House rules List (net.personality - generated)

dle...@curly.cc.emory.edu (David Leader) writes >: Methuselah or her cards directly are directed. All other actions are not. >: Thus, (D) bleed cards can still only target your Prey, as per the rules. >: Note that this does not affect votes in any way. >: [LSJ] >I like directed-action cross-table bleeding (which is the real rule). It's in the "fixed" rules, but there is hot dissension over whether that was originally intended or put in later. There's actually some dissent over whether a (D) bleed would go against anybody other than your prey, even in the new rules. There was a lot of discussion as to whether CTBs improve or worsen game balance. If you care about this, any of the participants (primarily me, Alan, Joe, and James) can e-mail you a summary of the discussion. Further posted discussion does not seem useful at this time. >: o. Reaction cards can be played by Minion controlled by a Methuselah >: other than the Methuselah controlling the action minion, even on >: your own turn. >: [LSJ] >This is a bad rule for MANY reasons: most importantly, during votes. The >Dread Gaze, which requires no disciplines, was MEANT to only be used on >vampires. Not a problem. The "All kindred" on Dread Gaze adds a restriction to vampires >Also, are you allowing WWeF to be played cross the table It can anyway. >: Chainsaw - does 3 damage each strike, not usable first round. : [LSJ] >Many people actually believe that in all cases, Shotgun is better than >Chainsaw. What people DON'T understand is that you can undead strength or >other attack modifiers, whereas Shotguns cannot.... Per current rules, you can't (official ruling too!), because Chainsaw isn't a melee weapon. I suggested to LSJ that Chainsaw should be melee as my proposed rule, which would make it work like you have it. >: Parity Shift - may only redistribute pool up to the difference between the >: selected Methuselah's pool and your own pool. >: [LSJ] >I like it the other way better... otherwise, the card sucks.... I like >being able to kill people with it... if you do that, you may want to >remove the prince/justicar restraint Many hold the opinion that's it's supposed to be very difficult to oust with votes. Apart from Parity Shift, it is, so the Shift sticks out. >: Taste of Vitae - only one of these may be played per minion per round. >: [LSJ] >It's not a powerful enough card to put this restriction on it. ER - um - you're not playing this one to its potential. Anybody using it with the ability to enter combat can obtain an essentially unlimited blood supply. Even with LSJ's rule it's still probably too good. >I erased comments on anything in which this is already the correct ruling >(not really house rules). You'd be astonished how many of LSJ's commonsensical rulings have not been ruled on, or, worse, contradict official rules. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Send Additions/Suggestions to: sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu: If you wish to add your support for any of the suggestions, send mail as well. Please include "house rule" in the subject line. House Rules =========== General Rules ------------- o. The (D) symbol has no affect on the game. All actions targetting another Methuselah or her cards directly are directed. All other actions are not. Thus, (D) bleed cards can still only target your Prey, as per the rules. Note that this does not affect votes in any way. [LSJ] o. Reaction cards can be played by Minion controlled by a Methuselah other than the Methuselah controlling the action minion, even on your own turn. [LSJ] o. Master Out-of-Turn cards may be played whenever appropriate in lieu of you next Master Phase, as per the rulebook. [LSJ] o. Actions by vampires in torpor can be blocked by Kindred ONLY. [LSJ] o. Transferring equipment from a vampire in torpor can be done by Kindred ONLY. [LSJ] o. Combat cannot occur with a vampire in torpor. Diablerie is possible if the opposing minion is a ready vampire, otherwise nothing happens. [LSJ] o. Cards which cannot be used by vampires going to torpor (Pulled Fangs, Amaranth) cannot be used by a vampire burned in combat either. [LSJ] o. Strike: Combat Ends resolves during normal strike resolution (still before first strikes). If the opposing strike is also: End Combat, both have their usual effect. [LSJ] Card-Specific Rules ------------------- Blood Rage - requires (th) not (fo). [LSJ] Bonding - only one of Bonding, Condition, or Threats Card may be used during a single action. [LSJ] Brujah Frenzy - may be played only on a Ready Brujah. Can only send the Acting Brujah into combat with a Ready Minion. [LSJ] Chainsaw - does 3 damage each strike, not usable first round. [LSJ] Chantry - may be applied during Untap, not Master phase. [LSJ] Charming Lobby - use as an action to call a vote at +1 stealth. If successful, call a vote by playing a Political Action card or by naming a vote allowed by a card in play. If the vote succeeds, the next vote will pass as well. [LSJ] Concealed Weapon - does not require (ob). [LSJ] Conditioning - see Bonding. [LSJ] Day Operation - is