Melee weapons - for LSJ

Hi, while making a Salubri Antitribu deck I noticed on Elder library that the gas powered chainsaw is considered a melee weapon while Talbot's Chainsaw is considered weapon. Is it just inaccurate? Is Talbot's Chainsaw to be considered also a melee weapon?? Thanks -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Salubri Ant. fan" wrote: > > Hi, while making a Salubri Antitribu deck I noticed on Elder library > that the gas powered chainsaw is considered a melee weapon while > Talbot's Chainsaw is considered weapon. Is it just inaccurate? Is > Talbot's Chainsaw to be considered also a melee weapon?? Both are printed correctly. GPC is a melee weapon. TC is not. -- 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/

On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 08:07:13 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >"Salubri Ant. fan" wrote: >> >> Hi, while making a Salubri Antitribu deck I noticed on Elder library >> that the gas powered chainsaw is considered a melee weapon while >> Talbot's Chainsaw is considered weapon. Is it just inaccurate? Is >> Talbot's Chainsaw to be considered also a melee weapon?? > >Both are printed correctly. GPC is a melee weapon. TC is not. > Doesn't that defy logic? Chainsaw(weapon) became gas-powered Chainsaw(melee weapon). Seems to me that the old TC should be erratted to a melee weapon as well. All other non melee/gun weapons are grenade/launcher, bombs, bows, flamethrowers etc. T

Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 08:07:13 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > >Both are printed correctly. GPC is a melee weapon. TC is not. > > Doesn't that defy logic? Chainsaw(weapon) became gas-powered > Chainsaw(melee weapon). Seems to me that the old TC should be > erratted to a melee weapon as well. No. Chainsaw is still a weapon. It was not renamed Gas-Powered Chainsaw - GPC is a separate card. "Seems to me" GPC should not be a melee weapon (to match). But there's no need for such errata. > All other non melee/gun weapons are grenade/launcher, bombs, bows, > flamethrowers etc. So? All (other) melee weapons deal damage based on strength. Weapons that don't deal damage based on strength are not melee weapons (except for GPC, for some reason). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c5eef25.515920044@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >Doesn't that defy logic? What's wrong with following card text? > Chainsaw(weapon) became gas-powered >Chainsaw(melee weapon). No, it didn't. Chainsaw is still a non-melee weapon. >Seems to me that the old TC should be >erratted to a melee weapon as well. Based on faulty logic, sure. -- James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c. PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti

>> Doesn't that defy logic? Chainsaw(weapon) became gas-powered >> Chainsaw(melee weapon). Seems to me that the old TC should be >> erratted to a melee weapon as well. > >No. >Chainsaw is still a weapon. >It was not renamed Gas-Powered Chainsaw - GPC is a separate card. >"Seems to me" GPC should not be a melee weapon (to match). >But there's no need for such errata. I agree it's counter-intuitive, but that shouldn't mean we have to go back and change everything. Else we have the whole thing about 3-caps should not be using a Methusaleh level discipline (Pulse or Body of Sun). Why should a Park HG be unique? Aren't there multiple parks around? Why doesn't a Werewolf Pack regenerate? It's a freakin' card game! Would it have helped if they had renamed "Gas-Powered Chainsaw" to "Some Melee Weapon that Can Only be Used Once Each Combat"? At least that way it wouldn't be compared to the other Chainsaws. >So? >All (other) melee weapons deal damage based on strength. >Weapons that don't deal damage based on strength are not melee >weapons (except for GPC, for some reason). Just think of GPC as "special." Also note that Kali's Fang (pre-FN) also dealt non-strength-based damage. Halcyan 2

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > So? > All (other) melee weapons deal damage based on strength. > Weapons that don't deal damage based on strength are not melee > weapons (except for GPC, for some reason). Not for some reason, cause its cool like that! And you leave it alone you evil little man! What do you think I do with all my twisting the knife? They are in my gas powered chainsaw. There is certainly no need to errata the old chainsaw cause it sucks SO bad, even making it a melee gun so I could play ammo cards and twisting the knife wouldn't make me want to play it. -- Aaron The Nosferatu Stuff

On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 14:53:48 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 08:07:13 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> >> >Both are printed correctly. GPC is a melee weapon. TC is not. >> >> Doesn't that defy logic? Chainsaw(weapon) became gas-powered >> Chainsaw(melee weapon). Seems to me that the old TC should be >> erratted to a melee weapon as well. > >No. >Chainsaw is still a weapon. >It was not renamed Gas-Powered Chainsaw - GPC is a separate card. Of course its seperate, but that is merely semantics. Chainsaw is a useless card that in the very least, in practice, has been replaced by gpc. >"Seems to me" GPC should not be a melee weapon (to match). >But there's no need for such errata. It's a weapon used purely in hand to hand, and thus fits the role for melee weapons. > >> All other non melee/gun weapons are grenade/launcher, bombs, bows, >> flamethrowers etc. > >So? So they're ranged weapons that do not fire bullets. Thus neither guns nor melee weapons. >All (other) melee weapons deal damage based on strength. >Weapons that don't deal damage based on strength are not melee >weapons (except for GPC, for some reason). > I'm sure you wont mind if I try to use this chainsaw on you in hand to hand then? *rolls eyes* T

In message <3c5dc89c.362447@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>"Seems to me" GPC should not be a melee weapon (to match). >>But there's no need for such errata. > >It's a weapon used purely in hand to hand, and thus fits the role for >melee weapons. One could argue that the damage from Chainsaw comes from its rotating blades, unlike a bastard sword which comes from how hard you hit someone with it. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Why doesn't a Werewolf Pack regenerate? It's a freakin' card game! The question that always bugged me is: Why does a Werewolf PACK do less damage than a renegade, since the strength of the wolf lies in it's pack? I honestly think they should take the stats on Renegade Garou, and put it on Werewolf Pack. Then, they should take the old stats on Werewolf Pack, and put it on Renegade Garou. Then, the cards would make more sense, thematically. That, and we'd all be confused every time anybody plays either version of either card. Mmm...unnecessary off-topic chaos... Fanboy

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:x61YVfO0...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3c5dc89c.362447@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: > >>"Seems to me" GPC should not be a melee weapon (to match). > >>But there's no need for such errata. > > > >It's a weapon used purely in hand to hand, and thus fits the role for > >melee weapons. > > One could argue that the damage from Chainsaw comes from its rotating > blades, unlike a bastard sword which comes from how hard you hit someone > with it. Have you ever used a chainsaw? They sure don't just glide through trees on their own! Damage certainly does come from the blades, but can EASILY be pumped up with your strength. Hence making it a characteristic melee weapon, actually more so. Unlike a junky sword, a chainsaw actually tears away chunks of the target. Tap me with your sword, you cut me, hit me *real* hard with your sword, maybe you will chop off part of my body. Tap me with your chainsaw and you took off inches of skin, hit me *real* hard with a chainsaw and you will effectively tear me into 3 pieces, a top, a bottom, and all those little bits 15 feet away. Point being chainsaws do rely on strength to go through their target. Kinda like clawing someone with a meat hook, the hook hurts, the harder you hit with the hook the more it hurts. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a3ktvo$198m8t$1...@ID-125246.news.dfncis.de... (snip) > > Have you ever used a chainsaw? They sure don't just glide through trees on > their own! Damage certainly does come from the blades, but can EASILY be > pumped up with your strength. Hence making it a characteristic melee > weapon, actually more so. Unlike a junky sword, a chainsaw actually tears > away chunks of the target. Tap me with your sword, you cut me, hit me > *real* hard with your sword, maybe you will chop off part of my body. Tap > me with your chainsaw and you took off inches of skin, hit me *real* hard > with a chainsaw and you will effectively tear me into 3 pieces, a top, a > bottom, and all those little bits 15 feet away. Point being chainsaws do > rely on strength to go through their target. Kinda like clawing someone > with a meat hook, the hook hurts, the harder you hit with the hook the more > it hurts. oh my god i can't stop laughing =D oh why are we forced to write things like that just because soemeons is not happy with a crappy, non reprinted card =D reydaaaaha hahahahahahaha

>>Why doesn't a Werewolf Pack regenerate? It's a freakin' card game! > >The question that always bugged me is: Why does a Werewolf PACK do >less damage than a renegade, since the strength of the wolf lies in >it's pack? Just shows you that just like soma (a la Brave New World), Gaia is just some messed-up, feel-good, hallucinogen. Those pathetic Garou that believe in all that Gaia-crap are only deluding themselves to their own detriment. Those who are able to break free from the shackles of Gaia on the other hand, (like the *Renegade* Garou and the Black Spiral Buddy) are able to discover the true depths of their lupine powers. Down with Gaia! =P Halcyan 2

In message <a3ktvo$198m8t$1...@ID-125246.news.dfncis.de>, The Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes: >> One could argue that the damage from Chainsaw comes from its rotating >> blades, unlike a bastard sword which comes from how hard you hit someone >> with it. > >Have you ever used a chainsaw? They sure don't just glide through trees on >their own! Ah yes. But have *you* ever used a chainsaw to cut through a vampire? [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:Fx+lnpMb...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <a3ktvo$198m8t$1...@ID-125246.news.dfncis.de>, The Nosferatu > Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes: > >> One could argue that the damage from Chainsaw comes from its rotating > >> blades, unlike a bastard sword which comes from how hard you hit someone > >> with it. > > > >Have you ever used a chainsaw? They sure don't just glide through trees on > >their own! > > Ah yes. But have *you* ever used a chainsaw to cut through a vampire? Haha, nah, cant say that I have. Unless those were embraced trees! ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Nosferatu Stuff wrote: >Have you ever used a chainsaw? They sure don't just glide through trees on >their own! Damage certainly does come from the blades, but can EASILY be >pumped up with your strength. Hence making it a characteristic melee >weapon, actually more so. Unlike a junky sword, a chainsaw actually tears >away chunks of the target. Tap me with your sword, you cut me, hit me >*real* hard with your sword, maybe you will chop off part of my body. Tap >me with your chainsaw and you took off inches of skin, hit me *real* hard >with a chainsaw and you will effectively tear me into 3 pieces, a top, a >bottom, and all those little bits 15 feet away. Before you go around calling swords "junky" in comparison to chainsaws, you might want to consider that power tools are virtually never used as weapons (outside of horror movies). The same cannot be said of swords, even today. I am no expert in the use of either, but I suspect that there are probably good real-world, practical reasons for this.

Halcyon wrote: >Just shows you that just like soma (a la Brave New World), Gaia is just some >messed-up, feel-good, hallucinogen. Those pathetic Garou that believe in all >that Gaia-crap are only deluding themselves to their own detriment. > >Those who are able to break free from the shackles of Gaia on the other hand, >(like the *Renegade* Garou and the Black Spiral Buddy) are able to discover >the >true depths of their lupine powers. > >Down with Gaia! =P Nah. The real reason is that they are not renegades, and therefore harder to manipulate and less willing to do the work of vampires. Give them too much trouble, and they just get sick of things and wander off. They might regenerate, but their loyalty does not.

On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 23:42:44 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c5dc89c.362447@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>>"Seems to me" GPC should not be a melee weapon (to match). >>>But there's no need for such errata. >> >>It's a weapon used purely in hand to hand, and thus fits the role for >>melee weapons. > >One could argue that the damage from Chainsaw comes from its rotating >blades, unlike a bastard sword which comes from how hard you hit someone >with it. > One could, but that's only relevant when determining where the damage comes from (ie:wielder's strength or weapons strength). The weapon itself is still used purely in hand to hand combat, ie: melee. T

In message <3c5f03e2.81084341@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>One could argue that the damage from Chainsaw comes from its rotating >>blades, unlike a bastard sword which comes from how hard you hit someone >>with it. > >One could, but that's only relevant when determining where the damage >comes from (ie:wielder's strength or weapons strength). Which then makes it *highly* relevant to Lucky Blow and Undead Strength etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C5AF24C...@white-wolf.com>... > Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 08:07:13 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > > >Both are printed correctly. GPC is a melee weapon. TC is not. > > > > Doesn't that defy logic? Chainsaw(weapon) became gas-powered > > Chainsaw(melee weapon). Seems to me that the old TC should be > > erratted to a melee weapon as well. > > No. > Chainsaw is still a weapon. > It was not renamed Gas-Powered Chainsaw - GPC is a separate card. > "Seems to me" GPC should not be a melee weapon (to match). > But there's no need for such errata. Except now my Gangrel/werewolve pack + !salubri deck/Talbot's chain saw deck doesn't work... poo on you WW! I almost had a use for Werewolve Pack! ~SV

In message <20020204103400...@mb-bk.news.cs.com>, nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) mumbled something about: >Before you go around calling swords "junky" in comparison to chainsaws, you >might want to consider that power tools are virtually never used as weapons >(outside of horror movies). The same cannot be said of swords, even today. > >I am no expert in the use of either, but I suspect that there are probably good >real-world, practical reasons for this. Not the least of which being how much a chainsaw actually weighs, and the difficulty of getting close enough to your victim with a started, spinning chainsaw. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

[ quoted text not captured ] There's documented proof that Chainsaws are effective melee weapons against the undead. You can view the historical documents at your local video store: Evil Dead Evil Dead 2 Dead Alive (No Chainsaw, but documents the effectiveness of a lawnmower) BernieTime [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:48:19 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c5f03e2.81084341@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>>One could argue that the damage from Chainsaw comes from its rotating >>>blades, unlike a bastard sword which comes from how hard you hit someone >>>with it. >> >>One could, but that's only relevant when determining where the damage >>comes from (ie:wielder's strength or weapons strength). > >Which then makes it *highly* relevant to Lucky Blow and Undead Strength >etc. > Granted. But not currently relevant to this thread. T

In message <3c6188ec.50536642@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>>>One could argue that the damage from Chainsaw comes from its rotating >>>>blades, unlike a bastard sword which comes from how hard you hit someone >>>>with it. >>> >>>One could, but that's only relevant when determining where the damage >>>comes from (ie:wielder's strength or weapons strength). >> >>Which then makes it *highly* relevant to Lucky Blow and Undead Strength >>etc. > >Granted. But not currently relevant to this thread. It is an issue regarding it being a melee weapon or not. So relevant to this thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] You missed Evil Dead 3: The Army of Darkness Raille

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:gNrs4sLz...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3c6188ec.50536642@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: > >>>>One could argue that the damage from Chainsaw comes from its rotating > >>>>blades, unlike a bastard sword which comes from how hard you hit someone > >>>>with it. > >>> > >>>One could, but that's only relevant when determining where the damage > >>>comes from (ie:wielder's strength or weapons strength). > >> > >>Which then makes it *highly* relevant to Lucky Blow and Undead Strength > >>etc. > > > >Granted. But not currently relevant to this thread. > > It is an issue regarding it being a melee weapon or not. So relevant to > this thread. Not at all. We all know that gas powered chainsaw is a melee weapon, its printed right on it. The question is why? The definition of Melee(via webster) is very unhelpful: a confused struggle; especially : a hand-to-hand fight among several people. Like a brawl. Melee and weapon don't seem to mix. If that is true then a 'Melee Weapon' must be a hand to hand weapon...not exactly what I'd classify a broad sword as. Probably stuff like brass knuckles only. Either way, whats with the line of thinking that if you hit someone just right with a bastard sword it can do extra damage(via lucky blow) but that a chainsaw never hits that 'special spot'? [ quoted text not captured ]

<Snip> >> >> There's documented proof that Chainsaws are effective melee weapons >> against the undead. You can view the historical documents at your >> local video store: >> Evil Dead >> Evil Dead 2 >> Dead Alive (No Chainsaw, but documents the effectiveness of a lawnmower) > >You missed Evil Dead 3: The Army of Darkness Actually, I didn't (on purpose). Army of Darkness is obviously camp. We're looking for historical documents, not comedies.. BernieTime >Raille

berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote in news:3c620a24...@netnews.attbi.com: [ quoted text not captured ] Then you shouldn't list neither Evil Dead 2 nor Braindead (Dead Alive). :-) ...and it's been a while since I saw it, but I don't remember the chainsaw showing up in Evil Dead. Flux

[ quoted text not captured ] Then you have to remove Evil Dead 2. Its a comedy. And in some sick dark way, you could even say that the over the top effects of dead Alive render that as a dark, sick comedy. So that leaves us with Evil Dead and possible Dead alive, but the juries out on that one. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] It was there. I have all three films and saw all three in the theater. Run, don't walk, to your nearlest video story and rent them now. Remember ED2 was simply a remade version of ED1, with a humorous twist. Raille

"Raille" <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:3C62504A...@spamcop.net... > So that leaves us with Evil Dead and possible Dead alive, but the juries > out on that one. Dead Alive/Braindead seems to be a pretty accurate historical document, according to all the experts I've checked with. However, IIRC, there isn't a chainsaw in there. Lawnmower + room full of zombies, yes. Chainsaw, no. Xian

