Meth A,B, Me
If I hunt, another Methuselah (A and/or B) may play a reaction cards
on their minions.
If I call a referendum, this should also be the case.
Is there any way that I can play a reaction card on a minion of mine
during one of my own actions? (that you can think of)
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:24:34 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote:
>Is there any way that I can play a reaction card on a minion of mine
>during one of my own actions? (that you can think of)
No. One would think this would be obvious from a simple perusal of
section 1.6.3 of the rules, excerpted below:
"...5. Reaction cards: A ready untapped minion can play a reaction
card in response to an action TAKEN BY ANOTHER METHUSELAH'S MINION (an
action taken by one of a Methuselah's minions cannot be reacted to by
any of her own minions)..."
This was taken directly from a Final Nights printed rulebook.
-- Derek
I don't know about y'all, but it worries me a great deal that someone
who intends to code ANY sort of client for V:TES is -so- unfamiliar
with the game mechanics. The jury is still out for now, mostly
because I don't see anyone else doing anything at all, but ...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:24:34 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Can more than one reaction card be played by methuselah B in response
to an action?
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 18:48:31 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote:
>>Meth A,B, Me
>>
>>If I hunt, another Methuselah (A and/or B) may play a reaction cards
>>on their minions.>>Can more than one reaction card be played by methuselah B in response
>to an action?
Technically? No. Methuselahs do not play reaction cards.
Again from 1.6.3:
"...5. Reaction cards: A ready untapped minion can play a reaction
card in response to an action taken by another Methuselah's minion."
So it's a Methuselah's MINIONS who play the cards, an important
distinction. If B has two or more untapped minions, each can play as
many reaction cards as they like, subject to 1.6.3, where we find (a
bit further down):
"A minion cannot play the same reaction card more than once during a
single action."
...indicating that multiple reaction cards are, indeed, playable by
any given minion, as long as they're different.
-- Derek
Of course, if you played the game at ALL, you'd know this shit.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 15:48:32 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 18:48:31 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote:[ quoted text not captured ]
My problem is that the 1.6.3 states that a minion may play "a reaction
card" in response to an action. So I need to know if it's 1 reaction
card per action or 1 reaction per action or modifier. The implication
of "cannot play the same reaction card" is technically, ambiguous. I
cannot assume one way or the other, although I am aware of standard
interpretation...I'm not interested in seeing another "Independent
Votes" problem.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:04:16 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote:
>My problem is that the 1.6.3 states that a minion may play "a reaction
>card" in response to an action. So I need to know if it's 1 reaction
He may play "a" reaction card, not "one" reaction card.
Then, immediately thereafter, he may AGAIN play "a" reaction card.
If he could play "reaction cards", then one could argue that one could
play both Spirit's Touch and Enhanced Senses at the same time, despite
only needing +1 intercept... if one were a terminally nit-picky rules
lawyer twit munchkin, anyway. Usually one just gets whacked over the
head with a bat when this sort of thing happens.
>card per action or 1 reaction per action or modifier. The implication
>of "cannot play the same reaction card" is technically, ambiguous. I
rules text, again:
"A minion cannot play the same reaction card more than once during a
single action."
I am unaware of how one could manage to play the same card "more than
once" without actually playing "more than one" card. The implications
are quite obvious, and not at all ambiguous.
>cannot assume one way or the other, although I am aware of standard
>interpretation...I'm not interested in seeing another "Independent
>Votes" problem.
Play more, talk through hat less?
-- Derek
"WAAAHHHHHHHHHHH! DOGS AREN'T ALLOWED!!!!" -- Spot
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 16:36:46 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:04:16 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote:>>>My problem is that the 1.6.3 states that a minion may play "a reaction
>>card" in response to an action. So I need to know if it's 1 reaction>
>He may play "a" reaction card, not "one" reaction card.
>
>Then, immediately thereafter, he may AGAIN play "a" reaction card.
>
So a hunting ground can be used multiple times to give each vampire
you have 1 blood, because it also says "a" vampire ?