unblockable, even with the aid of Eagle's Sight. [LSJ] Eagle's Sight - allows only the attempt to block. Attempting to block an unblockable action is futile. [LSJ] Elder Kindred Network - has no effect on a successful Referendum. [LSJ] Enchant Kindred - is at +1 stealth when attempting the superior version. [LSJ] Faceless Night - taps any minion who attempted to block when the action becomes blocked or when the action resolves, as appropriate. [LSJ] Frenzy - may be played even if you have not Minions involved in the Combat. [LSJ] Haven Uncovered - does not prevent its victim from being attacked in torpor. [LSJ] Lextalionis - may be called when a Methuselah has gained a victory point since the start (untap) of your last turn. [LSJ] Monacle of Clarity - may not refer to future questions, answers, statements, nor commands. If it invokes a relationship (p -> q), then the answerer is free to make p true without regard to her ability to make the relationship agree with her answer. Once p is true, the answerer becomes bound to make the relationship agree with her answer, if possible. [LSJ] Parity Shift - may only redistribute pool up to the difference between the selected Methuselah's pool and your own pool. [LSJ] Rotshreck - must target a vampire actually targetted by an act which would cause aggravated damage. If the act is unperformed (due to Combat Ends or steal/destroy equipment with first strike, e.g.), Rotshreck may not be used. This does not apply if the damage is foiled (by dodge, fortitude, Merril Molitor, Blood Rage/Fury, e.g.) [LSJ] Sport Bike - is not optional. [LSJ] Taste of Vitae - only one of these may be played per minion per round. [LSJ] The 2nd Tradition - may be used by an untapped Prince/Justicar for +2 intercept. [LSJ] --------------------- [LSJ] - L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) Threats - see Bonding.

1) This will almost deffinetly happen. The way I've figured is for all of us to access a free telnet social MUSH, then all stand in the same room and we'll play (or multiple rooms for multiple games). 2) House rules note: We won't play with house rules. None at all. Straight by the book. Keeps things simple this way. Things like Monacle and such: Sure, people can pull this off, but if they get really cheesy to the point where the game isn't fun for others, they simply won't be asked back for the next game. 3) 4 card limits: some are for, some are against. As a person who plays with a 4 card limit against ones who don't, I know it's not that big a problem... so use whatever you want. We don't need to restrict people's decks. So I guess the questions now is: who is interested and what times can they play? When you mail me, please list ALL times, not just a few you'd prefer... I'll find a time which a lot of us have in common, find an address for us to play at, and set up the game. But I need to know when people could do this/who would want to try this.

: Methuselah or her cards directly are directed. All other actions are not. : Thus, (D) bleed cards can still only target your Prey, as per the rules. : Note that this does not affect votes in any way. : [LSJ] I like directed-action cross-table bleeding (which is the real rule). A few good examples of why to do cross-table bleedings: "agreements" to get rid of threat counter, predeator's predator is letting him bleed you without worrying about being attacked, so you make him think that if his predator doesn't attack him, YOU will. Many others. : o. Reaction cards can be played by Minion controlled by a Methuselah : other than the Methuselah controlling the action minion, even on : your own turn. : [LSJ] This is a bad rule for MANY reasons: most importantly, during votes. The Dread Gaze, which requires no disciplines, was MEANT to only be used on vampires. Also, are you allowing WWeF to be played cross the table : o. Strike: Combat Ends resolves during normal strike resolution (still : before first strikes). If the opposing strike is also: End Combat, : both have their usual effect. : [LSJ] Huh? : Card-Specific Rules : ------------------- : Blood Rage - requires (th) not (fo). : [LSJ] follows the Roleplaying game better... that's cool. : Chainsaw - does 3 damage each strike, not usable first round. : [LSJ] Many people actually believe that in all cases, Shotgun is better than Chainsaw. What people DON'T understand is that you can undead strength or other attack modifiers, whereas Shotguns cannot.... in my Nosferatu deck, I prefer chainsaws to shotguns. : Chantry - may be applied during Untap, not Master phase. : [LSJ] Why? : Concealed Weapon - does not require (ob). : [LSJ] Good rule : Elder Kindred Network - has no effect on a successful Referendum. : [LSJ] : Enchant Kindred - is at +1 stealth when attempting the superior version. : [LSJ] That's cool. : Haven Uncovered - does not prevent its victim from being attacked in torpor. : [LSJ] No battle may occur in torpor : Monacle of Clarity - may not refer to future questions, answers, statements, : nor commands. If it invokes a relationship (p -> q), then the answerer is : free to make p true without regard to her ability to