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 22:09:55 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c6188ec.50536642@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>>>>One could argue that the damage from Chainsaw comes from its rotating >>>>>blades, unlike a bastard sword which comes from how hard you hit someone >>>>>with it. >>>> >>>>One could, but that's only relevant when determining where the damage >>>>comes from (ie:wielder's strength or weapons strength). >>> >>>Which then makes it *highly* relevant to Lucky Blow and Undead Strength >>>etc. >> >>Granted. But not currently relevant to this thread. > >It is an issue regarding it being a melee weapon or not. So relevant to >this thread. > No james. A melee weapon need not have its damage based on the wielders strength. It need only be used in hand to hand, as gas-powered chainsaw is. You pointed out that a chainsaw is not based on the wielders strength. That little tidbit is useless, as it is still used in hth and thus should be classified as a melee weapon along with TC. T

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:14:57 -0500, "The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Melee and weapon don't seem to mix. If that is true then a >'Melee Weapon' must be a hand to hand weapon...not exactly what I'd classify >a broad sword as. What the heck would you classify it as? Melee is just an easier way to say 'hand to hand' in VTES. T

[ quoted text not captured ] No. It's just an easier way to say "based on strength" in VTES. "Hand to hand" means non-weapon, usually. Sword-to-hand is quite different (and lopsided) than hand-to-hand. -- 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/

In message <3c64f7f7.144514190@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >> Melee and weapon don't seem to mix. If that is true then a >>'Melee Weapon' must be a hand to hand weapon...not exactly what I'd classify >>a broad sword as. > >What the heck would you classify it as? > >Melee is just an easier way to say 'hand to hand' in VTES. Jyhad suggests otherwise - or else Chainsaw would have been classified as such. Your desires for the cards to indicate otherwise is a separate issue. Melee weapon clearly represented something other than merely a weapon you hold in your hand and hit someone with, since neither Chainsaw or Talbot's Chainsaw was a melee weapon, and Talbot's Chainsaw was reprinted - still as a weapon. This is a clear lead from both the Jyhad design team and any change-over at the point of V:TES re-release, which suggests that, had Chainsaw not been dropped for being rubbish, it would have remained a melee weapon in the reprint. So it is clear that either a more subtle or more arbitrary distinction was being drawn. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:56:52 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: >> >> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:14:57 -0500, "The Nosferatu Stuff" >> <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > Melee and weapon don't seem to mix. If that is true then a >> >'Melee Weapon' must be a hand to hand weapon...not exactly what I'd classify >> >a broad sword as. >> >> What the heck would you classify it as? >> >> Melee is just an easier way to say 'hand to hand' in VTES. > >No. It's just an easier way to say "based on strength" in VTES. > That's completely counter-intuitive to the english definition of melee, but one might look at it that way, sure. Which now means that gas-powered chainsaw must be erratted if that defintion were to stick. >"Hand to hand" means non-weapon, usually. >Sword-to-hand is quite different (and lopsided) than hand-to-hand. > HTH is close quarters fighting, period. Its a range distinction, not a 'bare knuckles/melee weapon' distinction. Therefore one could clearly use a melee weapon and still be in hand to hand fighting. My point here is that when classifying weapons, they are either hand to hand weapons, guns, or some kind of class unto itself that falls in neither. A chainsaw or TC is clearly used in hand to hand, and thus should have been errated to the melee weapon classification, as GPC was. A minor point perhaps, but it is important if you're trying to get some use out of those werewolf packs. T

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 02:04:35 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >Jyhad suggests otherwise - or else Chainsaw would have been classified >as such. > >So it is clear that either a more subtle or more arbitrary distinction >was being drawn. > Or a mistake was made, one that was rectified with GPC. Not like that never happened before with this game. T

Aaron wrote: >The definition of Melee(via webster) is very unhelpful: >a confused struggle; especially : a hand-to-hand fight among several people. >Like a brawl. Melee and weapon don't seem to mix. Sure they do. "Hand to hand" does not mean "with hands" >If that is true then a >'Melee Weapon' must be a hand to hand weapon...not exactly what I'd classify >a broad sword as. A broadsword is absolutely a melee weapon. Imagine two troops of heavily armoured foot-soldiers advancing on eachother. As they advance, their archers fire at the enemy. This is called RANGED combat. Then they lower their 12 foot spears and charge in formation. They crash together like thunder and half the fools on the front-lines die. This is regimented fighting, where soldiers fight in FORMATION. After the charge, the two armies become intertwined. Spears are now useless, and everyone drops them. Both armies are now mixed, and the French word for "mixed" is "MELEE". Rapiers and daggers are too light for heavy armour, so here is where they pull out their trusty Broadswords. That is what broadswords were made for: heavily armoured melee combat. -- John Whelan

LSJ wrote: >"Hand to hand" means non-weapon, usually. Sorry, but that is incorrect. "Hand-to-hand" means "at close quarters" and is invariably done with weapons by soldiers who plan to win and not get killed. "Bare-fisted" or "bare-handed" is the expression you have in mind. - John Whelan

Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:56:52 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > wrote: > > >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:14:57 -0500, "The Nosferatu Stuff" > >> <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Melee and weapon don't seem to mix. If that is true then a > >> >'Melee Weapon' must be a hand to hand weapon...not exactly what I'd classify > >> >a broad sword as. > >> > >> What the heck would you classify it as? > >> > >> Melee is just an easier way to say 'hand to hand' in VTES. > > > >No. It's just an easier way to say "based on strength" in VTES. > > > > That's completely counter-intuitive to the english definition of > melee, but one might look at it that way, sure. Which now means that > gas-powered chainsaw must be erratted if that defintion were to stick. Right. As I've already covered in this thread. And in parallel to your desire to errata Talbot's Chainsaw to get your definition to stick. So? > My point here is that when classifying weapons, they are either hand > to hand weapons, guns, or some kind of class unto itself that falls in > neither. A chainsaw or TC is clearly used in hand to hand, and thus > should have been errated to the melee weapon classification, as GPC > was. No. "Melee" is used to identify weapons that do damage based on strength (so that they can be modified by things like Lucky Blow without resorting to a great deal of extra card text). Weapons are identified as "guns" if they can be modified by ammo, "melee" if they can be modified by cards like Lucky Blow, and neither if neither of those things hold. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c643cac.162105806@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >Or a mistake was made, one that was rectified with GPC. Not like that >never happened before with this game. Where mistakes are made, errata is sometimes issued. And since the oddity of Talbot's Chainsaw was already well understood, it is unlikely that the reprint was a "mistake". [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20020208053151...@mb-ma.news.cs.com>, Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> writes: >"Hand-to-hand" means "at close quarters" and is >invariably done with weapons by soldiers who plan to win and not get killed. And if we're going back to Jyhad, "close quarters" means that long range doesn't exist... [ quoted text not captured ]

nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote in message news:<20020208053151...@mb-ma.news.cs.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Not at all. The definition of Melee explicitly means without weapons. Further more its not one-on-one, Melee is also representative of a group of people. Melee, a fight where a bunch of people fight. Come on, the word is a freakin noun! Not used for describing in the first place. In english you cannot say: "I hit him with the melee sword" You say: "He was caught in the melee." It makes sense for LSJ to define 'Melee' as a weapon type that do damage based on strength. It makes sense since its a made up word. All we need is to know what that made up word(the adjective Melee) is supposed to mean. Melee, defined in VTES by LSJ means that the weapon does damage based on your strength. Chainsaws can have strength play a factor in their ability to hurt someone. Hench they are a VTES 'Melee Weapon'

"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7ab27d37.0202...@posting.google.com... > nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote in message news:<20020208053151...@mb-ma.news.cs.com>... > > Melee, defined in VTES by LSJ means that the weapon does damage based > on your strength. Chainsaws can have strength play a factor in their > ability to hurt someone. Hench they are a VTES 'Melee Weapon' > I was with you up until the end. How is '3 damage' based upon your strength?

Aaron wrote: >nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote in message >news:<20020208053151...@mb-ma.news.cs.com>... >> LSJ wrote: >> >> >"Hand to hand" means non-weapon, usually. >> >> Sorry, but that is incorrect. "Hand-to-hand" means "at close quarters" and >is >> invariably done with weapons by soldiers who plan to win and not get >killed. >> >> "Bare-fisted" or "bare-handed" is the expression you have in mind. > >Not at all. The definition of Melee explicitly means without weapons. Firstly, I was discussing the meaning of "hand-to-hand", so this response is a non-sequitur. Secondly, you must be using an unusual dictionary. Nothing about the term "melee" implies "without weapons". A melee is simply a combat in which opposing forces have become enmeshed, or, by extention, any sort of brawl. > Further more its not one-on-one, Melee is also representative of a >group of people. When used as an adjective, and applied to a weapon, it typically means a weapon suitable for a melee ... ie. a hand-to-hand weapon like a sword, axe, etc. >Melee, a fight where a bunch of people fight. Ranged fighting and formation fighting also typically involve large numbers of combatants. Melee implies irregular fighting where the forces are enmeshed. But, yes, it does imply more than two opponents -- unless applied to a weapon, of course. Most weapons suitable for melee are likewise suitable for dueling so the phrase "melee weapon" in no way implies that the item is unsuitable for one-on-one combat. >Come on, the word is a >freakin noun! Not used for describing in the first place. English is flexible, and words typically refuse to stay imprisoned in assigned parts of speach. A "melee weapon" typically means a weapon suitable for melee, just as a "cavalry weapon" means a weapon suitable for cavalry. "Melee" is also adjectival in derivation. It is from the french past participle, meaning "mixed". >In english >you cannot say: "I hit him with the melee sword" You say: "He was >caught in the melee." In English, I would not say "melee sword" because it is redundant. In a military context, all swords are considered melee weapons. But I would say "melee weapon." >It makes sense for LSJ to define 'Melee' as a weapon type that do >damage based on strength. I agree. As far as I am concerned he can define it any way he wishes for game purposes. I only corrected his understanding of the phrase "hand-to-hand", which has no game significance whatsoever. >It makes sense since its a made up word. >All we need is to know what that made up word(the adjective Melee) is >supposed to mean. All words are "made-up", but this one has a fairly long history. It was not invented recently, nor for this game. >Melee, defined in VTES by LSJ means that the weapon does damage based >on your strength. Right, and a "gun" is a weapon whose damage is modified by ammo cards. This has nothing to do with it being a made-up word with no real-life meaning. -- John Whelan

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:54:02 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <20020208053151...@mb-ma.news.cs.com>, Nystulc ><nys...@cs.com> writes: >>"Hand-to-hand" means "at close quarters" and is >>invariably done with weapons by soldiers who plan to win and not get killed. > >And if we're going back to Jyhad, "close quarters" means that long range >doesn't exist... > Eh? You are on crack. What part of 'maneuver to range' don't you understand? T

In message <3c643542.225752533@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>>"Hand-to-hand" means "at close quarters" and is >>>invariably done with weapons by soldiers who plan to win and not get killed. >> >>And if we're going back to Jyhad, "close quarters" means that long range >>doesn't exist... >> > >Eh? You are on crack. No, I am not. >What part of 'maneuver to range' don't you >understand? Please read what was written. I was referring to the Jyhad rules. Your not knowing the differences that exist in the Jyhad rules does not make me "on crack". If you would care to do some research and then retract your statement, I would be most gratified. Indeed, if you would care to do some research before posting anyway, I'm sure everyone would be much happier. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 8 Feb 2002 09:07:15 -0800, roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote: > >Not at all. The definition of Melee explicitly means without weapons. Now that is amusing! LOL! I guess the only result is to change all melee weapons into 'close range weapons' now eh? *rollseyes* > Further more its not one-on-one, Melee is also representative of a >group of people. > 2 people make a small group, but a group nonetheless. And you cannot have a melee without hand to hand fighting...with hand to hand weapons very likely involved. >Melee, a fight where a bunch of people fight. Come on, the word is a >freakin noun! Not used for describing in the first place. In english >you cannot say: "I hit him with the melee sword" You say: "He was >caught in the melee." > Sword is a subtype of melee weapon. So of course you would not say 'melee sword', as that would be redundant. >It makes sense for LSJ to define 'Melee' as a weapon type that do >damage based on strength. No it doesn't, that is the most bizarre thing I have heard. Why defy the english language at every turn? It just confuses everything for no good purpose. > It makes sense since its a made up word. Now I know you are on crack. >All we need is to know what that made up word(the adjective Melee) is >supposed to mean. > >Melee, defined in VTES by LSJ means that the weapon does damage based >on your strength. Chainsaws can have strength play a factor in their >ability to hurt someone. Hench they are a VTES 'Melee Weapon' Apparently not, looking at chainsaw, talbots chainsaw, and that they do damage not based on strength.... T

Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:54:02 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > >And if we're going back to Jyhad, "close quarters" means that long range > >doesn't exist... > > Eh? You are on crack. What part of 'maneuver to range' don't you > understand? Jyhad rulebook, section 15.3: "Close Quarters: During the remainder of the combat there is no long range." [ quoted text not captured ]

Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > On 8 Feb 2002 09:07:15 -0800, roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote: > >It makes sense for LSJ to define 'Melee' as a weapon type that do > >damage based on strength. > > No it doesn't, that is the most bizarre thing I have heard. Why defy > the english language at every turn? It just confuses everything for > no good purpose. Actually, the official stance is that "melee weapon" is a term found on some cards. It has no other meaning or effect. See also the terms "gun", "cold iron", "werewolf", "contract", etc. > >Melee, defined in VTES by LSJ means that the weapon does damage based > >on your strength. Chainsaws can have strength play a factor in their > >ability to hurt someone. Hench they are a VTES 'Melee Weapon' > > Apparently not, looking at chainsaw, talbots chainsaw, and that they > do damage not based on strength.... Back to this again so soon, eh? So how does your definition stand up looking at Talbot's Chainsaw? "Apparently" your definition is not correct by your standards, either. So let's just leave it as it is: something based on card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: >I was with you up until the end. How is '3 damage' based upon your >strength It isn't. But these terms don't really require definitions, for game purposes. Nor do I think they have binding definitions in the same sense that "hand strike" has a definition. "Melee Weapon" means applicable to cards that reference melee weapons. These include Werewolf Pack, Wilbur Delburton, Undead Strength, Pushing the Limit, and Lucky Blow. None of these have much to do with the game-concept of Strength (formerly called hand-damage), but the potence cards are of course related the thematic idea of strength. "Lucky Blow" is of course thematically related to the idea of luck, not strength. It's only relation to strength (as with Undead Strenght and Pushing the Limit), is that it also modifies hand strikes (which are strength-based) but this is irrelevant if you are striking with a non-strength-based melee weapon like Gas-Powered Chainsaw. "Gun" means applicable to cards that reference guns. So far, these are all ammo cards (unless I misremember something). But one could, in future, print non-ammo cards that reference "guns" and then the term "gun" would no longer "mean" merely "usable with ammo cards". It does not necessarily mean that even now, because we have a weapon, Zip Gun, that cannot use ammo cards. For Zip Gun, the gun designation has no game relevence as yet, but this would change if, for instance, a minion were printed that did +1 damage when striking with a gun. "Werewolf" means applicable to cards that reference werewolves. "Mortal" means applicable to cards that reference mortals, etc. etc. There are no cards as yet which reference Changelings, or Zombies, or Hunters, or Mages. This will change, and only then will these designations have practical "meaning", which will continue to be subject to revision with the printing of each new relevant card. Currently, the term "Cold Iron" on a weapon means merely "Does aggravated damage to Kiasid". The term "Cold Iron Vulnerability" on a Kiasid means merely "take aggravated damage from Pokers". But this will become less simple when more cards are printed. -- John Whelan

On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 06:12:27 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >No. "Melee" is used to identify weapons that do damage based on strength >(so that they can be modified by things like Lucky Blow without resorting >to a great deal of extra card text). > You are drawing this defintion out of thin air, as GPC is a melee weapon. So is Rowan Ring, an original jyhad card. This alleged VTES definition defys all logic and the english language, and erratta (for melee weapon effecting cards) would be unnecesary as only 2 weapons exist that might become a melee weapon under a proper definition. Talbot's/Chainsaw. Lucky blow with either of these, especially seeing that GPC is a melee weapon already, will hardly be game breaking. Simply put, it would make good sense. T

Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > > On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 06:12:27 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > wrote: > > > > >No. "Melee" is used to identify weapons that do damage based on strength > >(so that they can be modified by things like Lucky Blow without resorting > >to a great deal of extra card text). > > > > You are drawing this defintion out of thin air [...] As you were for your definition. So? The term doesn't mean "weapon based on strength" in the game. It doesn't mean anything in the game. I was merely offering a definition in contrast to your own (and equally unfounded). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3C64386C...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >Actually, the official stance is that "melee weapon" is a term found on >some cards. It has no other meaning or effect. > >See also the terms "gun", "cold iron", "werewolf", "contract", etc. Erm, cold iron appears to be defined in the rules - unlike gun, werewolf etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c6636bd.226131616@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >Lucky blow with either of these, especially seeing that GPC is a melee >weapon already, will hardly be game breaking. Simply put, it would >make good sense. Changing card text where there is no pressing need to - and something not being game breaking is not a pressing need - rarely makes good sense. Card text is not changed because it wouldn't hurt, but because it's needed. What *need* is there to change card text? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3C64386C...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >Actually, the official stance is that "melee weapon" is a term found on > >some cards. It has no other meaning or effect. > > > >See also the terms "gun", "cold iron", "werewolf", "contract", etc. > > Erm, cold iron appears to be defined in the rules - unlike gun, werewolf > etc. Heh. Oops. Right you are. Scratch that one off the list. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:54:12 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: >> >> On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 06:12:27 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >No. "Melee" is used to identify weapons that do damage based on strength >> >(so that they can be modified by things like Lucky Blow without resorting >> >to a great deal of extra card text). >> > >> >> You are drawing this defintion out of thin air [...] > >As you were for your definition. >So? > >The term doesn't mean "weapon based on strength" in the game. >It doesn't mean anything in the game. > >I was merely offering a definition in contrast to your own >(and equally unfounded). > One comes from the english language, and the other is 'undefined' now? I have shown that the VTES definition does not differ in the case of Rowan Ring, apparently you have withdrawn that based on strength argument and attempted to alter your stance to some 'comparison only' argument. Which fails clearly. Therefore there is no good reason to keep chainsaw/TC as merely weapons. They are melee weapons. T