The reaction rules are ambiguous, which is why I ask the newsgroup.
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. The irony is that I have to
take answers from a moron like you because no one else dissents.
When you feel that you understand WHY I'm asking (by examining the
code), I might listen to your extraneous comments. Further questions
will be directed at LSJ and you have been filtered again.
Jack Crow wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 16:36:46 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:04:16 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote:
> >
> >>My problem is that the 1.6.3 states that a minion may play "a reaction
> >>card" in response to an action. So I need to know if it's 1 reaction
> >
> >He may play "a" reaction card, not "one" reaction card.
> >
> >Then, immediately thereafter, he may AGAIN play "a" reaction card.
> >
> So a hunting ground can be used multiple times to give each vampire
> you have 1 blood, because it also says "a" vampire ?
>
> The reaction rules are ambiguous, which is why I ask the newsgroup.
Actually, it's the Hunting Ground that is "officially" ambiguous, not
the reaction rules. Granted, you may have your own opinion about that.
But if it makes you feel any better, in the Terminology section of the
V:TES Official Clarifications, Rulings, and Errata page it states,
"During phase X, do Y" limits Y to once per phase X." So the designers
have encountered your confusion about what doing "a" thing at a specific
time means and have resolved it.
Do people seem a bit more irritable than usual, lately? Maybe it's the
heat...
Fred
"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote
>
> Do people seem a bit more irritable than usual, lately? Maybe it's the
> heat...
Fuck you, Fred.
Just kidding :)
Yeah, definitely some miserable people here lately. I don't know why... My
air conditioning works nicely though.
Cheers,
WES
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 21:17:29 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote:
>The reaction rules are ambiguous, which is why I ask the newsgroup.
Except that I demonstrated that they weren't. You conveniently
ignored the half of the message where I pointed out that "more than
once" means "more than one". The reaction rules may not be perfectly
worded, but it's very easy to figure out that you can play more than
one card on any given action.
Again, I will point out that if you PLAYED the game, you'd know this,
as the simple combo "Wake/Deflection" is two reaction cards. Not to
mention that Wake specifies "play reaction cards as if untapped for
the duration of the action." There were plenty of sources you
could've gone to, but you wanted to be deliberately obtuse about it,
for reasons of your own.
Sure, the rulebook could be changed to spell it out in EXCRUCIATING
DETAIL, but the thing is long enough already; making it into legalese
to make someone like you happy is a Bad Idea(tm).
>Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. The irony is that I have to
>take answers from a moron like you because no one else dissents.
>When you feel that you understand WHY I'm asking (by examining the
Want the truth? I think you're asking because you're trying to stir
up controversy, not because you actually need to know. It was a
stupid-ass question, and it got a mocking response, as it deserved.
If you can discover questions about things that are NOT common sense,
such as the "independent votes" stream... then you would get much less
of a mocking response. But this shit? Come on. This was nothing
more than a pointless nitpick.
>code), I might listen to your extraneous comments. Further questions
>will be directed at LSJ and you have been filtered again.
Jack, all it takes is a little common sense. I realize that common
sense, along with a healthy dose of clue, is something that you are
TOTALLY lacking in, (witness your 'screenshot' taken with a digital
camera pointed at the monitor...) but really, this game is a lot
simpler than you're trying to make it. Why you're trying to make it
so difficult, nobody knows; most people don't feel the need to belabor
the obvious in this fashion.
"examining the code?" Come on, Jack, who are you trying to fool?
There's no code. It's English. It's the most inconsistent language
in the world. It can be twisted and misread in many different ways.
Do you really spend THAT much time glued to a computer and not
speaking to real, live people, where interpretation is the order of
the day and literalism will just get you mocked?
-- Derek
(couldn't care less if you filter me; it just means I don't have to
edit my responses to you for civility, and it doesn't make you any
less of a bozo just because you can't see me showing you up as one.
Let your inflatable ego chew on that for awhile.)
