which effects (if any) were not meant, but are produced because the rule creator is not a god and cannot predict each case in which the rule takes effect. Examples of such effects (that were not meant) were combinations of cards and effects in game that were exploited in the past by gamers to produce overpowering results and thus they were eliminated by rules. An example of what i mean to say is the NRA rule and the effect it produces with the Mask of a 1000 faces: you bleed with minion A, nobody blocks, minion B continues the action by playing a Mask of a 1000 faces. minion A untaps and is allowed to attempt another bleed, because in the previous action he didn't "perform" the action, he just begun an action that was continued, performed and ended by another minion. What i am saying here is that the creator of the NRA rule did not have in mind to ban these occurences when he was creating the NRA rule. So, if it happened that the NRA rule was "composed" in a manner that prohibited the minion A from attempting another bleed action (without actualy having performed the first), it would be "addapted" in a way that would allow the minion A to do so. Rules should serve the game and not game serve the rules. So, when it is revealed that in some case a current rule does not serve the game in the best manner, it can be fixed either by a change in the rule or either by making an exception for 1 or more cases. I believe i made my point clear this time and i expect further discussion in the matter i wanted to discuss in this thread and not discussion in "v:tes compliance with WoD", which is not a subject of this thread and which is a matter that i believe we agree (that the lack of perfect v:tes compliance with the WoD is not a problem and does not undermine the playing experience of the game, as playability, game balance and other related issues are more important)

"Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message news:c6a50f81.04110...@posting.google.com... > I am truly bored of repeating myself in this thread, but you guys keep > skipping the main point, so this time i'll try to be crystal clear in > what i want to say trying to avoid future misunderstandings. > > A vampire having to perform 2 or more mandatory actions that e.g. are > any number of hunts and rushes, is welcome to get stuck because it is > logical not to be allowed to do one of them before the other. > > But a vampire having to perform 2 or more mandatory actions, that are > really the same action e.g. 2 rushes due to 2 eruptions, getting stuck > seems silly. > > So, a rule that in general is a good rule, has a silly effect when the > 2 or more mandatory actions are practicaly the "same" action, dictated > by different copies of the same card. Thus my reccomendation is to > make an exception for such cases, i do not intend to criticize the > whole rule, or to suggest that we should discard the rule. I > characterize the effect produced in certain cases as silly and suggest > that an exception should be made for such cases. > > Thus, i asked from LSJ to compose an exception to this rule that will > have as outcome a better and more playable produced effect, in such > cases. So, as you understand (i hope) the playability of the game and > the existence of logic in it is my mail concerns and not the > compliance with the WoD. This is new, not a repeat. Before you were just on "same type of action". Now you've narrowed that quite a bit to "different copies of the same card in play". So you avoid the obstacle I originally pointed out (problems with "same type of action") in exchange for a much smaller set of occurences (i.e., cornercasing the situations). Now the application set is so small that it doesn't merit changing the existing rules. Additionally, making that exception can also lead to problems (say, when different levels of a card provide different mandatory actions). And the exception itself will (trust me on this one) lead players to question the whys and wherefores of other cases not being also made exceptions (so it won't really solve anything, it will just shift the line as to where people find the problem). > It is like having a program that has a bug, so when you try to do a > thing you get a wrong effect. You don't dismiss the whole program, you > just add some code to fix the bug. But you don't issue patches willy-nilly for non-issues, or your consumer base will treat that as a negative. > So, when it is revealed that in some case a current rule does not > serve the game in the best manner, it can be fixed either by a change > in the rule or either by making an exception for 1 or more cases. Agreed, but the multiple Lunatics case is not an example of something that has been revealed as not being served in the best manner. You prefer it another way, clearly. But that isn't quite the same. Some people prefer aggravated damage another way, too. But that doesn't mean that that other way would be "the best manner".