In message <3c65bfcb.326769072@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >One comes from the english language, and the other is 'undefined' now? In the context of the game, it is undefined. They could be called strawberries and still work as they do now. >I have shown that the VTES definition There is no V:TES definition. There is only card text, the repeated leads from the Design Teams of Jyhad/V:TES and supposition. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > > "Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > I was with you up until the end. How is '3 damage' based upon your > strength? After spending the afternoon cutting wood for the fireplace, I have to concur that a chainsaw can and will do more damage if your more strong. Up to a point, physics kick in there after a bit. However without the added leverage my strength affords the chain saw, its ability to cut is highly reduced. The more I lay into it, the quicker it cuts through the wood. I suspect that Bones are somewhat comparable to wood. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] I'd pretty much agree Dave, but it is after all just a game. Otherwise you'd be able to use Melee Weapons when involved in an Immortal Grapple. I live with the fact that some portions of VTES are simply irrational (and I'm not going to go into THAT just now). Hey, any idea where I can get a cord of wood cheap? BernieTime

berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > I'd pretty much agree Dave, but it is after all just a game. > Otherwise you'd be able to use Melee Weapons when involved in an > Immortal Grapple. I live with the fact that some portions of VTES are > simply irrational (and I'm not going to go into THAT just now). > > Hey, any idea where I can get a cord of wood cheap? > > BernieTime Well I pay 135$ a cord. Unless I'm scavanging ex orchards. :) Then its simply a matter of paying the appropriate 'time' Raille

Talonz wrote: >Therefore there is no good reason to keep chainsaw/TC as merely >weapons. They are melee weapons. Good reason: Keep errata to a minimum. Of course, it is conceivable that TC could be reprinted in the Camarilla set with revised text. Card text updates are not as bad as errata, but, in the interest of avoiding confusion, it might be better to keep this to a minimum as well. OTOH, having all Chainsaws in use be of a similar nature also avoids confusion. Personally, I feel that the failure of chainsaws to benefit from usual Melee Weapon enhancers is thematically appropriate as a representation of their clumsiness. A sword is clearly a superior weapon for someone who knows how to use it. It seems ok to me that swords can benefit from Lucky Blow, whereas chainsaws cannot. Same goes for Undead Strength or Pushing the Limit. I am aware that it takes a significant amount of (mortal) strength to make full effective use of a Chainsaw, but I do not think that supernatural strength would add much additional benefit. I think if you used supernatural strength on a chainsaw, you would only succeed in breaking it. Mortal Allies do have different strength levels, ranging from 0 to 4. However chainsaw damage is unaffected by these figures, whether classified as a melee weapon or no. Therefore the argument that it takes a certain level of strength to effectively use a chainsaw (say Strength 1 as opposed to Strength 0), seems to me hardly relevant to the "melee weapon" issue. Even Strength 0 ought to be adequate for to make full use of chainsaws. This is a game where an entire street gang of muscular mortals gets a strength of 1 (or even 0 in the case of The Slashers). So when an internet-posting card player reports that, in his experience, it does indeed take considerable strength to make full use of a chainsaw, this hardly proves that one gains additional benefit from chainsaws by boosting strength up to 2.or 3. When exceptional mortals have high strength, such as Muddles, this is arguably more representative of skill (or built-in weaponry) than brute force. Thus, it is appropriate that they gain little benefit from Chainsaws, in which one is not likely to receive, nor benefit from, martial training. In Wilbur Delburton's case (+2 strength with melee weapons) the bonus clearly is related to skill. Wilbur can make use his bonus with Gas-Powered Chainsaw (striking for 5!) but it is not clear that he should. Thematically, it seems only right that clumsy chainsaws should not gain much benefit from skill, speed, training, or finesse. -- John Whelan.

Vampire the Masquerade divides combat into two types - Close Combat and Ranged Combat. Close combat is further subdivided into unarmed combat and melee. The latter "involves hand-held weapons, from broken bottles to swords." The puzzling thing about the Gas-Powered Chainsaw is not that it's a melee weapon but that it can only be used once per combat. Weird. And the Werewolf Pack is odd too. They should be equally immune to melee and ranged weapons. Only aggravated damage (fire, claws and magic) and silver weapons should bother them. Andrew

Andew S. Davidson wrote: >The puzzling thing about the Gas-Powered Chainsaw is not that it's a >melee weapon but that it can only be used once per combat. Weird. They run out of gas. The restriction may also represent their clumsiness. It should be noted that the time frame of a single round of combat is undetermined. Evidently, this is sufficient time for one person to cut up an entire "Shambling Horde" of Zombies - not to mention an entire street gang and an entire clan of gypsies. Arguably, this makes chainsaws alot more effective, as weapons, than they ought to be, realistically. One should not imagine a single strike as literally representing a single strike, thematically.

In message <20020211140802...@mb-fk.news.cs.com>, Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> writes: >Evidently, this is sufficient time for one person to cut up an >entire "Shambling Horde" of Zombies Man, you've not watched enough horror films. *Everyone* knows that five seconds is enough to kill dozens of zombies but entirely insufficient to maintain that hundred yard head start you had over the bad guys. [ quoted text not captured ]

<berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM> wrote in message news:3c620a24...@netnews.attbi.com... > <Snip> > >> > >> There's documented proof that Chainsaws are effective melee weapons > >> against the undead. You can view the historical documents at your > >> local video store: > >> Evil Dead > >> Evil Dead 2 > >> Dead Alive (No Chainsaw, but documents the effectiveness of a lawnmower) > > > >You missed Evil Dead 3: The Army of Darkness > > Actually, I didn't (on purpose). Army of Darkness is obviously camp. > We're looking for historical documents, not comedies.. Wasn't there some kind of massacre down in Texas like 30 years ago??? > > BernieTime > > >Raille -- Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

"Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEcharter.net> wrote in message news:u6jsrg5...@corp.supernews.com... > Wasn't there some kind of massacre down in Texas like 30 years ago??? Perhaps, but I don't think it involved zombies... Xian

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:00:31 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c6636bd.226131616@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com >writes: >>Lucky blow with either of these, especially seeing that GPC is a melee >>weapon already, will hardly be game breaking. Simply put, it would >>make good sense. > >Changing card text where there is no pressing need to - and something >not being game breaking is not a pressing need - rarely makes good >sense. > It makes good sense because the weapons would then follow the logical order of all other melee weapons. Being that as they are used in hand to hand, they are a melee weapon and thus missing the proper designator. Erratta need not be game breaking, . T

In message <3c6cccd9.289286@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>Changing card text where there is no pressing need to - and something >>not being game breaking is not a pressing need - rarely makes good >>sense. >> > >It makes good sense because the weapons would then follow the logical >order of all other melee weapons. There is no need to make them follow the rules of other melee weapons, they function just fine as is. And changing card text where there is no need to rarely makes good sense. Just because it wouldn't hurt anything and just because it would make all close range weapons into melee weapons doesn't mean that we have to change card text. That's done for *important* reasons. [ quoted text not captured ]

Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > It makes good sense because the weapons would then follow the logical > order of all other melee weapons. Being that as they are used in hand > to hand, they are a melee weapon and thus missing the proper > designator. > > Erratta need not be game breaking, . I'm a fan of consistency myself. But the way to make this consistent (in-game-wise, with all the "melee weapon" effects taken into account as well) is to make GPC a weapon (not a melee weapon), as it should have been from the start. But there is no need to do so, like there's no pressing need to make Torn Signpost more logical (giving a strike option rather than a strength bonus). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:29:15 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c6cccd9.289286@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>>Changing card text where there is no pressing need to - and something >>>not being game breaking is not a pressing need - rarely makes good >>>sense. >>> >> >>It makes good sense because the weapons would then follow the logical >>order of all other melee weapons. > >There is no need to make them follow the rules of other melee weapons, >they function just fine as is. > >And changing card text where there is no need to rarely makes good >sense. > I flatly disagree, obviouslly. > > >Just because it wouldn't hurt anything and just because it would make >all close range weapons into melee weapons doesn't mean that we have to >change card text. That's done for *important* reasons. > Spare me. Erratta is done where needed, to correct mistakes and make for a better game. This is one such instance imo. T

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 07:57:23 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: >> It makes good sense because the weapons would then follow the logical >> order of all other melee weapons. Being that as they are used in hand >> to hand, they are a melee weapon and thus missing the proper >> designator. >> >> Erratta need not be game breaking, . > >I'm a fan of consistency myself. Ah thank you, that's the word I was looking for. =] >But the way to make this consistent >(in-game-wise, with all the "melee weapon" effects taken into account >as well) is to make GPC a weapon (not a melee weapon), as it should >have been from the start. > Or vice versa, that Csaw and TC should have been melee weapons from the start. But we've been over this. T

In message <3c7066e2.39728298@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>There is no need to make them follow the rules of other melee weapons, >>they function just fine as is. >> >>And changing card text where there is no need to rarely makes good >>sense. >> > >I flatly disagree, obviouslly. What *need* is there to change the text? What situations are currently broken? What rules conflicts are occuring? Cards are not changed just because it's nice. They're changed because it's *needed*. You have demonstrated successfully that you *want* this. You have not even provided any vague suggestions that it's *needed*. cf. Return to Innocence, Thoughts Betrayed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:12:58 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: Question for you James. Do you agree that old retainers need to have designators added to determine if they are a ghoul, mortal, wraith, etc.? T [ quoted text not captured ]

[Please learn to post correctly.] In message <3c6eb699.60137831@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >Question for you James. > >Do you agree that old retainers need to have designators added to >determine if they are a ghoul, mortal, wraith, etc.? For the purposes of the expansion of certain strategies, it is clear that this is not only useful but basically necessary. (See the new cards which reference these descriptors.) This can form the basis for change, where the rules or cards effectively require change. (Alternatively, each card listing "mortal" could name every mortal.) There is no similar necessity for Chainsaw to be classified as a melee weapon. Again, you have not showed any argument which shows anything like necessitating change here - whereas new cards necessitated certain changes in other aspects of the game. That's how it works. When change is needed, it happens. When change isn't needed, it's left alone. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > [Please learn to post correctly.] > > In message <3c6eb699.60137831@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: > >Question for you James. > > > >Do you agree that old retainers need to have designators added to > >determine if they are a ghoul, mortal, wraith, etc.? > > For the purposes of the expansion of certain strategies, it is clear > that this is not only useful but basically necessary. (See the new > cards which reference these descriptors.) This can form the basis for > change, where the rules or cards effectively require change. > (Alternatively, each card listing "mortal" could name every mortal.) > > There is no similar necessity for Chainsaw to be classified as a melee > weapon. > > Again, you have not showed any argument which shows anything like > necessitating change here - whereas new cards necessitated certain > changes in other aspects of the game. Eh? The allies have types now that a select few cards reference them, but Chainsaw doesn't get an errata after they print a CLAN whose strategy revolves entirely around melee weapons? Apparently the !Salubri didn't suck enough, even as their wonderful combat engine folds up and dies to Saturday Night Special[1]. It's not broken in the overpowered sense, it's just a flat out mistake. A chainsaw is a melee weapon. You aren't throwing it at them, right? Mistakes which leave a card in an underpowered form *DO* get fixed -- Clio's Kiss being a recent example. If the card went to your uncontrolled region it would be quite terrible, as paying the blood to reinfluence the vampire after contesting it for at least 1 turn would be rather expensive... perhaps more expensive than simply winning the contest. To say nothing of the face up, yet uncontrolled state it'd be in. If we're going to errata *retainers* for the fun of it, we may as well put chainsaw there for completeness. And to whoever is playing those chainsaws, just get some GPCs dude. [1] - SNS gives one manuever each combat, and the !Salubri have no way of generating a manuever back to close so that they can use their flaming chainsaws of death [tm], or do anything else constructive.

Nystulc wrote: > Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > >Have you ever used a chainsaw? They sure don't just glide through trees on > >their own! Damage certainly does come from the blades, but can EASILY be > >pumped up with your strength. Hence making it a characteristic melee > >weapon, actually more so. Unlike a junky sword, a chainsaw actually tears > >away chunks of the target. Tap me with your sword, you cut me, hit me > >*real* hard with your sword, maybe you will chop off part of my body. Tap > >me with your chainsaw and you took off inches of skin, hit me *real* hard > >with a chainsaw and you will effectively tear me into 3 pieces, a top, a > >bottom, and all those little bits 15 feet away. > > Before you go around calling swords "junky" in comparison to chainsaws, you > might want to consider that power tools are virtually never used as weapons > (outside of horror movies). The same cannot be said of swords, even today. Outside of kendo tournaments, when do swords get used? Hrm, I'll bet that there are more fatal accidents involving power tools than there are with swords each year... go figure. > I am no expert in the use of either, but I suspect that there are probably good > real-world, practical reasons for this. Chainsaws are horribly difficult to wield, and aren't weighted for rapid combat swings. Still, *one hit* and you'll F.U.B.A.R. the person you're hitting.

Shaun McIsaac wrote: > Eh? The allies have types now that a select few cards reference them, but > Chainsaw doesn't get an errata after they print a CLAN whose strategy > revolves entirely around melee weapons? Right. Chainsaw isn't a weapon that does damage based on strength. Also note that Saturday Night Special was also not errataed to be a melee weapon, even when a CLAN (sic) whose strategy resolves around melee weapons was introduced. > It's not broken in the overpowered sense, it's just a > flat out mistake. A chainsaw is a melee weapon. You aren't throwing it at > them, right? Not being thrown around doens't make it a melee weapon. Weapons that are based on strength get marked as melee weapons. See also Talbot's Chainsaw. > Mistakes which leave a card in an underpowered form *DO* get > fixed -- Clio's Kiss being a recent example. If the card went to your Clio's Kiss contained a typo. That type was corrected. Chainsaw contains no typo, AFAIK. If you care to cite some official source to the contrary, I'll be happy to hear it. > uncontrolled region it would be quite terrible, as paying the blood to > reinfluence the vampire after contesting it for at least 1 turn would be > rather expensive... perhaps more expensive than simply winning the contest. > To say nothing of the face up, yet uncontrolled state it'd be in. > > If we're going to errata *retainers* for the fun of it, we may as well put > chainsaw there for completeness. And to whoever is playing those chainsaws, > just get some GPCs dude. Retainers aren't errata'ed for the fun of it. Chainsaw needs no errata, since it isn't based on strength. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3C6E2711...@mediaone.net>, Shaun McIsaac <mpm...@mediaone.net> writes: >Outside of kendo tournaments, when do swords get used? Fencing. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3C6E2296...@mediaone.net>, Shaun McIsaac <mpm...@mediaone.net> writes: >Eh? The allies have types now that a select few cards reference them, but >Chainsaw doesn't get an errata after they print a CLAN whose strategy >revolves entirely around melee weapons? That clan has been designed knowing that the Chainsaw and Talbot's are normal weapons, not melee weapons. There is no pressing *need* to change them to be melee weapons. There is nothing *broken*. There have been no cards that *require* them to be changed. Cards are changed when necessary, not when it would just be nice. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Shaun McIsaac" <mpm...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:3C6E2296...@mediaone.net... > [1] - SNS gives one manuever each combat, and the !Salubri have no way of > generating a manuever back to close so that they can use their flaming > chainsaws of death [tm], or do anything else constructive. Fake Out? Unflinching Persistence? Trap? press via Boxed In or Hidden Strength/Indomitability? Not really "no way". Xian

>> Before you go around calling swords "junky" in comparison to chainsaws, you >> might want to consider that power tools are virtually never used as weapons >> (outside of horror movies). The same cannot be said of swords, even today. > >Outside of kendo tournaments, when do swords get used? Oversized blades of the types used in the middle ages are not, of course, generally available. Blades do, however, come in all sizes, as do power tools. Knives are the second most common homicide weapon after handguns. I don't know what the stats are for power-tools of any size, but I expect it's at a level far below blunt instruments. I don't have statistics comparing homicide with "sword" size blades (machetes, cavalry sabres, etc) with "chainsaw" sized power tools, but I can make a very good guess. >Hrm, I'll bet that there are more fatal accidents involving power tools than >there >are with swords each year... go figure. Killing yourself is not the general idea for weaponry. >> I am no expert in the use of either, but I suspect that there are probably >good >> real-world, practical reasons for this. > >Chainsaws are horribly difficult to wield, and aren't weighted for rapid >combat >swings. I hope you don't think this is a minor point. Add the following: it is incredibly noisy, it requires gas, and it needs to be powered up and so cannot be used for attack or defence on short notice. >Still, *one hit* and you'll F.U.B.A.R. the person you're hitting. You have to hit him first. Pit a swordsman vs. a fool with a chainsaw. Who would win? -- JBW