In message <tqdmlto5khlv044ob...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray
<lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>Play more, talk through hat less?
Sig file, sig file!
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
"Surely somewhere out there there's a woman who's EBD690ECD7A1F
been sodomized by her father and is capable of B457CA213D7E6
composing a few coherent sentences on the subject." 68C3695D623D5D
In message <3B5B46C3...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott
<fre...@netcom.com> writes
>Do people seem a bit more irritable than usual, lately? Maybe it's the
>heat...
It just turned September here. Again.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <3b5b2e7...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow
<no...@nowhere.com> writes
>>Of course, if you played the game at ALL, you'd know this shit.
>>>
>if you say so.
Erm, how have you played the game and *not* seen two Methuselahs go
against each other in a +1 stealth/+1 intercept/+3 stealth/erm, +2
intercept, +3 intercept bidding war?
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote
>
> My problem is that the 1.6.3 states that a minion may play "a reaction
> card" in response to an action. So I need to know if it's 1 reaction
> card per action or 1 reaction per action or modifier. The implication
> of "cannot play the same reaction card" is technically, ambiguous. I
> cannot assume one way or the other, although I am aware of standard
> interpretation...I'm not interested in seeing another "Independent
> Votes" problem.
Yes, it is not difficult to read 1.6.3 as implying that a player can
only play a and only a reaction per action per minion, especially since
the description of action modifiers above it makes it more clear that
multiple action modifiers can be played during an action (in what
could be read as contrast).
This is made more difficult, as I could not find an example
or reference in the rule book where a reacting minion plays
multiple reaction cards.
In an only slightly alternate universe, the same text
could describe a rule where only one reaction is allowed
per minion, and the extra text in 1.6.3 would cover
circumstances where certain cards could give the ability
to play more (in this slightly alternate universe, Wake with
Evening's Freshness would be one of those cards that allows
another reaction card to be played, and the extra text in
1.6.3 would be a reminder that you could not play another
Wake even under Wake's ability). Unfortunately, in this
slightly alternate universe, you still would have been subject
to the same abuse by the same posters, just in service of the
exact opposite explanation.
But I believe the answer to your question is this:
Any number of the minions of any methuselah other than
the acting minion's methuselah may play any number of
reaction cards, excepting certain restrictions: one minion
cannot play the same reaction card by title more than once per
action, minions attempting to block cannot use a reaction
card to add intercept if they do not currently need intercept
(and I suppose cannot use intercept at all until an attempt to
block is declared and passes into the "currently failing due to
lack of intercept" basket), other restrictions particular to
other cards currently in effect, and perhaps one or two
conditions that have slipped my mind.
- Jason Bell
In message <euM67.133786$ih.25...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes
>Yes, it is not difficult to read 1.6.3 as implying that a player can
>only play a and only a reaction per action per minion, especially since
>the description of action modifiers above it makes it more clear that
>multiple action modifiers can be played during an action (in what
>could be read as contrast).
However, the official on-line tutorial makes it clear that such plays
are possible, in the stealth/intercept rallies noting that another card
could be played etc. Anyone with an uncertain grasp of the rules (which
may or may not prove to be sound, in the end) should take a look.
Anyone reading the section and thinking "My minion can only play one"
should also read the sentence limiting it to one named reaction per
minion per action. If the minion can only play one, that sentence is
irrelevant and should set alarm bells ringing.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48nmltod7nb2m2ljk...@4ax.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Not too mix myself up in this, but I believe Jack meant the source code that
he is writing for the client, not the ambiguousness of the rules.
Peteo
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 04:05:37 GMT, "Peter Oh" <ohb...@wam.umd.edu>
wrote:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:48nmltod7nb2m2ljk...@4ax.com...>> >When you feel that you understand WHY I'm asking (by examining the>> >code), I might listen to your extraneous comments. Further questions
>>>> "examining the code?" Come on, Jack, who are you trying to fool?
>> There's no code. It's English. It's the most inconsistent language
>> in the world. It can be twisted and misread in many different ways.