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2vbulgF...@uni-berlin.de>... > "Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message > news:c6a50f81.04110...@posting.google.com... > > This is new, not a repeat. Before you were just on "same type of action". > > Now you've narrowed that quite a bit to "different copies of the > same card in play". So you avoid the obstacle I originally pointed > out (problems with "same type of action") in exchange for a much > smaller set of occurences (i.e., cornercasing the situations). Now the > application set is so small that it doesn't merit changing the > existing rules. > This is what i meant all the time, this is what i tried to say with "the same type of action". I never meant to question the NRA rule. You don't have to change the existing rules, just make an exception for "2+ lunatic eruptions or 2+ XTC laced blood, e.t.c." or maybe revise the mandatory getting stuck rule as a whole. It is your job to pick the best solution, not mine. If on the other hand you feel good with the current effect produced by 2+ lunatic eruption on the same minion, then each time an effect like this occurs (i am currently playing a deck with 9 lunatic eruptions) and people ask me, why their vampires should get stuck and who made such an idiotic rule, i can explain to them. > Additionally, making that exception can also lead to problems (say, > when different levels of a card provide different mandatory actions). > like what ? i believe you are refering to the uncertain future. in such a case, you should include text in this "future" card you obviously are refering to, so as to clear out what happens in this case. > And the exception itself will (trust me on this one) lead players to > question the whys and wherefores of other cases not being also made > exceptions (so it won't really solve anything, it will just shift > the line as to where people find the problem). > so what ? let them question, if you feel that there must be some change, do it. If you feel good with the current effect produced by 2+ XTC LB or 2+ LE on the same minion, then let me know to stop wasting my time trying to state the obvious, which is the fact that the current produced effect truly sucks. > > It is like having a program that has a bug, so when you try to do a > > thing you get a wrong effect. You don't dismiss the whole program, you > > just add some code to fix the bug. > > But you don't issue patches willy-nilly for non-issues, or your > consumer base will treat that as a negative. > So, are you saying that you are more interested in selling than to improve game experience ? i'd like to see that from WW... > > Agreed, but the multiple Lunatics case is not an example of something > that has been revealed as not being served in the best manner. > You prefer it another way, clearly. But that isn't quite the same. > Some people prefer aggravated damage another way, too. But that doesn't > mean that that other way would be "the best manner". So, should we make a poll ? this is what i will do then...

if you let it be known to all and sundry that 2+ lunatic eruptions or 2+ xtc laced blood will result in a 'stuck' minion, then who's going to bother playing the 2nd+ copy of that card on a given minion? unless they want the minion stuck.... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <c6a50f81.04110...@posting.google.com>, Jyhad_addict <geo...@for.auth.gr> writes: >This is what i meant all the time, this is what i tried to say with >"the same type of action". I never meant to question the NRA rule. No, the "same type of action" re: NRA was brought up because "same type of action" is a complete pain in the ass to define. It *was* in the old NRA rules. NRA is now in the core rules without "same type of action". You should do a search on Google for the (many) threads on "Is this the same type of action as...?" under the old NRA rules. It's not fun. Hence, doing things based on "same type of action" is best avoided, if you can help it. >like what ? i believe you are refering to the uncertain future. >in such a case, you should include text in this "future" card you >obviously are refering to, so as to clear out what happens in this >case. A general sense of minimalist game design (so that you don't need mountains of card text) should avoid such complications where they don't add anything significant to the game. Having truck loads of card text is *bad*. You may not have encountered the term "Seven Line Syndrome". However, what this alludes to is the situation where a card hits a critical amount of text - typically, seven lines - and people stop reading. So you don't want to clutter up cards with corner-case trivia, or have basic rules text on the card in general. (Hence, having the "use as a vampire" stuff for disciplined allies off the card is also very good.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Like the 2 or more > mandatory actions-vampire getting stuck rule, when all mandatory > actions are practicaly the same action (e.g. 2 or more XTC laced blood > or Lunatic Eruptions) > Since we know they're not the same action, it seems moot to continue to argue. > A vampire having to perform 2 or more mandatory actions that e.g. are > any number of hunts and rushes, is welcome to get stuck because it is > logical not to be allowed to do one of them before the other. > Rush is not an action. "Bum's Rush" is an action. "Lunatic Eruption," "Enter Combat Via This Particular Lunatic Eruption", and "Burn This Particular Lunatic Eruption" are actions. Rush is a word that players use to generally describe the sort of actions that get a minion directly into combat. It is not a game term. > But a vampire having to perform 2 or more mandatory actions, that are > really the same action e.g. 2 rushes due to 2 eruptions, getting stuck > seems silly. > Those are similar actions, not the same action. One is "Enter Combat Via This Particular Lunatic Eruption" and the other is "Enter Combat Via That Particular Lunatic Eruption." Just like "Govern the Unaligned [dom]" is similar to "Govern the Unaligned [DOM]," but not the same.