make the relationship : agree with her answer. Once p is true, the answerer becomes bound to make : the relationship agree with her answer, if possible. : [LSJ] I can still think of MANY cheesy questions for this which makes my vampires unblockable... I'm sicking of writing them over and over.. single round, no questions involving future questions, and they STILL are impossible to answer correctly : Parity Shift - may only redistribute pool up to the difference between the : selected Methuselah's pool and your own pool. : [LSJ] I like it the other way better... otherwise, the card sucks.... I like being able to kill people with it... if you do that, you may want to remove the prince/justicar restraint : Sport Bike - is not optional. : [LSJ] Why would it be? If I want to block, I'll want that 1 point intercept : Taste of Vitae - only one of these may be played per minion per round. : [LSJ] It's not a powerful enough card to put this restriction on it. I'm aware these are house rules, was just expressing my opinions towards them. I personally play without ANY changes (banned Monacle of Clarity/Fame being the two exceptions). Several things listed here would completly throw off balance, others are in essence correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3lsudc$7...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: > >House Rules >=========== > >Card-Specific Rules >------------------- >Chainsaw - does 3 damage each strike, not usable first round. > [LSJ] I prefer: Chainsaw - does 3 damage, only usable once per round. It has the advantages of remaining closer to the actual card text (which is not always a Bad Thing), it prevents Blur from getting 9 damage in a single round (unrealistic IMHO), and it allows it to be used on the first turn (more realistic IMHO). -- J. Hunter Johnson jhun...@io.com (Illuminati Online) jeff.j...@columbiasc.attgis.com (Windows Desktop) "Unlike entirely too many of what I'm told are members of my species, I haven't opened my mind far enough for my brain to fall out." - D. Heffernan

dle...@curly.cc.emory.edu (David Leader) wrote: Peace David, > : o. Reaction cards can be played by Minion controlled by a Methuselah > : other than the Methuselah controlling the action minion, even on > : your own turn. > : [LSJ] > This is a bad rule for MANY reasons: most importantly, during votes. The > Dread Gaze, which requires no disciplines, was MEANT to only be used on > vampires. Also, are you allowing WWeF to be played cross the table Good point. > : o. Strike: Combat Ends resolves during normal strike resolution (still > : before first strikes). If the opposing strike is also: End Combat, > : both have their usual effect. > : [LSJ] > Huh? They are avoiding the ruling that Strike:Combat Ends, by the acting vampire, prohibits the blocking minion from performing any strike at all. I happen to agree with this house rule. > : Card-Specific Rules > : ------------------- > : Chainsaw - does 3 damage each strike, not usable first round. : [LSJ] > Many people actually believe that in all cases, Shotgun is better than > Chainsaw. What people DON'T understand is that you can undead strength or > other attack modifiers, whereas Shotguns cannot.... in my Nosferatu deck, Chainsaw, although we play it as such, is _not_ a melee weapon and cannot be increased by cards like Undead Strength. > : Parity Shift - may only redistribute pool up to the difference between the > : selected Methuselah's pool and your own pool. > : [LSJ] > I like it the other way better... otherwise, the card sucks.... I like > being able to kill people with it... if you do that, you may want to > remove the prince/justicar restraint Well, even though the "super Parity Shift" ruling is now official, I have to agree with Scott, PS should only move blood neither greater than the number of players nor the difference between the vote caller's and vote target's pool. > : Sport Bike - is not optional. > : [LSJ] > Why would it be? If I want to block, I'll want that 1 point intercept To prevent people from playing stealth cards, you might not want to have intercept. > : Taste of Vitae - only one of these may be played per minion per round. > : [LSJ] > It's not a powerful enough card to put this restriction on it. Yes, it is and yes, it should be limited to one/round. > I'm aware these are house rules, was just expressing my opinions towards > them. So am I. > I personally play without ANY changes (banned Monacle of Clarity/Fame > being the two exceptions). Several things listed here would completly > throw off balance, others are in essence correct. Given that you treat Chainsaw as a Melee Weapon, you do play with changes. I agree that some of Scott's house rules seem unbalancing to me, but I'm sure that would be true of most of us looking at each other's house rules. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