>> Do you really spend THAT much time glued to a computer and not
>> speaking to real, live people, where interpretation is the order of
>> the day and literalism will just get you mocked?>
>Not too mix myself up in this, but I believe Jack meant the source code that
>he is writing for the client, not the ambiguousness of the rules.
In that case, he's said something totally pointless; the client should
match the -current- rules, whatever they may mean, and however
ambiguous they may be. Since he knows perfectly well what the rules
are, he should just write the code to accommodate the rules, and quit
wasting his AND our time nit-picking like this.
If he DOESN'T know what the rules are, I restate my original worry
about someone who doesn't play the game writing a client for it. It's
better than nothing, which is what everyone ELSE is doing, but by how
much?
-- Derek
do you have stairs in your house?
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 02:28:31 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Of course I have. I am aware of the standard interpretation. I am not
looking at it from how I think the game is or should be played. I'm
looking at it from a completely objective standpoint. Logical
programming does not give me the luxury of interpretation or relying
on one person's views. I have a Sabbat rulebook in front of me. I
follow it to the letter (this means I will be nitpicking for the next
3 months or so until VTESC is done). When the letters of the rules
start blurring, I post it here as a question.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 02:28:31 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:
>In message <3b5b2e7...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow[ quoted text not captured ]
If this was such a simple question, why are there so many posts?
(forgive me for adding *sigh* another).
"Jack Crow" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote
>
> I have a Sabbat rulebook in front of me.
Uh oh.
You may want to use Final Nights, not Sabbat. You do mean Sabbat and not
Sabbat War? Sabbat had some weirdness to it... Camarilla not being able to
vote in Crusades... shit like that. Best if you use the most up-to-date
version of the rules, n'est-ce pas?
Cheers,
WES
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote:
>But I believe the answer to your question is this:
>Any number of the minions of any methuselah other than
>the acting minion's methuselah may play any number of
>reaction cards, excepting certain restrictions: one minion
>cannot play the same reaction card by title more than once per
>action, minions attempting to block cannot use a reaction
>card to add intercept if they do not currently need intercept
>(and I suppose cannot use intercept at all until an attempt to
>block is declared and passes into the "currently failing due to
>lack of intercept" basket), other restrictions particular to
>other cards currently in effect, and perhaps one or two
>conditions that have slipped my mind.
Correct. And note that only ready untapped minions can play
reaction cards.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 04:38:27 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Correction. Sabbat War. The poor design of the original Sabbat VTES
rules were the primary reason I never collected again. I couldnt
stomach those.
In message <3b5be067...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>, Jack Crow
<no...@nowhere.com> writes
>>--
>>James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
>> "Surely somewhere out there there's a woman who's EBD690ECD7A1F
>> been sodomized by her father and is capable of B457CA213D7E6
>> composing a few coherent sentences on the subject." 68C3695D623D5D>
>If this was such a simple question, why are there so many posts?
>(forgive me for adding *sigh* another).
Netiquette suggests that you don't include my signature in your replies
unless you are specifically referring to it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3b5b3f9c...@news.flrtn1.occa.home.com>,
Jack Crow <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>The reaction rules are ambiguous, which is why I ask the newsgroup.
No, they aren't. One minion may play one copy of a named reaction card per
action. It's pretty clear.
>Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. The irony is that I have to
>take answers from a moron like you because no one else dissents.
I certainly don't dissent from Derek's opinion that you're a moron, and
a blowhard as well.
gomi
--
Yes, I believe but I'd rather not pray
What I believe in I'd rather not say, baby
"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote
> Jack Crow <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >The reaction rules are ambiguous, which is why I ask the newsgroup.
>
> No, they aren't. One minion may play one copy of a named reaction card per
> action. It's pretty clear.
First, yes they are ambiguous.
Second, that's not how the rulebook describes the rule.
Third, even your explanation is ambiguous as to total number
of reaction cards allowed per action.
- Jason Bell
In article <3W277.698$7d2.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>,
Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote>> Jack Crow <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The reaction rules are ambiguous, which is why I ask the newsgroup.