In message <3C6E2296...@mediaone.net>, Shaun McIsaac <mpm...@mediaone.net> mumbled something about: >[1] - SNS gives one manuever each combat, and the !Salubri have no way of >generating a manuever back to close so that they can use their flaming >chainsaws of death [tm], or do anything else constructive. Fake Out, or Trap (i prefer Trap). You DO realize how badly Trap beats defensive maneuvers, right? No matter how many you have in your deck, you always end up at close range eventually, because each maneuver extends the Trap. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

In message <qbat6u8ih6i042kun...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >You DO realize how badly Trap beats defensive maneuvers, right? No >matter how many you have in your deck, you always end up at close range >eventually, because each maneuver extends the Trap. This is why Deer Rifle r00lz so much. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3C6E2711...@mediaone.net>, Shaun McIsaac > <mpm...@mediaone.net> writes: > >Outside of kendo tournaments, when do swords get used? > > Fencing. SCA events. Raille

In message <le9dcVBl...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> mumbled something about: >In message <qbat6u8ih6i042kun...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >>You DO realize how badly Trap beats defensive maneuvers, right? No >>matter how many you have in your deck, you always end up at close range >>eventually, because each maneuver extends the Trap. > >This is why Deer Rifle r00lz so much. You need two Deer Rifles to outlast a Trap, though... and you have to Disguised Weapon them both out on round 1. Trap generates a 4 round combat simply by being played (unless, of course, someone goes to torpor first). If I'm going to try for defensive maneuvers, I'll probably just use plain old Zip Gun. It's permanent, it takes up the same space a Fake Out does, and while it does cost me a point of damage every time I use it, odds are I'm always running away from something that will do MORE than 1 point of damage, so I'm coming out ahead. Doesn't stack in the same round, no. But if someone has 2 maneuvers on me, I am probably in trouble anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <5pcu6ukhuvgcm9jd5...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >>>You DO realize how badly Trap beats defensive maneuvers, right? No >>>matter how many you have in your deck, you always end up at close range >>>eventually, because each maneuver extends the Trap. >> >>This is why Deer Rifle r00lz so much. > >You need two Deer Rifles to outlast a Trap, though... and you have to >Disguised Weapon them both out on round 1. G0d, y0u l4m3r. D33r R1fle r00lz. I suggest we change it to three optional maneuvers per combat. After all, what's it going to break? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <qMB+YWAV...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> mumbled something about: >In message <5pcu6ukhuvgcm9jd5...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >>>>You DO realize how badly Trap beats defensive maneuvers, right? No >>>>matter how many you have in your deck, you always end up at close range >>>>eventually, because each maneuver extends the Trap. >>> >>>This is why Deer Rifle r00lz so much. >> >>You need two Deer Rifles to outlast a Trap, though... and you have to >>Disguised Weapon them both out on round 1. > >G0d, y0u l4m3r. D33r R1fle r00lz. > >I suggest we change it to three optional maneuvers per combat. After >all, what's it going to break? It's going to break your arm, in a moment. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:O9KnkQ17...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3C6E2711...@mediaone.net>, Shaun McIsaac > <mpm...@mediaone.net> writes: > >Outside of kendo tournaments, when do swords get used? > > Fencing. Touché. mattgreen -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Did anyone stop and consider that Talbot's Chainsaw in the RPG game is technically a 'Magic Item' (I know I hate to use that term) But there too it works off of it's own devices...almost controlling the user...so if you want to argue symantics...it being a weapon makes more sense than melee weapon since the chainsaw is using the weilder in its own maddenly lust for more flesh/guts/death/vamp bodies/what-have-you:) not the other way around... Erinus James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<iOBcYORg...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <3c5eef25.515920044@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com > writes: > >Doesn't that defy logic? > > What's wrong with following card text? > > > Chainsaw(weapon) became gas-powered > >Chainsaw(melee weapon). > > No, it didn't. Chainsaw is still a non-melee weapon. > > >Seems to me that the old TC should be > >erratted to a melee weapon as well. > > Based on faulty logic, sure.

On 17 Feb 2002, erinus wrote: > Did anyone stop and consider that Talbot's Chainsaw in the RPG game is > technically a 'Magic Item' (I know I hate to use that term) > But there too it works off of it's own devices...almost controlling > the user...so if you want to argue symantics...it being a weapon makes Back in the day, this was true. Now, the rush is optional. Name: Talbot's Chainsaw [Jyhad, V:TES] Cardtype: Equipment Cost: 3 pool Unique weapon. 3 damage each strike. If bearer is ready during your untap phase, a ready minion you control takes 3 damage (damage not preventable). Bearer cannot hunt. {Bearer} may {enter combat with} any minion {controlled by another Methuselah} as a +1 stealth (D) action. {Bearer gets a press}, ={only usable to continue combat}= at the end of the first round, and may prevent up to 1 damage each combat. David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham

>On 17 Feb 2002, erinus wrote: > >> Did anyone stop and consider that Talbot's Chainsaw in the RPG game is >> technically a 'Magic Item' (I know I hate to use that term) >> But there too it works off of it's own devices...almost controlling >> the user...so if you want to argue symantics...it being a weapon makes > >Back in the day, this was true. Now, the rush is optional. It is still true, thematically. The minion with Talbot's is still forced to inflict damage on somebody once each round, though there need not be a combat or action involved.

On 18 Feb 2002, Nystulc wrote: > It is still true, thematically. The minion with Talbot's is still forced to > inflict damage on somebody once each round, though there need not be a combat > or action involved. True, true. But still not as cool as the guy being dragged through the air, hanging on behind the 'saw. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 04:10:16 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >[Please learn to post correctly.] > >In message <3c6eb699.60137831@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>Question for you James. >> >>Do you agree that old retainers need to have designators added to >>determine if they are a ghoul, mortal, wraith, etc.? > >For the purposes of the expansion of certain strategies, it is clear >that this is not only useful but basically necessary. Then for the same reason, especially seeing the new Valeran discipline for usage of mellee weapons, that we should make sure all melee weapons have the proper designators. T

On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 05:53:28 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >Right. Chainsaw isn't a weapon that does damage based on strength. Irrelevant LSJ. You should really stop throwing this definition that doesnt exist around as it doesnt help. >Also note that Saturday Night Special was also not errataed to be >a melee weapon, even when a CLAN (sic) whose strategy resolves >around melee weapons was introduced. > Er yeah....so what? Its a gun, and clearly not used in solely melee combat. > >Not being thrown around doens't make it a melee weapon. >Weapons that are based on strength get marked as melee weapons. >See also Talbot's Chainsaw. > See also GPC, and Rowan Ring. Melee weapons need not be based on a weilder's strength apparently. That is also in keeping with the real world definition of melee weaponry, that it is used in hand to hand combat. > >Retainers aren't errata'ed for the fun of it. >Chainsaw needs no errata, since it isn't based on strength. > A flawed and illogical conclusion. T

On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 13:11:16 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3C6E2296...@mediaone.net>, Shaun McIsaac ><mpm...@mediaone.net> writes: >>Eh? The allies have types now that a select few cards reference them, but >>Chainsaw doesn't get an errata after they print a CLAN whose strategy >>revolves entirely around melee weapons? > >That clan has been designed knowing that the Chainsaw and Talbot's are >normal weapons, not melee weapons. > You cannot make that assumption at all. Well actually I suppose you can, but it would be just that; an assumption. T

On 17 Feb 2002 23:51:47 -0800, eri...@hotmail.com (erinus) wrote: >Did anyone stop and consider that Talbot's Chainsaw in the RPG game is >technically a 'Magic Item' (I know I hate to use that term) >But there too it works off of it's own devices...almost controlling >the user...so if you want to argue symantics...it being a weapon makes >more sense than melee weapon since the chainsaw is using the weilder >in its own maddenly lust for more flesh/guts/death/vamp >bodies/what-have-you:) not the other way around... > >Erinus > > Which means then, for completeness, that it should be designated a Magic Melee Weapon. Happy now? :) T

In message <3c7269fe.144441314@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com mumbled something about: >Then for the same reason, especially seeing the new Valeran discipline >for usage of mellee weapons, that we should make sure all melee >weapons have the proper designators. When will you get it through your thick, imbecilic head that errata based on "wouldn't it be nice if..." or "hey, in the real world it works like..." reasons is ALWAYS bad errata? Chainsaw is not a melee weapon. Why? Because its card doesn't say "Melee weapon." Gas-powered chainsaw is. Why? Because its card DOES say so. The real-world reasons do not matter. The card text does. Total gain from errata'ing Chainsaw to read "Melee Weapon": Zero. - the card is still wallpaper compared to GPC - the card has not been reprinted, meaning very few are in circulation - if the card is not reprinted, no new players will be getting one, UNLIKE GPC, which HAS been reprinted So who gives a fuck about Chainsaw? THAT'S RIGHT. NOBODY. Dragging all sorts of stupid real-world analogies and other crud into the discussion simply doesn't hold water. Sure, if you were designing the game from scratch, maybe it makes sense to have Chainsaw be a "melee weapon", or maybe it makes sense to have GPC be NOT a melee weapon, and it certainly makes sense to have them both match. But you know what? Right now, it doesn't matter a damn bit either way, because you're NOT redesigning the game from scratch; you're JUST an idiot babbling on a USENET group. It is necessary for something to matter to change the status quo. The current status quo is that Chainsaw is a weapon, and GPC is a melee weapon. Why? BECAUSE THE CARD SAYS SO. Can you POSSIBLY comprehend this, and then can you possibly STFU about it? Damn. And you wonder why people diss you so hard -- it's because you really DO sound like an idiot. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c746c2c.144999084@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>>Eh? The allies have types now that a select few cards reference them, but >>>Chainsaw doesn't get an errata after they print a CLAN whose strategy >>>revolves entirely around melee weapons? >> >>That clan has been designed knowing that the Chainsaw and Talbot's are >>normal weapons, not melee weapons. >> > >You cannot make that assumption at all. Well actually I suppose you >can, but it would be just that; an assumption. Which clan are you suggesting wasn't designed knowing that Chainsaw was a melee weapon? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c7269fe.144441314@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>For the purposes of the expansion of certain strategies, it is clear >>that this is not only useful but basically necessary. > >Then for the same reason, especially seeing the new Valeran discipline >for usage of mellee weapons, that we should make sure all melee >weapons have the proper designators. They do. Chainsaw isn't a melee weapon. Your continual desire for it to be one must be terribly frustrating for you, but it *isn't* a melee weapon. Nor was it reprinted. Nor was Talbot's Chainsaw reprinted as a melee weapon. Nor has any intent for it to be ever been shown. So Talbot's is a weapon that isn't a melee weapon, no matter how convenient it might be for it to be a melee weapon. It simply isn't [ quoted text not captured ]

Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 05:53:28 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > >Right. Chainsaw isn't a weapon that does damage based on strength. > > Irrelevant LSJ. You should really stop throwing this definition that > doesnt exist around as it doesnt help. Exactly the point. It parallels your non-existent "definition", and is equally as useful. Defn: Melee Weapon - An equipment with the text "melee weapon" in bold at the top of it, or as allowed by card text. > >Also note that Saturday Night Special was also not errataed to be > >a melee weapon, even when a CLAN (sic) whose strategy resolves > >around melee weapons was introduced. > > Er yeah....so what? Its a gun, and clearly not used in solely melee > combat. So your argument (conveniently snipped) is weakened. > >Not being thrown around doens't make it a melee weapon. > >Weapons that are based on strength get marked as melee weapons. > >See also Talbot's Chainsaw. > > See also GPC, and Rowan Ring. Melee weapons need not be based on a > weilder's strength apparently. That is also in keeping with the real > world definition of melee weaponry, that it is used in hand to hand > combat. GPC is in need of errata for consistency, yes. As is Rowan Ring (but, since it is a banned Jyh-olny card,...) The GPC consistency need isn't sufficient to actually warrant errata. All of which has been said already. Care to add anything new? > >Retainers aren't errata'ed for the fun of it. > >Chainsaw needs no errata, since it isn't based on strength. > > A flawed and illogical conclusion. Sure. -- 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/

Derek Ray wrote: > Total gain from errata'ing Chainsaw to read "Melee Weapon": Zero. No, total gain is 1, consistancy. > - the card is still wallpaper compared to GPC Agreed. > - the card has not been reprinted, meaning very few are in circulation HA! I've got hordes of them, and Jyhad Boxes are still available. You don't see them in deck for reason 1, above. > - if the card is not reprinted, no new players will be getting one, > UNLIKE GPC, which HAS been reprinted Well if new players really want them, and have access to purchase off the net, they will get them. Can't say I'd like to see them reprinted though. > So who gives a fuck about Chainsaw? THAT'S RIGHT. NOBODY. Talonz. And While I don't give a fuck, I give a rats ass about the chain saw. Consistancy is a good thing. Raille

In message <3C722AEF...@spamcop.net>, Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> writes: >Derek Ray wrote: >> Total gain from errata'ing Chainsaw to read "Melee Weapon": Zero. > >No, total gain is 1, consistancy. What's inconsistent about playing by card text? Different cards are subtly different in dozens of different ways. Should we make them all the same out of "consistancy" (sic)? -- James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c. PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti

In message <3C722AEF...@spamcop.net>, Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> Total gain from errata'ing Chainsaw to read "Melee Weapon": Zero. > >No, total gain is 1, consistancy. Weren't you in the NJL, whose primary complaint was the "unnecessary" errata, and how we should all play with card text whenever possible? And here I am advocating that this errata is absolutely pointless, and to just play with card text because it doesn't matter anyway, and you take THIS position? I don't think so. Total gain ZERO. >> - the card has not been reprinted, meaning very few are in circulation > >HA! I've got hordes of them, and Jyhad Boxes are still available. You >don't see them in deck for reason 1, above. How many new players have a Chainsaw? How many new players have been buying Jyhad boxes? How many new players do we WANT to buy Jyhad boxes? Remember, they have the wrong card-backs and a whole TON of incorrect text at this point, AND a Camarilla set is currently visible on the horizon, something which is relatively new. How easy is it to see this game will die without new players? From these four points, you can immediately see that your gazillion Chainsaws that are sitting in boxes at the back of your closet are very definitely NOT in circulation. >> - if the card is not reprinted, no new players will be getting one, >> UNLIKE GPC, which HAS been reprinted > >Well if new players really want them, and have access to purchase off >the net, they will get them. Can't say I'd like to see them reprinted >though. Why should I ever advise a new player to go out and get a bunch of wrong-back cards with the Cammie set coming soon? I'll tell him to go grab some SW Starters, some FN Starters, and some boosters of both. That'll do him a lot better, AS A NEW PLAYER, than getting Jyhad boxes will -- even if he gets a few Freak Drives out of his Jyhad boxes. >> So who gives a fuck about Chainsaw? THAT'S RIGHT. NOBODY. > >Talonz. And While I don't give a fuck, I give a rats ass about the Talonz is an idiot though. >chain saw. Consistancy is a good thing. Consistency is a good thing. Creating silly-buggers errata for the sake of consistency is not a good thing. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:10:24 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 05:53:28 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> >> >Right. Chainsaw isn't a weapon that does damage based on strength. >> >> Irrelevant LSJ. You should really stop throwing this definition that >> doesnt exist around as it doesnt help. > >Exactly the point. It parallels your non-existent "definition", and >is equally as useful. > Melee weapons are already defined. Check your dictionary. Without an opposing definition within the game the standard english definition should apply. >Defn: Melee Weapon - An equipment with the text "melee weapon" in bold >at the top of it, or as allowed by card text. > Redundant, and not a definition. >> Er yeah....so what? Its a gun, and clearly not used in solely melee >> combat. > >So your argument (conveniently snipped) is weakened. > Eh what? Gun/Melee weapon...Apples/Oranges...any questions? > >GPC is in need of errata for consistency, yes. >As is Rowan Ring (but, since it is a banned Jyh-olny card,...) > Consistent with what? A definiton of yours that doesnt exist? That's not consistency at all. T

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:21:33 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c746c2c.144999084@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com >writes: >>>>Eh? The allies have types now that a select few cards reference them, but >>>>Chainsaw doesn't get an errata after they print a CLAN whose strategy >>>>revolves entirely around melee weapons? >>> >>>That clan has been designed knowing that the Chainsaw and Talbot's are >>>normal weapons, not melee weapons. >>> >> >>You cannot make that assumption at all. Well actually I suppose you >>can, but it would be just that; an assumption. > >Which clan are you suggesting wasn't designed knowing that Chainsaw was >a melee weapon? > Any deck or clan designed to utilize melee weapons are partially penalized because not all melee weapons are properly designated as such. Assuming that the designers actually stopped to think 'well they won't be able to use TC with this card, so thats ok' is just that....an assumption. T