>: Methuselah or her cards directly are directed. All other actions are not. >: Thus, (D) bleed cards can still only target your Prey, as per the rules. >: Note that this does not affect votes in any way. >: [LSJ] >I like directed-action cross-table bleeding (which is the real rule). >A few good examples of why to do cross-table bleedings: "agreements" >to get rid of threat counter, predeator's predator is letting him bleed >you without worrying about being attacked, so you make him think that >if his predator doesn't attack him, YOU will. Many others. Fine. Some groups play that way. Some (I) think it violates the letter of the rules, as well as the spirit. >: o. Reaction cards can be played by Minion controlled by a Methuselah >: other than the Methuselah controlling the action minion, even on >: your own turn. >: [LSJ] >This is a bad rule for MANY reasons: most importantly, during votes. The >Dread Gaze, which requires no disciplines, was MEANT to only be used on >vampires. Also, are you allowing WWeF to be played cross the table Dread Gaze requires presence. Surprise Influence is Kindred Only. Neither of these change the situation - namely you can only play them in response to other Methuselah's Minion's actions. The House rule stated above does not change the fact that you can't use these cards on your own vote. If you want votes, use Bewitching Oration. >: o. Strike: Combat Ends resolves during normal strike resolution (still >: before first strikes). If the opposing strike is also: End Combat, >: both have their usual effect. >: [LSJ] >Huh? A: Strike to end combat. does not prevent B: Strike to end combat. >: Chainsaw - does 3 damage each strike, not usable first round. : [LSJ] >Many people actually believe that in all cases, Shotgun is better than >Chainsaw. What people DON'T understand is that you can undead strength or >other attack modifiers, whereas Shotguns cannot.... in my Nosferatu deck, No, because chainsaws aren't melee weapons. A house rule that makes the chainsaw a melee weapon would also help balance the card. >I prefer chainsaws to shotguns. Chainsaw is exactly equal to shotgun, except that the latter may be used at range (officially). >: Haven Uncovered - does not prevent its victim from being attacked in torpor. >: [LSJ] >No battle may occur in torpor But diablerie may occur. >: Monacle of Clarity - may not refer to future questions, answers, statements, >: nor commands. If it invokes a relationship (p -> q), then the answerer is >: free to make p true without regard to her ability to make the relationship >: agree with her answer. Once p is true, the answerer becomes bound to make >: the relationship agree with her answer, if possible. >: [LSJ] >I can still think of MANY cheesy questions for this which makes my vampires >unblockable... I'm sicking of writing them over and over.. single round, no >questions involving future questions, and they STILL are impossible to >answer correctly Not with the p->q part, above. >: Parity Shift - may only redistribute pool up to the difference between the >: selected Methuselah's pool and your own pool. >I like it the other way better... otherwise, the card sucks.... I like >being able to kill people with it... if you do that, you may want to >remove the prince/justicar restraint "I like being able to kill people with it" rings of an unbalanced card. >: Taste of Vitae - only one of these may be played per minion per round. >: [LSJ] >It's not a powerful enough card to put this restriction on it. Power, schmower. It doesn't make sense the official way.

In article <3lsudc$7...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >General Rules >------------- >o. The (D) symbol has no affect on the game. All actions targetting another > Methuselah or her cards directly are directed. All other actions are not. > Thus, (D) bleed cards can still only target your Prey, as per the rules. > Note that this does not affect votes in any way. > [LSJ] Sigh. You'll notice that I changed the subject line above. If you're going to call this net.personality generated, this rule does not belong. We have *no* consensus on this rule, and thus either no interpretation of this rule should be provided or both interpretations should be provided. If you provide one side of something that is still in debate, you are providing your own personal house rules, not the net's house rules. >o. Reaction cards can be played by Minion controlled by a Methuselah > other than the Methuselah controlling the action minion, even on > your own turn. > [LSJ] The only time this ever is broken is during the Madness Network. Personally, I think an erratum on the MMN is much more appropriate than a problematic change to a metarule. >o. Combat cannot occur with a vampire in torpor. Diablerie is possible > if the opposing minion is a ready vampire, otherwise nothing happens. > [LSJ] How is this a house rule? How can a vampire in torpor legally get into combat in the current rules? >o. Strike: Combat Ends resolves during normal strike resolution (still > before first strikes). If the opposing strike is also: End Combat, > both have their usual effect. > [LSJ] Well, here's one ruling that probably will get net.approval... >Bonding - only one of Bonding, Condition, or Threats Card may be used > during a single action. > [LSJ] I would word it so that 'card' was up front and hard to miss rather than stuck back