>>
>> No, they aren't. One minion may play one copy of a named reaction card per
>> action. It's pretty clear.>
>First, yes they are ambiguous.
Imprimis: No they aren't.
>Second, that's not how the rulebook describes the rule.
Secundus:
Rulebook text, taken from http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/:
"1.6.3.5
Reaction cards: A ready untapped minion can play a reaction card in
response to an action taken by another Methuselah's minion (an action
taken by one of a Methuselah's minions cannot be reacted to by any of her
own minions). A minion cannot play the same reaction card more than
once during a single action. A reaction card does not tap the minion using
it."
Let's examine that paragraph for any restrictions on the play of
reaction cards, by name or number.
The first sentence does not limit the play of reaction cards by name
or number. I hope we can agree on this one at least.
The second sentence restricts the reacting minion's ability to play
reaction cards by name. Specifically, it restricts a given reacting
minion to playing one of a named reaction card per action. It imposes
no additional restrictions.
The third sentence does not limit the play of reaction cards by name
or number. Again, that ought to be pretty clear.
No ambiguity. You may play any number of reaction cards on a given action,
as long as each untapped minion plays no more than one of each name.
Which was my paraphrase, if you'll be so good as to recall.
>Third, even your explanation is ambiguous as to total number
>of reaction cards allowed per action.
Tertius: No it isn't, as it's a paraphrasing of the rulebook's
non-ambiguous text.
gomi
--
There are enough people who have a brain-cell to their credit and
yet still disagree with me that I don't feel any need to argue with
morons. -- M. Lorton
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sometimes there is no difference between feeding an ego and stating
fact. If you have actual problems/questions/suggestions, feel free to
contact me ja...@teacher.com - if that's not worth your time, perhaps
you just enjoy everyone else hearing you talk trash.
"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote
> >Second, that's not how the rulebook describes the rule.
>
> Secundus:
> Rulebook text, taken from http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/:
> "1.6.3.5
> Reaction cards: A ready untapped minion can play a reaction card in
> response to an action taken by another Methuselah's minion (an action
> taken by one of a Methuselah's minions cannot be reacted to by any of her
> own minions). A minion cannot play the same reaction card more than
> once during a single action. A reaction card does not tap the minion
using
> it."
>
> Let's examine that paragraph for any restrictions on the play of
> reaction cards, by name or number.
>
> The first sentence does not limit the play of reaction cards by name
> or number. I hope we can agree on this one at least.
It depends. Of course we all know what this rule actually is, but I
will address how the rule reads.
Unfortunately, it is possible that the first sentence limits the play
of reaction cards by number, since "a" is the singular article, so
it could limit the number to one. So we cannot even agree on this one.
Compare this to the description for action modifiers, which
states that the minion can play "these cards," and the description
of actions, which states that "A minion can play an action card
to take an action." Which does the action modifier description
more closely match?
> No ambiguity. You may play any number of reaction cards on a given action,
> as long as each untapped minion plays no more than one of each name.
Now, if this were what 1.6.3 said, we would be in agreement that the
rule would be written clearly.
> Which was my paraphrase, if you'll be so good as to recall.
No, it was not. If you'll be so good as to recall, your paraphrase
also used the singular article "a" reaction card, without explicitly
stating that the exercise of that rule does not exhaust the rule,
thus it was ambiguous in the same way 1.6.3 is.
Gomi wrote: "One minion may play one copy of a named reaction
card per action."
> >Third, even your explanation is ambiguous as to total number> >of reaction cards allowed per action.
>
> Tertius: No it isn't, as it's a paraphrasing of the rulebook's
> non-ambiguous text.
Yes, it is, as it's a parapharsing of the rulebook's ambiguous text.
- Jason Bell
Jason Bell wrote:
> "Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote> > Reaction cards: A ready untapped minion can play a reaction card in
> > response to an action taken by another Methuselah's minion (an action
> > taken by one of a Methuselah's minions cannot be reacted to by any of her
> > own minions). A minion cannot play the same reaction card more than
> > once during a single action. A reaction card does not tap the minion using
> > it."