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:25:01 GMT, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >In message <3c7269fe.144441314@news>, >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com mumbled something about: > >>Then for the same reason, especially seeing the new Valeran discipline >>for usage of mellee weapons, that we should make sure all melee >>weapons have the proper designators. > >When will you get it through your thick, imbecilic head that errata >based on When will you get it through yours that as long as you display such amazingly poor manners and attitude that no one will bother to read what you are saying? T

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:54:10 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >What's inconsistent about playing by card text? When the card text differs from other card text of the same type. It is therefore inconsistent and incongruent. T

Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:10:24 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > wrote: > > >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 05:53:28 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > >> >Right. Chainsaw isn't a weapon that does damage based on strength. > >> > >> Irrelevant LSJ. You should really stop throwing this definition that > >> doesnt exist around as it doesnt help. > > > >Exactly the point. It parallels your non-existent "definition", and > >is equally as useful. > > > > Melee weapons are already defined. Check your dictionary. Without an > opposing definition within the game the standard english definition > should apply. You've brought up this point and been corrected on it before. Melee: a confused struggle, esp. a hand-to-hand fight among several people. That doesn't have any application here, so isn't used. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c7bb695.229597449@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] Hey, guess what -- you're wrong about that, too. Maybe you're too stupid to understand the points given, but most other people who read this group certainly aren't. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c7cb755.229789044@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>What's inconsistent about playing by card text? > >When the card text differs from other card text of the same type. It >is therefore inconsistent and incongruent. That's how you make different cards - by making them different from other similar ones. There are lots of cards out there which are subtle variations. Should we change all of those for the sake of consistency? In your search for "consistency", you will need to start campaigning about: Powerbase: Berlin - no other Powerbase has the continuing requirement for a clan High Stakes - no other political action card requires a clan Patronage - no other transient card costs pool (that I can think of) Bomb - no other weapon provides an action also Herald of Topheth - no other ally has this form of upkeep cost Elemental Stoicism - no other dual-discipline card has a 'mixed' level requirement for instance. Care to carry on? Card text is card text is card text. What you see as inconsistency is how you can derive variety in a game - by having some general principles and then *varying* them. (Coo, let's have a ranged weapon that isn't a gun. *invents Ivory Bow* And a way of filling yourself up that isn't Fifth Tradition. *invents Giants Blood* And can we have some ways of preventing damage that aren't Fortitude? *invents Flak Jacket* And how about some close range weapons that aren't melee weapons? *invents the chainsaws*) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3C72B850...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >You've brought up this point and been corrected on it before. >Melee: a confused struggle, esp. a hand-to-hand fight among several people. > >That doesn't have any application here, so isn't used. Indeed, the (non-diamond) definition in the full OED is: "A mixed or irregular fight between two parties of combatants, a skirmish. Also transf., a lively contention or debate." And skirmish is: "1. An irregular engagement between two small bodies of troops, esp. detached or outlying portions of opposing armies; a petty fight or encounter. Also occas. without article, as a mode of fighting. " or: " 3. transf. a. Any contest or encounter." I request that the rules team make Ivory Bow a melee weapon, since bows have been used in skirmish attacks for many years. Similarly, since I can have an irregular with a Saturday Night Special (if I felt so bold), I request the Rules Team errata that similarly. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c79b4b5.229116764@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >Melee weapons are already defined. Check your dictionary. Without an >opposing definition within the game the standard english definition >should apply. There is an opposing definition in the game. It's called card text. Will you be requiring us to have licenses for our "guns" now? Or to go through waiting procedures for them? Or to have FBI checks? Or <insert variation for your location>. After all, there isn't an opposing definition in the game. Will people under the age of majority in your location be unable to play political actions? There isn't an opposing definition in the game. Will we arrest people who burn down buildings? After all, there isn't an opposing defintion in the game. It's a *card game*. The *cards* determine *what happens*. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c7ab60d.229460949@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>>You cannot make that assumption at all. Well actually I suppose you >>>can, but it would be just that; an assumption. >> >>Which clan are you suggesting wasn't designed knowing that Chainsaw was >>a melee weapon? >> > >Any deck or clan designed to utilize melee weapons are partially >penalized because not all melee weapons are properly designated as >such. No. All melee weapons are designated as melee weapons. All cards not designated as melee weapons are not melee weapons, by definition. There are a number of cards you *want* to be melee weapons. However, they are not melee weapons. >Assuming that the designers actually stopped to think 'well they won't >be able to use TC with this card, so thats ok' is just that....an >assumption. You reckon? This is *exactly* the sort of thinking that goes into generating cards in every situation I have been involved in where critical accounts have been made of dozens of cards. Given that the 'oddity' of Talbot's Chainsaw has been understood by people for many years, it is most likely that anyone on the Design Team designing a card with the words "melee weapon" on it is *more* than aware of the differences. Just like they're aware of the differences between "weapon" (Gift of Bellona, Smoke Grenade), "melee weapon" (Vengeance of Samiel, Scorpion's Touch, Wendell Delburton), "weapon that does ranged damage" (Darkling Trickery), "gun" (Mark V), "ranged weapon" (Anachronism, Gargoyle Slave) and so on. That you can't see the use of having variations doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c7bb695.229597449@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >When will you get it through yours that as long as you display such >amazingly poor manners and attitude that no one will bother to read >what you are saying? Have you considered understanding that your continual desire for Chainsaw to be a melee weapon does not make it one, as you continually assert in numerous posts? It's not a melee weapon. Clue: it doesn't have that neat little card text thing. If you want to play by real life, give up the cards, steal some blood and syringes from your local hospital and start bleeding. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:d6zT1mCD...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3c7cb755.229789044@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com > writes: > > Patronage - no other transient card costs pool (that I can think of) > There are lots. Vulnerability, Unnatural Disaster, Lupine Assault, Archon Investigation, Recruitment, Shock Troops, etc... On the other hand, no other transient non-master card costs pool. Patronage and Clandestine Contract are the only Action cards that cost pool which do not create a minion (Abomination creates an ally, which makes it functionally similar (but, obviously, not identical) to an ally card, and Create Gargoyle creates (duh) a Gargoyle vampire). 2 idle off-topic musings... a) Shock Troops would be so much cooler if there were Melpominee skill cards. Also broken and horrible. b) How cool would it be to have a card to create a Blood Brother circle (you have cards to create Gargoyles and to create Ahrimanes from Gangrel... why not Brothers as well?). Would have to cost a buttload of pool, and require that you control both a Tzimisce and a Tremere Antitribu, I guess. Probably won't happen, but it'd be cool. > Bomb - no other weapon provides an action also > Except Talbot's Chainsaw. > Herald of Topheth - no other ally has this form of upkeep cost > Except Phantasmal Forces... err... I mean, nevermind. > Care to carry on? Card text is card text is card text. > Except where card text is changed. ;)

James Coupe wrote: >Indeed, the (non-diamond) definition in the full OED is: > >"A mixed or irregular fight between two parties of combatants, a >skirmish. Also transf., a lively contention or debate." > >And skirmish is: > >"1. An irregular engagement between two small bodies of troops, esp. >detached or outlying portions of opposing armies; a petty fight or >encounter. Also occas. without article, as a mode of fighting. " > >or: > >" 3. transf. a. Any contest or encounter." > >I request that the rules team make Ivory Bow a melee weapon, since bows >have been used in skirmish attacks for many years. Similarly, since I >can have an irregular with a Saturday Night Special (if I felt so bold), >I request the Rules Team errata that similarly. I realize you are just being sarcastic, but in defense of the English language and logic, I feel compelled to point out that, while one may fire a bow during a skirmish, one is very unlikely to fire it in a melee. This is because the term "melee" strongly implies mixed combat. Therefore, one does not do this for fear of hitting ones own troops. Your dictionary indicates that "skirmish" and "melee" are synonyms - but like most synonyms this is merely approximate, not precise. You can't play "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" with synonyms in search of a definition that will support your argument. Examining the two definitions you provide we see the following differences: "Melee" indicates mixed combat, whereas "skirmish" carries no such implication. "Skirmish" indicates a small-scale engagement, whereas "melee" carries no such implication. Bows may be suitable for (non-melee) skirmishes, but not for melees. It is about as far from being a "melee weapon" as you can get. Same goes for any ranged weapon (though pistols are arguably more suitable than bows). I don't mean to take your opponent's side in this debate. Chainsaws are not really suitable for melee combat nor for any sort of combat - except perhaps against extremely stupid and slow-moving zombies. As far as I am concerned, the rules/design teams can classify them any way they choose. Indeed, I agree with LSJ that it would be thematically best if all chainsaws were simply "weapons". This is not based on the proper definition of "melee", but rather because I consider it thematically appropriate that chainsaws not benefit from the bonuses currently granted to "melee weapons" by other cards. It is entirely appropriate that it be far less flexible, by having fewer additional options, than a bastard sword.

In message <20020220034352...@mb-bd.news.cs.com>, Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> writes: >I realize you are just being sarcastic, but in defense of the English language >and logic, I feel compelled to point out that, while one may fire a bow during >a skirmish, one is very unlikely to fire it in a melee. This is because the >term "melee" strongly implies mixed combat. The OED doesn't agree with you on that one. And since Talonz is playing dictionary definitions here, I feel that the OED is a rather good one to consult. None of the OED definition *requires* combat with two people (or more) standing next to one another, since melee is *defined* as skirmish. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <qrDc8.22952$UT6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >> Patronage - no other transient card costs pool (that I can think of) >> >There are lots. Vulnerability, Unnatural Disaster, Lupine Assault, Archon >Investigation, Recruitment, Shock Troops, etc... I was thinking of, and meant to say, action cards. Probably. >On the other hand, no >other transient non-master card costs pool. Patronage and Clandestine >Contract Ah, there's the one. It felt like there was something else, but I couldn't find it. >2 idle off-topic musings... > >a) Shock Troops would be so much cooler if there were Melpominee skill >cards. Also broken and horrible. Heh. Isn't this *always* the way? Melpominee is one of the few situations I could see a skill card being possible in thematic terms. But I'd still rather not. >b) How cool would it be to have a card to create a Blood Brother circle (you >have cards to create Gargoyles and to create Ahrimanes from Gangrel... why >not Brothers as well?). Would have to cost a buttload of pool, and require >that you control both a Tzimisce and a Tremere Antitribu, I guess. Probably >won't happen, but it'd be cool. It'd probably be a lot of work for very little effect, in the end. And the problem is, you could start doing *evil* things involving Clan Impersonation, Sanguine Instruction, Vial of Elder Vitae and so forth with non-Sterile vampires. Aiee. >> Bomb - no other weapon provides an action also >> >Except Talbot's Chainsaw. That's okay, since we can demand that two cards are changed for consistency - see the Chainsaws. So it's okay for Patronage and Clandestine Contract too. They're *not*, I repeat *not*, in any way intended to be like that. Nor are they in any way variations from a usual theme. Nor did the designers know what they were doing when they printed them. Absolutely not. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: >In message <20020220034352...@mb-bd.news.cs.com>, Nystulc ><nys...@cs.com> writes: >>I realize you are just being sarcastic, but in defense of the English >language >>and logic, I feel compelled to point out that, while one may fire a bow >during >>a skirmish, one is very unlikely to fire it in a melee. This is because the >>term "melee" strongly implies mixed combat. > >The OED doesn't agree with you on that one. Yes, it does, as per the definitions you provided. If you don't believe the OED I can quote other dictionaries saying the same thing. You also need to pay attention to punctuation. When phrases are separated by semicolons or (especially) commas, they are not intended to be interpreted as complete and sufficient thoughts unto themselves, but must be interpreted in relation to whatever is on the other side of the semicolon or comma. Your dictionary did not define melee as "1. A mixed combat. 2. A skirmish" but rather as (paraphrase) "A mixed combat, a skirmish." So yes, melees are skirmishes, provided the skirmishes are mixed combats. One does not fire a bow into a mixed combat, even if it is also a skirmish. >And since Talonz is playing >dictionary definitions here, I feel that the OED is a rather good one to >consult. None of the OED definition *requires* combat with two people >(or more) standing next to one another, since melee is *defined* as >skirmish. My dictionay defines a melee as an affray; an affray as a brawl; a brawl as a wrangle; a wrangle as a controversy; a controversy as a discussion; all in the form of post-semicolon one-word "definitions". It therefore follows that points of logic should be categorized as melee weapons, if you want to be silly. If the primary definition does not support your argument, it does not make sense to migrate to definitions of synonyms.

In message <20020220093439...@mb-cm.news.cs.com>, Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> writes: >>The OED doesn't agree with you on that one. > >Yes, it does, as per the definitions you provided. If you don't believe the >OED I can quote other dictionaries saying the same thing. > >You also need to pay attention to punctuation. I do know how to use the OED, thanks very much. It's not like I don't consult in at least a dozen times most weeks. >When phrases are separated by >semicolons or (especially) commas, they are not intended to be interpreted as >complete and sufficient thoughts unto themselves, but must be interpreted in >relation to whatever is on the other side of the semicolon or comma. Certainly. And we have the first part being "or" - an irregular or mixed combat. Nothing about "irregular combat" (one of the alternatives) necessitates things being close range. >Your >dictionary did not define melee as "1. A mixed combat. 2. A skirmish" but >rather as (paraphrase) "A mixed combat, a skirmish." No, it didn't. You have decided to ignore other terms it used in favour of the ones you like. So, it can be an irregular combat, a skirmish OR a mixed combat, a skirmish. That's what "or" means. Do you see? >>And since Talonz is playing >>dictionary definitions here, I feel that the OED is a rather good one to >>consult. None of the OED definition *requires* combat with two people >>(or more) standing next to one another, since melee is *defined* as >>skirmish. > >My dictionay defines a melee as an affray; Hint: this is why we use card text, not dictionary definitions. >If the primary definition does not support your argument, it does not make >sense to migrate to definitions of synonyms. "Irregular combat" is one of the primary definitions. "Mixed combat" is another, both being cited as alternatives. I am arguing to include both, such that all weapons capable of being used in "irregular combat" can be classed as melee weapons, whereas you and Talonz are both arguing for a rather more restricted version based solely on one bit you like. If we're going to play dictionary definitions, the *whole* definition is rather important. And that includes irregular combat and skirmish, in addition to your more limited desire for it to only be mixed combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: >In message <20020220093439...@mb-cm.news.cs.com>, Nystulc ><nys...@cs.com> writes: >>>The OED doesn't agree with you on that one. >> >>Yes, it does, as per the definitions you provided. If you don't believe the >>OED I can quote other dictionaries saying the same thing. >> >>You also need to pay attention to punctuation. > >I do know how to use the OED, thanks very much. It's not like I don't >consult in at least a dozen times most weeks. Sure. Okay. No problem. >>When phrases are separated by >>semicolons or (especially) commas, they are not intended to be interpreted >as >>complete and sufficient thoughts unto themselves, but must be interpreted in >>relation to whatever is on the other side of the semicolon or comma. > >Certainly. And we have the first part being "or" - an irregular or >mixed combat. > >Nothing about "irregular combat" (one of the alternatives) necessitates >things being close range. If you're going to use "or irregular" as a loophole for deciding that "melee" can include sniper attacks exchanged between opposing forces, then you have stretched the far beyond appropriate usage. If the OED has allowed you to reach this conclusion simply by saying "or irregular", then it has erred through imprecision. Ranged combat is not melee in any sort of normal usage.. Websters New International is more precise. 1. A fight between combatants mingled in a confused mass; a skirmish; an affray; a fray.: Oddly enough, the OED is more precise in defining the term under its alternate spelling "mellay", (which is nothing more than an anglicized spelling of the French pronunciation of "melee"). "an engagement in which the two parties or combatants are mixed together in a close hand-to-hand fight." I will allow that loose usage will allow the term to be stretched to refer to virtually any sort of combat, and that dictionaries will acknowledge such loose usage to some extent. However, if we allow this, the expression "melee weapon" becomes totally useless as a phrase intented to distinguish some kinds of weapons from others. You might as well just call them "weapons". If we allow for those extra two sylables to have any meaning at all as a defining adjective, then we cannot include bows or fire-arms - or else we must invent a definition with no dictionary support whatsoever. (BTW -- strictly as an aside and not a point in any argument -- the phrase "melee weapon" has been familiar to the gaming community since at least 1979, when Gary Gygax introduced the Dungeons and Dragons rules, where he used it to distinguish ranged from non-ranged fighting weapons. If one wished to be more precise, one might also exclude pole-arms, but Gygax includes them.) >>Your >>dictionary did not define melee as "1. A mixed combat. 2. A skirmish" but >>rather as (paraphrase) "A mixed combat, a skirmish." > >No, it didn't. You have decided to ignore other terms it used in favour >of the ones you like. > >So, it can be an irregular combat, a skirmish OR a mixed combat, a >skirmish. > >That's what "or" means. Do you see? Yeah, sure. If you like.. >>>And since Talonz is playing >>>dictionary definitions here, I feel that the OED is a rather good one to >>>consult. None of the OED definition *requires* combat with two people >>>(or more) standing next to one another, since melee is *defined* as >>>skirmish. >> >>My dictionay defines a melee as an affray; > >Hint: this is why we use card text, not dictionary definitions. Right. I am in total agreement with this, as my previous post made abundantly clear. >>If the primary definition does not support your argument, it does not make >>sense to migrate to definitions of synonyms. > >"Irregular combat" is one of the primary definitions. "Mixed combat" is >another, both being cited as alternatives. > >I am arguing to include both, such that all weapons capable of being >used in "irregular combat" can be classed as melee weapons, whereas you >and Talonz are both arguing for a rather more restricted version based >solely on one bit you like. <shrug> Whatever you like. I cannot prevent you from using the term "melee" loosely if you choose to do so. Others have, I'm sure. >If we're going to play dictionary definitions, the *whole* definition is >rather important. And that includes irregular combat and skirmish, in >addition to your more limited desire for it to only be mixed combat. Except that this deprives the expression "melee weapon" of any conceivable usefulness, since virtually any weapon will qualify. Therefore, I choose to cling to my "limited desire" and you can have your definition, for whatever use you may find for it. -- John Whelan