I do have a question about all this, though, not that I like opening this can of worms up to more debate. If a minion has no blood and has an XTC-Laced Blood on him, and therefore MUST HUNT and MUST HUNT, Is he able to hunt? Other cards that impose a mandatory action usually impose their own, but XTC seemss to be imposing the very same action on him.

geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) writes: > If on the other hand you feel good with the current effect produced > by 2+ lunatic eruption on the same minion, then each time an effect > like this occurs (i am currently playing a deck with 9 lunatic > eruptions) and people ask me, why their vampires should get stuck and > who made such an idiotic rule, i can explain to them. Two XTC-laced Blood, and you're so high you're just sitting around shaking. Two Lunatic Eruption, and you're so crazy you can't decide what to do ("I'll attack Beast! Wait, maybe Arika deserves it more! But Leandro's blood is so tasty..." etc). None of these seem to be much of a thematical problem, to me.

On 10 Nov 2004 23:23:21 -0800, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) scrawled: [snip] >The current rules say the following: > >6. Minion Phase (CE rulebook, page 20) > >"..... >If a single minion has two or more different mandatory actions, then >he is "stuck" and cannot take any action (this does not prevent your >other minions from taking non-mandatory actions, however" > >So, please explain exactly what do you mean with this rule: > >1st. Which mandatory actions are different and which the same ? > You say "... has two or more DIFFERENT...", so do you mean > that he is stuck when the mandatory actions are different, > but he is NOT stuck when the mandatory actions are not > different ? if yes, which mandatory actions are not different ? > give me an example. Why do two lunatic eruptions lead to 2 > different mandatory actions ? Does this happen, because the > "enter combat" action allowed by eruption is not a basic action, > like hunting is ? Hunt is an action. Bleed is an action. all the actions in the rulebook are actions. Lunatic Eruption action is provided by a card in play. The action provided by another copy of Lunatic Eruption is a different action provided by a different card in play. Pretend the Lunatic Eruption actions were optional. You could do one, then untap with a freak drive, and then do the other one, under NRA. Like taking 2 actions to burn 2 different Heart of Darknesses is two different actions. >2nd. This rule says: "...this does not prevent your other minions from > taking NON-MANDATORY actions, however", so do you imply that they > are NOT allowed to take mandatory actions, if a minion is stuck ? It might make you think that, but that's not what it actually says. It does not say "this DOES prevent your other minions taking mandatory actions", does it? although i agree it could have been worded a little nicer. > e.g. 1 minion with 2 eruptions and another with 1. According to >the > current rules the minion with the 2 eruptions is stuck, but is >the > other minion with the 1 LE stuck ? (i believe he is not stuck, > but lets clear it out) he's not stuck. LSJ will be along shortly i am sure to confirm this. :D > >ok then, if you want to avoid the "same type of action" formulation >and not narrow the aplications of the "new" ruling, if you finaly >decide to make this one, what about this: wha...? >you can add the following text to the rules: > >"If both mandatory actions mean to produce the same effect (e.g. enter >combat via different lunatic eruptions in game) then the minion is not >stuck and must perform the actions as normal" > >So, if the mandatory actions are 2 "enter combat" actions, he is not >stuck. He enters combat and if by any means he untaps, he enters >combat again. what if one is 'enter combat at +1 stealth' and another is 'enter combat with a vampire controlled by your predator'. are they allowed or not? >If a future card dictates a mandatory bleeds and a minion has 2 copies >of this card on him, then he bleeds and if he untaps cannot bleed >again, as the NRA rule kicks in and prevents him to do so. So, he can >act normaly after this. whoa. no. he'd then be stuck. other card: must bleed. NRA: can't bleed. stuck. stucky stuck stuck stuck. >So, we avoid the damn "same type of action" formulation. no, we don't, sadly. >What do you say ? yeah LSJ, what DO you say? :P please excuse my current frivolous mood... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 06:42:47 -0500, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> scrawled: >I do have a question about all this, though, not that I like opening this [ quoted text not captured ] he can hunt. Hunt is an action provided by the rulebook to all and sundry. if XTC laced blood said "each turn this vampire must take a +1 stealth undirected action to gain 1 blood from the blood bank", then he'd be stuck. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jyhad_addict wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2vbulgF...@uni-berlin.de>... > > >>Now you've narrowed that quite a bit to "different copies of the >>same card in play". So you avoid the obstacle I originally pointed >>out (problems with "same type of action") in exchange for a much >>smaller set of occurences (i.e., cornercasing the situations). Now the >>application set is so small that it doesn't merit changing the >>existing rules. >> > > > The current rules say the following: > > 6. Minion Phase (CE rulebook, page 20) > > "..... > If a single minion has two or more different mandatory actions, then > he is "stuck" and cannot take any action (this does not prevent your > other minions from taking non-mandatory actions, however" > > So, please explain exactly what do you mean with this rule: > > 1st. Which mandatory actions are different and which the same ? > You say "... has two or more DIFFERENT...", so do you mean > that he is stuck when the mandatory actions are different, > but he is NOT stuck when the mandatory actions are not > different ? if yes, which mandatory actions are not different ? > give me an example. Why do two lunatic eruptions lead to 2 > different mandatory actions ? Does this happen, because the > "enter combat" action allowed by eruption is not a basic action, > like hunting is ? > > 2nd. This rule says: "...this does not prevent your other minions from > taking NON-MANDATORY actions, however", so do you imply that they > are NOT allowed to take mandatory actions, if a minion is stuck ? > e.g. 1 minion with 2 eruptions and another with 1. According to > the > current rules the minion with the 2 eruptions is stuck, but is > the > other minion with the 1 LE stuck ? (i believe he is not stuck, > but lets clear it out) > > > ok then, if you want to avoid the "same type of action" formulation > and not narrow the aplications of the "new" ruling, if you finaly > decide to make this one, what about this: > > you can add the following text to the rules: > > "If both mandatory actions mean to produce the same effect (e.g. enter > combat via different lunatic eruptions in game) then the minion is not > stuck and must perform the actions as normal" > > So, if the mandatory actions are 2 "enter combat" actions, he is not > stuck. He enters combat and if by any means he untaps, he enters > combat again. > > If a future card dictates a mandatory bleeds and a minion has 2 copies > of this card on him, then he bleeds and if he untaps cannot bleed > again, as the NRA rule kicks in and prevents him to do so. So, he can > act normaly after this. > > So, we avoid the damn "same type of action" formulation. > > What do you say ? This looks a great deal like the post I just responded to in the other thread, so I refer you to that response. [ quoted text not captured ]