> >> > The first sentence does not limit the play of reaction cards by name
> > or number. I hope we can agree on this one at least.
>
> It depends. Of course we all know what this rule actually is, but I
> will address how the rule reads.
> Unfortunately, it is possible that the first sentence limits the play
> of reaction cards by number, since "a" is the singular article, so
> it could limit the number to one. So we cannot even agree on this one.
"a" indeed means "one" in the section quoted (as it does most anywhere).
"can play one" is correct.
The statement is quite distinct from "can play only one".
The fact that "one" can be played in no way indicates that another may not be
played. Indeed two cannot be played except that one has been played. (I'm
starting to sound like the priest reading the instructions for the Holy Hand
Grenade, eh?)
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> The fact that "one" can be played in no way indicates that another may not
be
> played. Indeed two cannot be played except that one has been played. (I'm
> starting to sound like the priest reading the instructions for the Holy
Hand
> Grenade, eh?)
LOL ! you said it first =)
reyda
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> "a" indeed means "one" in the section quoted (as it does most anywhere).
>
> "can play one" is correct.
>
> The statement is quite distinct from "can play only one".
It's not neccessarily distinct.
If my housemate asks me to get him "a" drink and I agree,
have I agreed to be his butler all night? Forever? I think not.
"A" is singular, and if you want it to mean iteratively singular,
the rules should state it explicitly, or at the very least,
a person who wants a clarification on the rule should not
take abuse for it.
If "a" does not mean exactly one, how many times may I choose
a vampire using the card Hostile Takeover, where I "Choose
a controlled vampire?"
> The fact that "one" can be played in no way indicates that another may not
be
> played.
It also does not state that another may be played, though such may
be implied by the no repeat reaction text.
> Indeed two cannot be played except that one has been played. (I'm
> starting to sound like the priest reading the instructions for the Holy
Hand
> Grenade, eh?)
So, can two action modifiers be played though one has not been played?
Your distinction, as it doesn't apply to the preceeding text about
action modifiers, is inconsistent. Or if it's not inconsistent, I'm going
to have a heck of a bleed deck abusing the "After playing this card,
you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the
bleed for this action" by playing all my bleed modifiers simultaneously.
- Jason Bell
In message <iIk77.270$3k3....@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell
<Jason...@mail.com> writes
>Or if it's not inconsistent, I'm going
>to have a heck of a bleed deck abusing the "After playing this card,
>you cannot play another action modifier to further increase the
>bleed for this action" by playing all my bleed modifiers simultaneously.
You cannot play two effects simultaneously in that manner in V:TES. A
card is played, it resolves[0] and then another opportunity exists to
play a card.
There is no concept of interrupt stack, or similar, as has existed in
Magic at various points.
[0] Actions and strikes being the obvious exceptions, with delayed
resolutions due to the manner in which they work.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote>> "a" indeed means "one" in the section quoted (as it does most anywhere).
>>
>> "can play one" is correct.
>>
>> The statement is quite distinct from "can play only one".>
> It's not neccessarily distinct.
>
> If my housemate asks me to get him "a" drink and I agree,
> have I agreed to be his butler all night? Forever? I think not.
> "A" is singular, and if you want it to mean iteratively singular,
> the rules should state it explicitly, or at the very least,
> a person who wants a clarification on the rule should not
> take abuse for it.
Excellent analogy, but not for you. You have agreed to get your friend
a drink, but that doesn't mean you won't get him another drink later on were
he to ask again. By analogy of what you're complaining against, saying
"Sure, I'll get you a drink," doesn't at ALL mean that you're saying "I'll
get you this ONE drink, and no other drinks for the rest of the night,
period, even if you ask."
>> The fact that "one" can be played in no way indicates that another may not> be>> played.>
> It also does not state that another may be played, though such may
> be implied by the no repeat reaction text.