In message <20020220133257...@mb-bd.news.cs.com>, Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> writes: >>Nothing about "irregular combat" (one of the alternatives) necessitates >>things being close range. > >If you're going to use "or irregular" as a loophole for deciding that "melee" >can include sniper attacks exchanged between opposing forces, then you have >stretched the far beyond appropriate usage. If the OED has allowed you to >reach this conclusion simply by saying "or irregular", then it has erred >through imprecision. The OED is rarely imprecise on these matters. If you would care to correct their usage, I am sure they would appreciate a letter. However, since we are playing dictionary definitions, the OED one is perfectly valid. And it clearly intends to have the word "irregular" there, or else it wouldn't have it. So it seems entirely appropriate to assume that this can refer to "irregular combat" just as much as "mixed combat" because, err, that's what it says. We now have a conflicting definition for Talonz to deal with. So he can fall back onto dictionary definitions, rather than card text, and he can explain why he's now being so restrictive as to not allow all the melee weapons to be melee weapons. (i.e. all of them) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 20 Feb 2002 08:43:52 GMT, Nystulc wrote: >I don't mean to take your opponent's side in this debate. Chainsaws are not >really suitable for melee combat nor for any sort of combat - except perhaps >against extremely stupid and slow-moving zombies. I don't have an original Chainsaw as I have very few Jyhad cards. But I like the art on the Gas-Powered version which shows a sensible use of the weapon - to decapitate the opposing minion while he is being pinned. Chainsaws are not used for real world combat because serious melee combat became unusual over a century ago. All you get now is some token bayonet drill and non-lethal police weapons like batons. (Note btw that a bayonet makes a rifle into a dual-purpose melee/ranged weapon). I suppose saw-like weapons weren't too popular in olden days because they wouldn't be effective against armour and the teeth require a lot of work to manufacture and sharpen. Anyway, we're not in the real world here. Rather than dictionaries, you guys should be consulting the WW canon. Do chainsaws appear in any of the VtM supplements? Andrew

James Coupe wrote: >The OED is rarely imprecise on these matters. If you would care to >correct their usage, I am sure they would appreciate a letter. Fine. In that case you are welcome to respond to the rest of my post, which stands on its own regardless of whether the infallible OED can be considered to have erred or not. I don't really think they did err. Complete precision is virtually impossible, and anyway the definition is adequate to tell you what you what "melee" must mean when used in the context of "melee weapon" -- provided, of course, that you assume the term provides any additional meaning at all. And, of course, words tend to be used usely, and dictionaries tend to acknowledge this (as they should), as my previous post already stated. >However, since we are playing dictionary definitions, the OED one is >perfectly valid. And it clearly intends to have the word "irregular" >there, or else it wouldn't have it. So it seems entirely appropriate to >assume that this can refer to "irregular combat" just as much as "mixed >combat" because, err, that's what it says. Of course "irregular" is supposed to be there. All melees are "irregular" because they are not in formation. But "irregular combat" is not, by itself, a sufficient definition, because (as you point out) some irregular fighting can be at long range. Perhaps the lexicographer failed to consider this when he chose his words, or perhaps he just assumed the reader would consider all his words, rather than taking one in isolation and stretching it as far as he could.. If you use the term very loosely, then the phrase "melee weapon" is meaningless. Since it is pointless to use meaningless expressions, context here indcates the term is not being used loosely. In any event, I think you will have trouble coming up with an instance of a bow, or any ranged weapon, being used in a "melee" in actual usage. But then again, you might succeed, because words are often used loosely, or even "incorrectly". >We now have a conflicting definition for Talonz to deal with. So he can >fall back onto dictionary definitions, rather than card text, and he can >explain why he's now being so restrictive as to not allow all the melee >weapons to be melee weapons. (i.e. all of them) "Melee weapon" does not, and need not, have a definition defined for it in the context of the game, beyond the many meanings granted it by individual instances of card text. I have agreed with this, and therefore opposed the position of Talonz. You, however, have gone beyond this. Your arguments have led towards the position that "melee weapon" has no meaning outside the game either, and can include virtually any weapon. That is where we disagree. "Melee Weapon" at the very least, excludes ranged weaponry. If you want to be more picky, you could also exclude Pikes, Lances, and Chainsaws, since all of these are far too clumsy to be handy in a chaotic melee situation. By strange coincidence, no ranged weapons are classified as "melee weapons" in V:tES. Some short-range weapons are excluded as appropriate.

In message <20020220152238...@mb-fa.news.cs.com>, Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> writes: >>We now have a conflicting definition for Talonz to deal with. So he can >>fall back onto dictionary definitions, rather than card text, and he can >>explain why he's now being so restrictive as to not allow all the melee >>weapons to be melee weapons. (i.e. all of them) > >"Melee weapon" does not, and need not, have a definition defined for it in the >context of the game, beyond the many meanings granted it by individual >instances of card text. I have agreed with this, and therefore opposed the >position of Talonz. > >You, however, have gone beyond this. Your arguments have led towards the >position that "melee weapon" has no meaning outside the game either, and can >include virtually any weapon. That is where we disagree. The argument made was that a dictionary definition over-rode card text. Since a dictionary definition can also refer to "irregular combat", it can refer to potentially all weapons in the game. The point being made is that relying on dictionary definitions of such terms is unhelpful in the extreme - precisely because of this sort of argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: >The argument made was that a dictionary definition over-rode card text. >Since a dictionary definition can also refer to "irregular combat", it >can refer to potentially all weapons in the game. I still think that's abuse of the term, but whatever. If you are merely saying this is no worse than Talonz's abuse, then I won't argue. >The point being made is that relying on dictionary definitions of such >terms is unhelpful in the extreme - precisely because of this sort of >argument. Ok. Fair enough. -- John Whelan

"Nystulc" <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:20020220152238...@mb-fa.news.cs.com... > James Coupe wrote: > > "Melee Weapon" at the very least, excludes ranged weaponry. If you want to be > more picky, you could also exclude Pikes, Lances, and Chainsaws, since all of > these are far too clumsy to be handy in a chaotic melee situation. > "Melee Weapon" need not exclude thrown weapons (which are ranged). For one thing, such weapons can often be used for another purpose (even daggers specifically designed to be thrown can still be used to stab, with varying degrees of effectiveness). But also the short range of throwing, combined with their relative accuracy (which falls off quickly with range) can allow them to be used in a melee, even when thrown. Granted, the term really should (and generally does) exclude all weapons which are used exclusively with propelled projectiles. A shotgun could presumably be used as a club, which is a melee weapon, but provisions for this are not given in the game. A dagger, on the other hand, is a melee weapon which can occasionally be used to inflict ranged damage.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:40:39 GMT, Chris Berger wrote: >Granted, the term really should (and generally does) exclude all weapons >which are used exclusively with propelled projectiles. A shotgun could >presumably be used as a club, which is a melee weapon, but provisions for >this are not given in the game. A dagger, on the other hand, is a melee >weapon which can occasionally be used to inflict ranged damage. Throwing your dagger away is a movie fantasy - not something you want to do in a real fight. Likewise, short-barrelled guns like pistols and sawn-off shotguns are melee weapons - best used at point-blank range. Real western gunfighters often used their pistols by pushing the muzzle against the target's body before firing - because there's a good chance they'd miss at any greater distance. The VtM rules define this stuff by range though. Unarmed combat is touching distance - within one meter. Melee is 1-2 meters. Ranged combat depends upon the effective range of the weapon, e.g. up to 70 yards for a .44 magnum (optimistic, IMO). There are three corresponding talents and skills: Brawl - Boxing, Wrestling, Dirty Fighting, Karate, Judo, etc Melee - Knives, Swords, Improvised Clubs, Stakes, Disarms?, Axes Firearms - Pistols, Sniping, Revolvers, Shotguns, etc In particular, "Melee covers your ability to use hand-to-hand weapons of all forms, from swords and clubs to esoteric martial-arts paraphernalia such as sai or nunchaku." It seems no great stretch for this to cover a chainsaw too though you should perhaps ought to have a couple of dots in "Crafts" so that you know how to operate one. VTES doesn't cover these skills, talents and knowledges though. These might make interesting cards along the lines of the discipline masters. They might give cost discounts (e.g. your laptop is free if you have computer skill) or improve the effectiveness of relevant types of equipment (e.g. +2 intercept for a sports bike if you have Drive skill). Andrew

In message <E1235AC6A29614EF.8BC3ACE4...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >VTES doesn't cover these skills, talents and knowledges though. These >might make interesting cards along the lines of the discipline >masters. In some ways, the Art of Pain and Depravity can be considered to represent these sorts of things. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > Anyway, we're not in the real world here. Rather than dictionaries, > you guys should be consulting the WW canon. Do chainsaws appear in > any of the VtM supplements? FWIW: The VtM rules give this for Melee: "Melee involves hand-held weapons, from broken bottles to swords." The rules also cover only two types of combat: close combat (brawl for unarmed and melee for armed) and ranged combat. [VtM3 207] Chainsaw is listed under "power tools" (a specific tecnique employed for using them in combat) under "hand-to-hand" weapons in "Word of Darkness: Combat", p. 101. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger >"Melee Weapon" need not exclude thrown weapons (which are ranged). Any ranged usage is not ideal for melee because of the fear of hitting one's own troops. Weapons designed primarily for throwing, like Javelins, are generally released *before* the opposing forces become enmeshed, at which points other weapons are relied upon. >For one >thing, such weapons can often be used for another purpose (even daggers >specifically designed to be thrown can still be used to stab, with varying >degrees of effectiveness). Imagine you have two daggers. The one that you intend to throw at the enemy, before he gets to you, is not a melee weapon, because that is not its purpose. The one that you intend to hold on to , so you have something to fight with in case your enemy gets close (a really good idea) *is* a melee weapon. >But also the short range of throwing, combined >with their relative accuracy (which falls off quickly with range) can allow >them to be used in a melee, even when thrown. Virtually anything *can* be used in a melee. This is typically not done with ranged weapons for fear of hitting ones own men. Therefore such should not be considered melee weapons. >Granted, the term really should (and generally does) exclude all weapons >which are used exclusively with propelled projectiles. Right (though, of course, these *can* be used in a melee). >A shotgun could >presumably be used as a club, which is a melee weapon, but provisions for >this are not given in the game. That is not its primary function. Virtually anything can be used in a melee, but if one designates all weapons as melee weapons, the category loses useful meaning. >A dagger, on the other hand, is a melee >weapon which can occasionally be used to inflict ranged damage. If inflicting ranged damage is its purpose, it is not a melee weapon. If hand-to-hand fighting is its purpose, then it *is* a melee weapon. Sure, maybe it *can* be thrown, but if you need your dagger for hand-to-hand fighting, then it is a *really* bad idea to throw it away. Warriors often carry two (or more) weapons - one (or more) for throwing at enemy before closing, plus one (or perhaps two) for fighting hand to hand. "Melee weapons" are the ones you don't throw away. Extending the term to all his weapons deprives the distinction of significance.

Andrew wrote: >Throwing your dagger away is a movie fantasy - not something you want >to do in a real fight. It is stupid, of course, to throw away a weapon you are going to need for hand-fighting. However, if you have a hand weapon, plus extra daggers designed and intended for throwing, it makes sense to throw them before the range gets close. >Likewise, short-barrelled guns like pistols >and sawn-off shotguns are melee weapons - best used at point-blank >range. Point blank range doesn't necessarily imply melee. Nonetheless, modern firearms are such devastatingly efficient weapons that they continue to be used at close quarters, in spite of the danger to one's own side. Still, these are not melee weapons. Even a short-range fire-arm has longer range than a javelin or throwing spear (which are not melee weapons either). The general idea is to kill your opponent before he gets close. They are not intended primarily or exclusively for melee situations. >Real western gunfighters often used their pistols by pushing >the muzzle against the target's body before firing - because there's a >good chance they'd miss at any greater distance. I doubt they did this that often. I imagine this might be done in a melee situation, because of the fear of hitting one's own. But we must use common sense. Obviously if one's enemy has a gun as well (or even a hatchet) one is not going to wait till he gets close enough to push your gun against him. If he is unarmed or unsuspecting, you can do as you choose, but this is not combat, much less melee. > In particular, "Melee covers your ability to use hand-to-hand weapons > of all forms, from swords and clubs to esoteric martial-arts > paraphernalia such as sai or nunchaku." Appropriate. >It seems no great stretch for >this to cover a chainsaw too No. No great stretch. The real stretch involves classifying it as a weapon at all. >though you should perhaps ought to have a >couple of dots in "Crafts" so that you know how to operate one. Skill with weapons would seem minimally relevant to something like a Chainsaw. I cannot imagine that any fighting skills training will include courses of chainsaw use. So perhaps the "Melee skill" might be minimally relevant to chainsaws. I don't know if the V:tM rules reflect this to any extent. >VTES doesn't cover these skills, talents and knowledges though. Sure it does. Wendell Delburton gets +2 damage with Melee Weapons, corresponding to a high score in the V:tM "Melee" ability. He can use his martial training with all forms of hand weapons, including GPC, but excluding Chainsaw and TC. Whether it is appropriate for his martial training to grant martial benefits with power tools is debatable. Take your pick.

In message <20020221123422...@mb-fa.news.cs.com>, Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> writes: >>"Melee Weapon" need not exclude thrown weapons (which are ranged). > >Any ranged usage is not ideal for melee because of the fear of hitting one's >own troops. Weapons designed primarily for throwing, like Javelins, are >generally released *before* the opposing forces become enmeshed, at which >points other weapons are relied upon. The significant difference, of course, in a one-on-one situation - as the vast majority of combats usually are - is that if you throw or fire something later, it'll still hit and won't (Up Yours! etc. excepted) hit you. We know that, in V:TES, you can fire a bow at close range - that's what card text and the rules allow for. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:38:46 GMT, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >In message <3c7bb695.229597449@news>, >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com mumbled something about: > >>On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:25:01 GMT, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>When will you get it through your thick, imbecilic head that errata >>>based on >> >>When will you get it through yours that as long as you display such >>amazingly poor manners and attitude that no one will bother to read >>what you are saying? > >Hey, guess what -- you're wrong about that, too. *Shrug* So I can't speak for everyone's taste. Odds are I am not alone in declining to read your trash. > >Maybe you're too stupid to understand the points given, Ah, no. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 01:05:13 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >It's not a melee weapon. Clue: it doesn't have that neat little card >text thing. > More accurately; It has not been given the melee weapon designator on the card. Oh wait, you werent trying to be helpful, just sarcastic. Brilliantly done. T

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:48:03 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In your search for "consistency", you will need to start campaigning >about: > >Powerbase: Berlin - no other Powerbase has the continuing requirement > for a clan But they are all powerbases. >High Stakes - no other political action card requires a clan Justicar. >Patronage - no other transient card costs pool (that I can think of) The 'transient card' issue is another animal entirely. But for the sake of argument, it as a clan only card that has the proper clan symbol designation on the side of the card. Had it not, then it would be inconsistent. >Bomb - no other weapon provides an action also >Herald of Topheth - no other ally has this form of upkeep cost >Elemental Stoicism - no other dual-discipline card has a 'mixed' level > requirement > Rather than point out any further errors here, why not just point to the obvious; I am not arguing that every card be the same, which is a far cry from being consistent. There is a big difference, and your argument here is silly and unconstructive. T

In message <3c7a7f19.107721101@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>It's not a melee weapon. Clue: it doesn't have that neat little card >>text thing. >> > >More accurately; It has not been given the melee weapon designator on >the card. So it's not a melee weapon. Just like Ivory Bow isn't a melee weapon. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c7b7fca.107897982@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>Powerbase: Berlin - no other Powerbase has the continuing requirement >> for a clan > >But they are all powerbases. But it's inconsistent! >>High Stakes - no other political action card requires a clan > >Justicar. I suggest learning to read card text. Justicar votes do not require a clan. If you have problems with simple cards like this, this may explain many of your problems. >>Patronage - no other transient card costs pool (that I can think of) > >The 'transient card' issue is another animal entirely. No it's not, it's consistency! This isn't consistent. >I am not arguing that every card be the same, which is a far cry from >being consistent. But you want cards to be consistent. Chainsaw is perfectly consistent. It matches with every other weapon that the designers didn't want being melee weapons. That *you* want it to be a melee weapon is something else entirely. [ quoted text not captured ]

<Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c797eab.107610647@news... > On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:38:46 GMT, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > *Shrug* So I can't speak for everyone's taste. Odds are I am not > alone in declining to read your trash. Are you really though? Are you really? I mean, you're obviously reading his "trash" if you're responding coherently... Xian didn't he son? now didn't he?