> GtU sup does not have the same effect with GtU basic, but it is a GtU > action. > I am not talking about this. > > I am talking about actions that produce the same effect. > One, when resolved, will make you unable to perform "Enter Combat Via This Lunatic Eruption." The other, when resolved, will make you unable to perform "Enter Combat Via That Lunatic Eruption." They have different effects, they are different types of actions.

On 11 Nov 2004 03:24:39 -0800, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) scrawled: i'll just pop your original bit back in.: "If a future card dictates a mandatory bleeds and a minion has 2 copies of this card on him, then he bleeds and if he untaps cannot bleed again, as the NRA rule kicks in and prevents him to do so. So, he can act normaly after this." >> >> whoa. no. he'd then be stuck. other card: must bleed. NRA: can't >> bleed. stuck. stucky stuck stuck stuck. >> > >i believe you are worng, e.g. if a minion wearing 1 lunatic eruption, >enters combat via the eruption and untaps with a majesty, he can then >act normaly as NRA prevents him from entering combat again via the >same lunatic eruption. >I believe LSJ can confirm this. but in the situation you described he had 2 mandatory actions of bleed. so let's go with your new ruling allowing him to do one of them. the other copy of the card says he must bleed. he hasn't done _that_ card's mandatory action, so he must do it now. however, the NRA prevents him from bleeding twice, so he is stuck. in your 1 Lunatic Eruption case you mention above it's different as the minion has already satisfied _all_ the mandatory actions on all cards on him. ie: that one 'rush' action. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 11 Nov 2004 00:45:53 -0800, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) scrawled: >Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message news:<2004111006...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] >i am trying to clear this out, too. I have asked LSJ. > >By postings so far, i believe that he is able to hunt, because >hunt is a basic action and practicaly hunting due to no blood and >hunting due to XTC laced blood is the same mandatory action. :Empty goto Hunt :XTC Laced Blood goto Hunt :Hunt +1 stealth action. gain one blood from the blood bank. :Lunatic Eruption-Card1 Must rush (this cannot have a 'goto Rush, because there is no such action, outside of it being defined on that particular copy of the card) :Rush No such action does that make sense? should i do it in VBA instead? i think i might actually be able to swing that.... [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<CKeDcwUU...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <c6a50f81.04110...@posting.google.com>, > Jyhad_addict <geo...@for.auth.gr> writes: > >This is what i meant all the time, this is what i tried to say with > >"the same type of action". I never meant to question the NRA rule. > > No, the "same type of action" re: NRA was brought up because "same type > of action" is a complete pain in the ass to define. It *was* in the old > NRA rules. NRA is now in the core rules without "same type of action". > > You should do a search on Google for the (many) threads on "Is this the > same type of action as...?" under the old NRA rules. It's not fun. > Hence, doing things based on "same type of action" is best avoided, if > you can help it. > Thanks for explaining, i understand. > > >like what ? i believe you are refering to the uncertain future. > >in such a case, you should include text in this "future" card you > >obviously are refering to, so as to clear out what happens in this > >case. > > A general sense of minimalist game design (so that you don't need > mountains of card text) should avoid such complications where they don't > add anything significant to the game. Having truck loads of card text > is *bad*. > I completely agree. I just can't see how can this be done, when there are 1000+ errata, clarifications and rulings. > You may not have encountered the term "Seven Line Syndrome". However, > what this alludes to is the situation where a card hits a critical > amount of text - typically, seven lines - and people stop reading. So > you don't want to clutter up cards with corner-case trivia, or have > basic rules text on the card in general. (Hence, having the "use as a > vampire" stuff for disciplined allies off the card is also very good.) i completely agree

salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0sk3p09ms7tqifkmm...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] i currently play a deck with lunatic eruptions (9). So, i use lunatic eruption, society of leopolds, some hauntings and enough Millicents. Imagine this: i oust my prey, then i put eruptions to the 2 minions of my new prey, my new prey rushes the minions of my predator and ousts him e.g. by a fame. So, we are the only meths left in the game. Now, hwat can i do ? he has 2 minions with eruptions that are going to beat the hell out of my malkavians. So, by the existing rules, i can put 1 more eruption to each of his minions and get them to stuck. So, he is fucked and i'll win. Alternatively, if that rule didn't exist, i would be forced to remove the eruptions, instead of placing 1 more. I just sort of "complained" about the rule, because it seems silly to me. (i am talking about the effect produced and not the rule as a whole).

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message news:<2004111117...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] i dissagree, they are different actions allowed by different copies (in play) of the same card. They are different actions, but meant to and are to produce the same effect, which is: "enter combat with a vampire of your prey". if the conditions are met, "all cards mean to and are to produce the same effect" is not checked each time, it is checked once, because minion gets stuck or attempts any actions.

pat...@nordebo.com wrote in message news:<87654di...@pluto.elizium.org>... [ quoted text not captured ] no, none thematical problem, but it somehow seems unproperly to me, when you put 2 lunatic eruptions on 1 vampire to get him stuck. Both lunatic eruption mandatory actions mean to produce the same effect, so there can be a sentence added to the existing "mandatory actions" rules (section 6 "minion phase", CE rulebook page 20), which will rule that if there is a minion with 2 or more mandatory actions to take and all mandatory actions mean to (or are to) produce the same effect, then the minion is not stuck and must take the actions. About "mean to" or "are to" i need your opinion, this different formulation can lead to different effects produced by this new rule i am suggesting. I can't decide which formulation is best to suggest. (for the exact formulation of the new rule "sentence" i suggest and for the differences between "mean to" and "are to", check my other new postings).