Which, for people desiring to understand the situation, makes it pretty
clear. It's clear enough that "a" means "one," and maybe not so clear
that it's "one or more" or "one and only one," but a clueful reader can see
"no more than one of the same," and put 2 and 2 together. And you seem to
understand it, too.
Q: Can a minion play more than one reaction card to a single action?
A: Yes, but one at at time.
You grok this, yes?
Is there any issue here whatsoever to be argued? ("for the sake of
arguing" | /dev/null)
I mean, really. Either you do get it, and there's nothing to discuss,
or you don't get it, and somehow can't read your own writing that explains
it very clearly. Even Jack, who asked the original question while knowing
what the answer should be, has LONG since moved on.
--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
In message <B78355D4.5CB2%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet
<sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes
> You grok this, yes?
Geek.
(Meant in the nicest possible sense.)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Jason Bell wrote:
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> > "a" indeed means "one" in the section quoted (as it does most anywhere).
> >
> > "can play one" is correct.
> >
> > The statement is quite distinct from "can play only one".
>
> It's not neccessarily distinct.
>
> If my housemate asks me to get him "a" drink and I agree,
> have I agreed to be his butler all night? Forever? I think not.
> "A" is singular, and if you want it to mean iteratively singular,
> the rules should state it explicitly, or at the very least,
> a person who wants a clarification on the rule should not
> take abuse for it.
Room mate plays the "a" action modifier when you stand up. You go and
rummage the fridge for you drinks, and bring him back one or more
drinks.
Bringing two or three is fully acceptable and will cut down your need to
get him more later when you refill your own. ;)
So is "a" singular or plural?
Raille
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:37:18 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote:
>Jason Bell wrote:>>
>> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
>> > "a" indeed means "one" in the section quoted (as it does most anywhere).
>> >
>> > "can play one" is correct.
>> >
>> > The statement is quite distinct from "can play only one".
>>
>> It's not neccessarily distinct.
>>
>> If my housemate asks me to get him "a" drink and I agree,
>> have I agreed to be his butler all night? Forever? I think not.
As Pat pointed out, you've hoist yourself in your own petard on this
one. By agreeing to get him "a" drink, you haven't declared that
you'll get him One and Only One Drink. You just, at this point in
time, are getting him a drink. You may get him a drink later, as
well.
>> "A" is singular, and if you want it to mean iteratively singular,
>> the rules should state it explicitly, or at the very least,
>> a person who wants a clarification on the rule should not
>> take abuse for it.>
>Room mate plays the "a" action modifier when you stand up. You go and
>rummage the fridge for you drinks, and bring him back one or more
>drinks.
And you shake them up on the way, for best surprise value.
>Bringing two or three is fully acceptable and will cut down your need to
>get him more later when you refill your own. ;)
>
>So is "a" singular or plural?
Singular, but not exclusive.
For exclusivity, you need additional context. The additional context
in 1.6.3 said "One minion can't play more than one of the same card
per action." ...which clearly implies that you can play more than one
of DIFFERENT cards. Which, in fact, you did, by bringing him two
shaken beers. =)
-- Derek
[THIS SPACE FOR RENT]
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote:
>
> >Jason Bell wrote:
> >>
> >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> >> > "a" indeed means "one" in the section quoted (as it does most
anywhere).
> >> >
> >> > "can play one" is correct.
> >> >
> >> > The statement is quite distinct from "can play only one".
> >>
> >> It's not neccessarily distinct.
> >>
> >> If my housemate asks me to get him "a" drink and I agree,
> >> have I agreed to be his butler all night? Forever? I think not.
>
> As Pat pointed out, you've hoist yourself in your own petard on this
> one. By agreeing to get him "a" drink, you haven't declared that
> you'll get him One and Only One Drink. You just, at this point in
> time, are getting him a drink. You may get him a drink later, as
> well.
Hardly. I will get him one drink, in accordance with the rule
we agreed upon. If he expects me to get him another, we
will have to negotiate a new rule.
- Jason Bell