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:40:48 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: >> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:10:24 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: >> >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 05:53:28 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> >> >> >Right. Chainsaw isn't a weapon that does damage based on strength. >> >> >> >> Irrelevant LSJ. You should really stop throwing this definition that >> >> doesnt exist around as it doesnt help. >> > >> >Exactly the point. It parallels your non-existent "definition", and >> >is equally as useful. >> > >> >> Melee weapons are already defined. Check your dictionary. Without an >> opposing definition within the game the standard english definition >> should apply. > >You've brought up this point and been corrected on it before. >Melee: a confused struggle, esp. a hand-to-hand fight among several people. > >That doesn't have any application here, so isn't used. > Ah but it does. Melee directly refers to hand to hand fighting, and as Jyhad deals with combat involving more than 1 person, it directly applies Now please show me where in that definition that weaponry used in melee must be based on the wielder's strength. More importantly, try this little exercise seeing as you still refute the obvious; Do a Google search for exact phrase 'melee weapon' and 'strength based weapon'. The former gets 10,800 results. The latter gets 3. THREE. It should be very clear that melee weapon at the very least colloquially refers to weapons used in hand to hand combat. You can use 'strength weapon' and get 410, but that isn't even a term that makes sense by itself, and you'll note shows up not as a term but usually separated by a comma or context etc. in the results shown. T

On 20 Feb 2002 08:43:52 GMT, nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote: >I don't mean to take your opponent's side in this debate. Chainsaws are not >really suitable for melee combat nor for any sort of combat - except perhaps >against extremely stupid and slow-moving zombies. As far as I am concerned, >the rules/design teams can classify them any way they choose. Indeed, I agree >with LSJ that it would be thematically best if all chainsaws were simply >"weapons". This is not based on the proper definition of "melee", but rather >because I consider it thematically appropriate that chainsaws not benefit from >the bonuses currently granted to "melee weapons" by other cards. It is >entirely appropriate that it be far less flexible, by having fewer additional >options, than a bastard sword. Sounds good to me. The problem is that several other cards exist that use or react ot melee weapons already, and several non-strength based weapons that are melee weapons already exist. Why should the Werewolf pack be vulnerable to a C and TC but not a GPC for example? Why should a !Salubri be able to untap after equpping with a garrotte but not a Csaw? And so on and so on. Within the informally understood definition of melee weapon, they should be. If we are to now discuss thematics, I would concur with you. But that impacts other cards even more so than the simpler C/TC conversion imo. T

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:09:04 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <20020220034352...@mb-bd.news.cs.com>, Nystulc ><nys...@cs.com> writes: >>I realize you are just being sarcastic, but in defense of the English language >>and logic, I feel compelled to point out that, while one may fire a bow during >>a skirmish, one is very unlikely to fire it in a melee. This is because the >>term "melee" strongly implies mixed combat. > >The OED doesn't agree with you on that one. And since Talonz is playing >dictionary definitions here, I feel that the OED is a rather good one to >consult. None of the OED definition *requires* combat with two people >(or more) standing next to one another, since melee is *defined* as >skirmish. > I used my Websters Dictionary for simplicity and immediacy. I also draw on my readings of military history and accounts, which is harder to qualify without digging through my library, and even harder for the reader to follow up on as opposed to the simple dictionary. Melee and Skirmish do differ from each other in scale and range, and anyone familiar with accounts of one or the other can confirm that. I will subscribe to OED now because I would like to see for myself exaclty what it says there though. T

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:50:12 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >We now have a conflicting definition for Talonz to deal with. So he can >fall back onto dictionary definitions, rather than card text, and he can >explain why he's now being so restrictive as to not allow all the melee >weapons to be melee weapons. (i.e. all of them) Because james, although a bow could certainly be used in melee combat (At close range) it can also be used at range, outside of the melee, where what is typically a mellee weapon ONLY cannot. Simple really. T

In message <3c7d87e9.109977552@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >Why should the Werewolf pack be vulnerable to a C and TC but not a GPC >for example? Card text. >Why should a !Salubri be able to untap after equpping with a garrotte >but not a Csaw? Card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:17:43 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: >> Anyway, we're not in the real world here. Rather than dictionaries, >> you guys should be consulting the WW canon. Do chainsaws appear in >> any of the VtM supplements? > >FWIW: > >The VtM rules give this for Melee: "Melee involves hand-held >weapons, from broken bottles to swords." The rules also >cover only two types of combat: close combat (brawl for >unarmed and melee for armed) and ranged combat. [VtM3 207] > >Chainsaw is listed under "power tools" (a specific tecnique employed >for using them in combat) under "hand-to-hand" weapons in >"Word of Darkness: Combat", p. 101. > Ah. Interesting, that. T

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:50:35 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c79b4b5.229116764@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com >writes: >>Melee weapons are already defined. Check your dictionary. Without an >>opposing definition within the game the standard english definition >>should apply. > >There is an opposing definition in the game. It's called card text. > That is not a defintion. That is a designator. <much useless sarcasm snipped> T

In message <3c7e892c.110300673@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >I used my Websters Dictionary for simplicity and immediacy. I use card text. I find it aids playing a card game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c818c97.111175663@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>>Melee weapons are already defined. Check your dictionary. Without an >>>opposing definition within the game the standard english definition >>>should apply. >> >>There is an opposing definition in the game. It's called card text. >> > >That is not a defintion. That is a designator. It defines what is and is not a melee weapon. HTH HAND [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:23:45 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c818c97.111175663@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com >writes: >>>>Melee weapons are already defined. Check your dictionary. Without an >>>>opposing definition within the game the standard english definition >>>>should apply. >>> >>>There is an opposing definition in the game. It's called card text. >>> >> >>That is not a defintion. That is a designator. > >It defines what is and is not a melee weapon. > >HTH HAND > It doesn't define anything....it designates. T

In message <3c793602.285324076@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>It defines what is and is not a melee weapon. >> >>HTH HAND >> > >It doesn't define anything....it designates. Sure, you can play pointless unhelpful games if you want. In context, if it says "Melee Weapon" on it, it's a melee weapon. If it doesn't, it isn't. Ergo, all melee weapons in the game are melee weapons. There are no melee weapons which aren't melee weapons - that would simply be a contradiction in terms. (Like the basic definition of what constitutes hand damage.) Ergo, your points about some melee weapons not being melee weapons is irrelevant - because they're not melee weapons, by design and by card text. Your rampant, over-whelming, soul-consuming desire for them to be melee weapons is not, has never been and will never be sufficient for errata to be issued. That's done when there's an actual need. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 01:30:30 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c793602.285324076@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com >writes: >>>It defines what is and is not a melee weapon. >>> >>>HTH HAND >>> >> >>It doesn't define anything....it designates. > >Sure, you can play pointless unhelpful games if you want. Umm no. I am correcting your use of the term definition, which was not applicable in the case you gave. > >In context, if it says "Melee Weapon" on it, it's a melee weapon. If it >doesn't, it isn't. > Redundant. Now this is unhelpful. >Ergo, all melee weapons in the game are melee weapons. There are no >melee weapons which aren't melee weapons - Unless the card text were incorrect. We've covered this. > >Ergo, your points about some melee weapons not being melee weapons is >irrelevant - because they're not melee weapons, by design and by card >text. > Very relevant, if the card text is correctly determined to be incorrect. >Your rampant, over-whelming, soul-consuming desire for them to be melee >weapons is not, has never been and will never be sufficient for errata >to be issued. That's done when there's an actual need. > Heard you the first time, about 20 posts ago. Nice wordplay, not that it means anything. If cardtext is incorrect it should be corrected. You can disagree all you want but really, this endless rant of 'cardtext cardtext!' serves nothing. End of story. PS Nice dodge of all my posts on what mellee and skirmish is/isn't, and how non-melee weapons can easily be used in melee in the right situation. T

In message <3c7a3439.350412859@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>In context, if it says "Melee Weapon" on it, it's a melee weapon. If it >>doesn't, it isn't. >> > >Redundant. Now this is unhelpful. This is *card text*. >>Ergo, all melee weapons in the game are melee weapons. There are no >>melee weapons which aren't melee weapons - > >Unless the card text were incorrect. We've covered this. A number of mis-prints were fixed in V:TES - e.g. Thaumaturgy/Fortitude symbol problems. There is no evidence that you have brought forward that even vaguely suggests it was a mistake, other than your own vague ramblings. >>Ergo, your points about some melee weapons not being melee weapons is >>irrelevant - because they're not melee weapons, by design and by card >>text. >> > >Very relevant, if the card text is correctly determined to be >incorrect. Talbot's Chainsaw was printed in V:TES as a weapon. It was reprinted from Jyhad where it had also been a weapon. This is not a sign that the card text is incorrect, based on play- testing, designer intent or card text. That you would have designed it as a melee weapon is a separate issue. >>Your rampant, over-whelming, soul-consuming desire for them to be melee >>weapons is not, has never been and will never be sufficient for errata >>to be issued. That's done when there's an actual need. >> > > >Heard you the first time, about 20 posts ago. Nice wordplay, not that >it means anything. What, the idea that cards are errata-ed when there's a need means nothing to you? In that case, I suggest just quitting whilst you're so far behind we can't even see you. >If cardtext is incorrect it should be corrected. You have shown no evidence that card text is incorrect. You have done nothing other than talk and talk and talk and show no evidence that the card was not designed, intended, tested, balanced, costed as a non-melee weapon, with any game related criteria at all. (For instance, we do know that Concealed Weapon was a mis-print. We do know that Blood (Rage? Fury?) was a misprint.) >PS Nice dodge of all my posts on what mellee and skirmish is/isn't, >and how non-melee weapons can easily be used in melee in the right >situation. I just provided another dictionary definition, to combat yours. If we're playing dictionary definitions, there's no need to argue - the definitions already do that and suggest that melee is "irregular combat, skirmish" as well as an alternative suggestion. There's no need for me to back this up - the OED has already done it for me with years of research. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:09:32 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c7a3439.350412859@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com >writes: > >This is *card text*. Yes I've heard this argument ad infinitum ad nauseum. It's also an argument that uses circular logic 'card text tells you what it does therefore that is what it must do' and therefore redundant. > >There is no evidence that you have brought forward that even vaguely >suggests it was a mistake, other than your own vague ramblings. > Nothing vague about it at all, assuming one can understand the difference between weapons (a tool used to harm opponents in combat) as opposed to melee weapons (a tool used to harm opponents in hand to hand combat only). > >>PS Nice dodge of all my posts on what mellee and skirmish is/isn't, >>and how non-melee weapons can easily be used in melee in the right >>situation. > >I just provided another dictionary definition, to combat yours. If >we're playing dictionary definitions, there's no need to argue - the >definitions already do that and suggest that melee is "irregular combat, >skirmish" as well as an alternative suggestion. > >There's no need for me to back this up - the OED has already done it for >me with years of research. > And as I said, I used a dictionary as the simplest base to start with. Then as the discussion grew I backed up with web research and my own knowledge of military history and weapons use. If you think the OED backs you up on this you are mistaken. Melee and Skirmish ar related, but disimiliar in both scope and range. A bow for example is an excellent skirmish weapon, but a poor melee weapon. Care to guess why? IOW James, do some thinking for your own for once, and step out of this 'cardtext' box of yours. T

In message <3c7d42db.52463341@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >And as I said, I used a dictionary as the simplest base to start with. >Then as the discussion grew I backed up with web research and my own >knowledge of military history and weapons use. If you think the OED >backs you up on this you are mistaken. Melee and Skirmish ar related, >but disimiliar in both scope and range. A bow for example is an >excellent skirmish weapon, but a poor melee weapon. Care to guess >why? The OED backs me up entirely on this, noting skirmish as a form of melee and also noting that melee refers to "irregular combat". If you would care to correct the OED on this, you can mail them. However, what it says is what it says. And if we're playing dictionary contests, rather than designer intent, play balance, card text, play- testing, card costings, variations of themes, diversity and all the useful Jyhad stuff, I think I'll take what the OED says "irregular combat", "skirmish" as being part of the definition for "melee" over your half-baked nonsense. [ quoted text not captured ]

>IOW James, do some thinking for your own for once, and step out of >this 'cardtext' box of yours. I actually think the "cardtext" angle is a very important one. In fact, it'll be even more important when players of the RPG ask "why isn't it like this?" or "this should work this way." Jyhad/VTES isn't trying to be perfectly realistic or to perfectly adapt the RPG. As a result, often times things are done differently because of play balance issues or just cause ("cardtext"). Remember, the game would (relatively) be the same if it was about dog poo... Halcyan 2

In message <20020227181455...@mb-cu.aol.com>, Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> writes: >>IOW James, do some thinking for your own for once, and step out of >>this 'cardtext' box of yours. > >I actually think the "cardtext" angle is a very important one. In fact, it'll >be even more important when players of the RPG ask "why isn't it like this?" or >"this should work this way." And the thinking that's going on which Talonz's mindless drooling can't cope with is "Why does this need to be changed?" Real-life concerns have never been a valid reason for change. In game considerations have. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Remember, the game would (relatively) be the same if it was about dog poo... > > Halcyan 2 I've always said that this game would be just as good if it were about the Muppets. "Snuffalupagus gets +1 stealth on each of his actions..."

Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:09:32 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > wrote: > > >In message <3c7a3439.350412859@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com > >writes: > > > >This is *card text*. > > Yes I've heard this argument ad infinitum ad nauseum. It's also an > argument that uses circular logic 'card text tells you what it does > therefore that is what it must do' and therefore redundant. > Card Text. Learn to love it. You simply cannot play with out it. So if you don't like the card text, well tough, thats the nature of the game. Perhaps you should go back to playing 'go fish', 'Old Maid' or 52 card pick up. Raille

On 27 Feb 2002 23:14:55 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote: >I actually think the "cardtext" angle is a very important one. Me too. Not because the game is or should be about dog-poo but because it's a basic principle of CCGs - if you want to know what a card does, you just read it. Thr trouble is that VTES abandoned this principle a long time ago. At Cambridge, my Tremere predator was saying something about one of his minions - that her disciplines were not as printed for some reason and that he'd only discovered this himself at the Watford event. When things have got to this state, you can't rely on what a card says any more - you have to use general common sense to decide whether what a card says is sensible and, if not, to look it up in a compendium of errata. It's not common sense that one chainsaw should be a melee weapon while another one is not. Given that the latest thinking is that they should be melee weapons, it would make sense to give Talbot's Chainsaw the same designator in the next Camarilla set if it is reprinted there. Then at least the WW versions of the cards would be consistent. The original Chainsaw should just be forgotten about as it was superseded by the Gas-Powered version - it's like the Stake/Wooden Stake. >Jyhad/VTES isn't trying to be perfectly realistic or to perfectly >adapt the RPG. Granted. But it isn't trying to deliberately deviate from them either. The CCG is based on the RPG which is based on the real world plus vampire mythology. The Platonic ideal towards which VTES is striving is not just an abstract card game - it's a card game about vampires and the theme is fundamental. Andrew

In message <72AB31026323F501.E183DCEC...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >Me too. Not because the game is or should be about dog-poo but >because it's a basic principle of CCGs - if you want to know what a >card does, you just read it. > >Thr trouble is that VTES abandoned this principle a long time ago. At >Cambridge, my Tremere predator was saying something about one of his >minions - that her disciplines were not as printed for some reason and >that he'd only discovered this himself at the Watford event. Errata is often issued where necessary (e.g. misprints, broken cards etc.) The argument at hand is about issuing errata where no in-game concern makes it necessary, but where some people might find it thematically "nice". [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:24:50 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c7d42db.52463341@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>And as I said, I used a dictionary as the simplest base to start with. >>Then as the discussion grew I backed up with web research and my own >>knowledge of military history and weapons use. If you think the OED >>backs you up on this you are mistaken. Melee and Skirmish ar related, >>but disimiliar in both scope and range. A bow for example is an >>excellent skirmish weapon, but a poor melee weapon. Care to guess >>why? > >The OED backs me up entirely on this, noting skirmish as a form of melee >and also noting that melee refers to "irregular combat". > >If you would care to correct the OED on this, you can mail them. >However, what it says is what it says. And if we're playing dictionary >contests, rather than designer intent, play balance, card text, play- >testing, card costings, variations of themes, diversity and all the >useful Jyhad stuff, I think I'll take what the OED says "irregular >combat", "skirmish" as being part of the definition for "melee" over >your half-baked nonsense. > At a guess, I'd say you're taking the OED definition out of context, because melee and skirmish are not the same thing, period. I would verify this myself but the OED hasn't responded to my request for membership. Seeing as you apparently like to stick to 'what it says is what it says' both in reference to the card and the OED, I see no further purpose in discussion as long as you are so narrow minded. T

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:14:16 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >It's not common sense that one chainsaw should be a melee weapon while >another one is not. Given that the latest thinking is that they >should be melee weapons, it would make sense to give Talbot's Chainsaw >the same designator in the next Camarilla set if it is reprinted >there. Then at least the WW versions of the cards would be >consistent. Thank god, someone else with common sense on this board! It's no wonder we are both ostracized here Andrew, as the yes men and those unable to think outside the box are numerous. T

On 27 Feb 2002 23:14:55 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: >>IOW James, do some thinking for your own for once, and step out of >>this 'cardtext' box of yours. > > >I actually think the "cardtext" angle is a very important one. Granted. It is in fact integral to this whole issue. But should we constrain ourselves to merely what the cardtext does and just blithely accept every card to come along? I don't think so. In fact I know we don't. Whether it is a gamebreaking cardtext or not, if its incorrect or incongruent it should be fixed. >Remember, the game would (relatively) be the same if it was about dog poo... > Except then the game would no longer be about vampires. Thus the mechanics maybe the same but the game won't be. T

In message <3c81d63f.220883129@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >At a guess, I'd say you're taking the OED definition out of context, >because melee and skirmish are not the same thing, period. You can consult the OED for yourself. It's how it's defined. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c82d71e.221105843@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >Thank god, someone else with common sense on this board! Invoking Andrew S. Davidson as a source of common-sense, giving his mindless, repetitive trolling, is probably unlikely to aid you. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c84d77b.221198719@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >Whether it is a gamebreaking cardtext or not, if its incorrect There is no evidence it's incorrect. > or >incongruent it should be fixed. Incongruencies aren't fixed by errata. (Unless there is pressing need to alter them.) Errata is only issued when *necessary* - when a card is obviously mis- printed (for which there is no evidence) or when a card *needs* to be changed. This is the stated position of the current Rules Team. If you want them to change that position, petition LSJ. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 19:36:04 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3c81d63f.220883129@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com >writes: >>At a guess, I'd say you're taking the OED definition out of context, >>because melee and skirmish are not the same thing, period. > >You can consult the OED for yourself. > >It's how it's defined. > I have, something illuminating for you; Mellay 2. Contention, fight, quarrel (\iObs.}); spec., an engagement in which the two parties or combatants are mised together in a close HAND TO HAND fight. Cf. MELEE. arch. T

In message <3c8866bd.582866634@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >>>At a guess, I'd say you're taking the OED definition out of context, >>>because melee and skirmish are not the same thing, period. >> >>You can consult the OED for yourself. >> >>It's how it's defined. > >I have, something illuminating for you; > >Mellay Good grief. I knew you were stupid, but I had hoped even you could tell the difference between "melee" (the word under discussion) and "mellay", which it notes as being obsolete and archaic in various forms. You can't cope with card text, and you can't even cope with using the words on the cards. No wonder you're having problems. Nice sign of goal-posts moving, by the way. Claim that the OED doesn't say something, get told to consult it. When you do consult it, decide to ignore that point (because you were inescapably wrong) and start on a new, and irrelevant, tangent instead. Hurrah for logical thinking! -- James Coupe Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks, PGP 0x5D623D5D And the rich folks hate the poor folks. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 All of my folks hate all of your folks, 13D7E668C3695D623D5D It's American as apple pie.

On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:47:46 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >Good grief. Indeed. > >I knew you were stupid, but I had hoped even you could tell the >difference between "melee" (the word under discussion) and "mellay", >which it notes as being obsolete and archaic in various forms. > Archaic because it is the original french word and root for melee, and thus absolutely applicable. You'll note that both citations (the most recent of which you neatly snipped out of your reply) for either form refer directly to each other. And in colloquial use at the very least, the original form of melee as hand to hand combat has clearly been revived in the use of melee weapon. >You can't cope with card text, and you can't even cope with using the >words on the cards. No wonder you're having problems. > Hardly. It would appear more that you can't control your own ego and admit a simple mistake. > >Hurrah for logical thinking! > Indeed. You illogically declare that as long as cardtext doesn't 'break' the game, it should be obeyed no matter how inconsistent it is. You decry my use of dictionary reference, and then use the same to attempt counter argument. You then use this reference of yours as an argument to falsely claim that skirmish and melee are one and the same when they are only related at best. And now you simple disregard the original root of the key word under discussion. Pointing out flaws in your logic does not make me 'stupid'. Quite the opposite in fact. You just refuse to acknowledge that. T

On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 06:50:06 GMT, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: >Archaic because it is the original french word and root for melee, and >thus absolutely applicable. My dictionary has the French verb mêlee (to mix) as the root. "Mellay" is listed as an alternate form of the same word and, to me, looks like an anglicised spelling, just as "chasé" was transformed into "sashay" and "saillie" into "sally". Andrew

James Coupe wrote: >Good grief. > >I knew you were stupid, but I had hoped even you could tell the >difference between "melee" (the word under discussion) and "mellay", >which it notes as being obsolete and archaic in various forms. What difference? I hope you mean the spelling. "Melee" and "Mellay" are the same word. They mean the same. They are pronounced the same. "Mellay" is an obsolete spelling. Melee is a French word which is pronounced "mellay." Modern usage favors the French spelling over an earlier English phoneticization. "Mellay" is still one of the accepted pronunciations of melee, though, for understandable reasons, it is often pronounced "m'lee" or "mee-lee" The OED, for some strange reason, classifies them separately, and provides different definitions (which pretty much amount to the same thing, except that the one for "mellay" is more informative). But this differentiation is not very defensible. Any modern user who wishes to exress the concept defined in "mellay" will use the modern spelling "melee". Likewise, any bad speller who writes "melee" phonetically will write "mellay". Miriam-Websters classification makes more sense. Their definition for "Mellay" is "= 1st MELEE, 1" which in turn is given as "a fight between combatants mingled in a confused mass; a skirmish; a fray; an affray" Why do you keep arguing with this guy and maneuvering yourself into indefensible positions? He is wrong to try to impose the dictionary on the game of Jyhad. But he is, for the most part, right about the meaning of the word "melee" and the phrase "melee weapon". Assuming it means anything at all, it means a non-ranged weapon for close-quarters hand-to-hand fighting. In the gaming field, at least, it has been used to mean that for at least 20 years. Challenging this will achieve nothing except the reduce the term to meaninglessness and uselessness (except for Jyhad game purposes, of course, where no definition is required). -- John Whelan

"Nystulc" <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:20020308042106...@mb-de.news.cs.com... > > Why do you keep arguing with this guy and maneuvering yourself into > indefensible positions? He is wrong to try to impose the dictionary on the > game of Jyhad. But he is, for the most part, right about the meaning of the > word "melee" and the phrase "melee weapon". Assuming it means anything at all, > it means a non-ranged weapon for close-quarters hand-to-hand fighting. In the > gaming field, at least, it has been used to mean that for at least 20 years. > Challenging this will achieve nothing except the reduce the term to > meaninglessness and uselessness (except for Jyhad game purposes, of course, > where no definition is required). > Well said. Can this discussion die or be taken to pointless emails any time soon? I figured that one of you would just give up and decide that the other one was a moron that didn't need to be argued with any longer, but having been involved in such discussions numerous times myself, I suppose it's only natural that sheer bloody-mindedness would have to keep it going for some time after all useful discourse had long been wrung from whatever bits of debate there might have once been.

>Well said. Can this discussion die or be taken to pointless emails any time >soon? I >figured that one of you would just give up and decide that the other one was >a moron >that didn't need to be argued with any longer, but having been involved in >such >discussions numerous times myself, I suppose it's only natural that sheer >bloody-mindedness would have to keep it going for some time after all useful >discourse had long been wrung from whatever bits of debate there might have >once >been. I agree. I really don't know what's been up with this newsgroup lately. From ridiculous discussions on what "melee" is, to Las Vegas squabblings, to heated discussion over promos and fair trades, to people "accidentally" using other people's e-mail accounts. Sheesh! I'm a big fan of drama myself, but um...all I can say is "Folderol!" =P Halcyan 2

On 08 Mar 2002 10:29:09 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote: >I really don't know what's been up with this newsgroup lately. It's Spring, the sap is rising and March Madness abounds. Games and flame wars are powered by the same fuel - testosterone. The bigger your flame, the bigger your .... Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:6DC485E8371E48B2.86145C5F...@lp.airnews.net... > On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 06:50:06 GMT, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote: > > >Archaic because it is the original french word and root for melee, and > >thus absolutely applicable. utterly false =) > My dictionary has the French verb mêlee (to mix) as the root. yes =) by the way, "mêlée" is a noun, the correct verb is "mêler", and gave birht to mélange and other words. For your information, Accents ( é or û..) in the french language are a relatively new thing (mid 18 th century maybe ?)-they were created by a book editor, trying to make printed books easliy readable with the correct pronounciation. > "Mellay" is listed as an alternate form of the same word and, to me, > looks like an anglicised spelling maybe , maybe not. Spelling was very fluctuant under the "ancient régime" and in the old french language. Some old french family names have a lot of different spellings despite they describe the same thing. (the old Dupont/Dupond duo in Tintin is a good example. Other example : Miller in french is either Meunier or Meunyer, Meynier or even Menier. ) > just as "chasé" was transformed > into "sashay" and "saillie" into "sally". the best example i can find is how Dent-de-lion (lion teeth) turned to Dandelion, the famous flower =) now we have different name for this flower, Pissenlit. (which may translate to Pee-in-bed). How bizarre =D Reyda

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a6a6oa$4k6$1...@neon.noos.net... > > For your information, Accents ( é or û..) in the > french language are a relatively new thing (mid 18 th century maybe ?)-they > were created by a book editor, trying to make printed books easliy readable > with the correct pronounciation. my mistake =) Défense et illustration de la langue française (1549)... In this book, J du bellay was already advocating fixed spelling and accents in books. they were created by printer/editor families though ! reyda

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<839624DEAFE7CDF6.4BEBDAE5...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] <snip> March Madness Network? Tobias Deventer

In message <20020308042106...@mb-de.news.cs.com>, Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> writes: >"Melee" and "Mellay" are the same word. No, they're not. > They mean the same. No, they don't - as has been shown by this very discussion. Apparently, you have both ignored this *and* have established yourself as more thorough, more learned and more knowledgeable than teams of trained lexicographers. Impressive. >They are >pronounced the same. Does that make "there" and "their" the same word? >"Mellay" is an obsolete spelling. If you say so. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3c886078.20553848@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: >And in colloquial use at the very least, the original form of melee as >hand to hand combat has clearly been revived in the use of melee >weapon. You were the one who started with dictionary definitions rather than card text. In colloquial V:TES use, melee weapon means "cards with melee weapons written on them". If you want to squirm and wriggle and play pointless games, continually shifting the goal-posts because you are too stupid to actually have a valid point in the first place and so need to shift the point to "prove" something else entirely, we can do that from now until eternity. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<839624DEAFE7CDF6.4BEBDAE5...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] AHAHAH! Continue, make me laugh! I was very busy in my office, then i start to read what's new on VTES community, and then, i read this thread... Non sense is an english word, isn't it ? Is there an accurate definition in OED, or Encyclopedia Brittanicus, or something else? Are you competiting to create (tadam !!!) :Monty's {VTES 's Community Leaders} Flying Circus ? Have a nice week, and please continue! Kindred SPIRIT

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:SZGgtrGv...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3c886078.20553848@news>, Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com writes: > >And in colloquial use at the very least, the original form of melee as > >hand to hand combat has clearly been revived in the use of melee > >weapon. > > You were the one who started with dictionary definitions rather than > card text. > > In colloquial V:TES use, melee weapon means "cards with melee weapons > written on them". > > > If you want to squirm and wriggle and play pointless games, continually > shifting the goal-posts because you are too stupid to actually have a > valid point in the first place and so need to shift the point to "prove" > something else entirely, we can do that from now until eternity. wasting enough bandwith alreaday on normal threads ;)

James Coupe wrote: >In message <20020308042106...@mb-de.news.cs.com>, Nystulc ><nys...@cs.com> writes: >>"Melee" and "Mellay" are the same word. > >No, they're not. > >> They mean the same. > >No, they don't - as has been shown by this very discussion. Apparently, >you have both ignored this *and* have established yourself as more >thorough, more learned and more knowledgeable than teams of trained >lexicographers. Impressive. > >>They are >>pronounced the same. > >Does that make "there" and "their" the same word? > >>"Mellay" is an obsolete spelling. > >If you say so. I did say so, and I provided reasons. When you finish responding to my post, I will answer. It is easy to win arguments by snipping your opponent's points, as you have done. -- John Whelan

And this is the newsgroup where people were complaining that trading posts were off topic? From now on, i'll post all my trading posts in this newsgroup as well as i'm sure they are much more relevant than these "discussions" If you don't like that, sue me

In message <20020308104900...@mb-cm.news.cs.com>, Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> writes: >I did say so, and I provided reasons. > >When you finish responding to my post, I will answer. It is easy to win >arguments by snipping your opponent's points, as you have done. The OED defines them as two entirely separate words with definitions. When you provide your credentials that out-match the years of work in the OED, we can continue. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >I did say so, and I provided reasons. > > > >When you [...], I will answer. ... in email, I hope. > When you [...], we can continue. ... in email, I hope. This thread long ago left the realm of VTES-related. Follow-ups redirected appropriately. -- 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/

> >>"Melee" and "Mellay" are the same word. > > > >No, they're not. > > > >> They mean the same. > > > >No, they don't - as has been shown by this very discussion. Apparently, > >you have both ignored this *and* have established yourself as more > >thorough, more learned and more knowledgeable than teams of trained > >lexicographers. Impressive. > > > >>They are > >>pronounced the same. > > > >Does that make "there" and "their" the same word? > > > >>"Mellay" is an obsolete spelling. > > > >If you say so. > > I did say so, and I provided reasons. > > When you finish responding to my post, I will answer. It is easy to win > arguments by snipping your opponent's points, as you have done. You have to be kidding me James were you so bored of bitching about top posting that you've started ranting about spelling too. This is the Jyhad forum not a forum about English spelling. Emile p.s. If there's any typos in this thread, Im from Holland so English isn't my first language

In message <cbf416fb.0203...@posting.google.com>, Emile Bosman <ebo...@hotmail.com> writes: >You have to be kidding me James were you so bored of bitching about >top posting *sigh* You really don't have a clue, do you? Internet standards exist for a *reason*. If you wish to over-ride them, RFC it. >that you've started ranting about spelling too. *yawn* Do at least *try* and follow how the thread progressed before posting. You might then have a clue what you're talking about. The point regards melee weapons. We then had a dictionary definition brought out to make sure that we absolutely, definitely, pants-wettingly have to errata Chainsaw or else THE WORLD ENDS. A countering definition was brought out. When that ploy foiled, moves were made from melee to mellay because V:TES cards quite obviously say "mellay weapon" on them. We've then had, repeatedly, amateur lexicographers trying to outdo years of qualified work from professionals because it suits their personal definition. This is why we play by card text and designer intent, not by dictionary definitions. Anyone who has failed to note that continuing theme in my posts is seriously missing the point indeed. Dictionaries. Don't. Help. Card. Text. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:57:51 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: Good grief. You snip 90% of my post, in which I have shown how *you* have 'manuevered the goalposts' and been unable to defend yoruself in various ways, and your only response is that 'melee weapons are cards that say melee weapon'. And I am the stupid one? Don't waste anymore bandwidth James. You are clearly incapable of any rational discussion at this point. T [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 18:15:15 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >Do at least *try* and follow how the thread progressed before posting. >You might then have a clue what you're talking about. > Haha! That's rich! You have conveniently failed to do the same and dodged your own errors repeatedlly. Remember your argument that skirmish and melee are one and the same? Remember how you decried my use of dictionary definitions and then did the same? Remember how you stated that a bow must also be a melee weapon as well??? > >The point regards melee weapons. We then had a dictionary definition >brought out to make sure that we absolutely, definitely, pants-wettingly >have to errata Chainsaw or else THE WORLD ENDS. No. I'd ask you to stop embellishing again, but apparently that is what you are best at. An inconsistency was raised. One that LSJ acknowledged but ruled too minor to warrant a change. Fair enough, but I took exception to the refernce to melee weapons being 'strength based weapons' as no such definition existed within or outiside of the game. >A countering definition >was brought out. When that ploy foiled, moves were made from melee to >mellay because V:TES cards quite obviously say "mellay weapon" on them. Melee and Mellay directly refer to each other. Interesting that you did not bother to check this when you first raised the OED into the discussion. > >This is why we play by card text and designer intent, not by dictionary >definitions. We actually play by all 3. When one wonders how to stratify card types, one uses the words and language commonly in use by the public at large to ensure there is general understanding. Really quite simple James. > >Anyone who has failed to note that continuing theme in my posts is >seriously missing the point indeed. > >Dictionaries. Don't. Help. Card. Text. > We. Heard. You. The. First. Time. Melee is primarlily hand to hand combat. Nothing you have said has changed that. T

On Fri, 08 Mar 2002 13:56:13 -0500, Raille <rai...@spamcop.net> wrote: *Poke* I think it's dead now. Diablerize! -- Tommy Engvik | to...@tragisk.com | www.tragisk.com