behind. Even better is to just remove the awkward wording completely and word the cards like so: "Only one action modifier may be used to increase the bleed of a single action after it is announced." This says in effect the same thing (since all of the modifiers are B/C/T) much more cleanly, and allows for future cards. Should they *want* future cards to be able to add yet more bleed, that specific card could make itself an exception. >Chainsaw - does 3 damage each strike, not usable first round. > [LSJ] We play it with the Chainsaw strikes as written, but add the word "Melee" to the card. >Chantry - may be applied during Untap, not Master phase. > [LSJ] Why does this matter? >Elder Kindred Network - has no effect on a successful Referendum. > [LSJ] Word it more specifically: The card should read "if successful, Elder Kindred Network has no effect." >Monacle of Clarity - may not refer to future questions, answers, statements, > nor commands. If it invokes a relationship (p -> q), then the answerer is > free to make p true without regard to her ability to make the relationship > agree with her answer. Once p is true, the answerer becomes bound to make > the relationship agree with her answer, if possible. > [LSJ] There's no elegant way to make this card nice. Just use a house rule of "The Monocle's intent is an information gathering device, not a binding command device. Please use it with that intent. If your play group is unable to do so, do not play with it." >Parity Shift - may only redistribute pool up to the difference between the > selected Methuselah's pool and your own pool. > [LSJ] Again, still in dispute, and thus shouldn't be here. >Rotshreck - must target a vampire actually targetted by an act which would > cause aggravated damage. If the act is unperformed (due to Combat Ends or > steal/destroy equipment with first strike, e.g.), Rotshreck may not be > used. This does not apply if the damage is foiled (by dodge, fortitude, > Merril Molitor, Blood Rage/Fury, e.g.) > [LSJ] It still takes a minute to figure out that you're saying that it hoses the vampire about to receive the damage. That needs to be crystal clear from word one, especially given the previous debate on the card. The rest can be a separate paragraph and nobody would care. >Sport Bike - is not optional. > [LSJ] Woah! Where did that one come from? If anything, that one will shortly be in dispute, because Equipment is not mandatory. Why should the Bike be mandatory when all other equipment isn't? >The 2nd Tradition - may be used by an untapped Prince/Justicar for +2 > intercept. > [LSJ] The card should read "Prince/Justicar. +2 Intercept. If tapped, vampire untaps. Vampire must attempt to block." | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

In article <3lubrr$8...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >dle...@curly.cc.emory.edu (David Leader) wrote: > >> : Sport Bike - is not optional. >> : [LSJ] >> Why would it be? If I want to block, I'll want that 1 point intercept >To prevent people from playing stealth cards, you might not want to have >intercept. Nope - to prevent people from playing stealth cards, you don't block at all. Once you declare a block, either your block fails, or they played all the Stealth cards they want to and are able to play. The house rule is to prevent the player with the Bike to play Intercept cards. Agreeable, in the general spirit of the game. >> : Taste of Vitae - only one of these may be played per minion per round. >> : [LSJ] >> It's not a powerful enough card to put this restriction on it. > >Yes, it is and yes, it should be limited to one/round. Even then, it is still a powerful card. We will see tournament decks with 5%+ Taste of Vitae, believe me. >> Several things listed here would completly >> throw off balance, others are in essence correct. >I agree that some of Scott's house rules seem unbalancing to me, but I'm >sure that would be true of most of us looking at each other's house rules. What about the official rules? It is almost net consensus that official Jyhad is broken. (Monocle alone is enough. Even without referring to future questions, it can make all but one of your minions unblockable.) -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <3luc3m$q...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >Chainsaw is exactly equal to shotgun, except that the latter may be used >at range (officially). And can benefit from Manstopper Rounds. [ quoted text not captured ]

jhun...@pentagon.io.com (J. Hunter Johnson) writes: >In article <3lsudc$7...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >> >>House Rules >>=========== >> >>Card-Specific Rules >>------------------- >>Chainsaw - does 3 damage each strike, not usable first round. >> [LSJ] >I prefer: Chainsaw - does 3 damage, only usable once per round. It has >the advantages of remaining closer to the actual card text (which is not >always a Bad Thing), it prevents Blur from getting 9 damage in a single >round (unrealistic IMHO), and it allows it to be used on the first turn >(more realistic IMHO). I'll add your house rule to the list, thanks My defense: If 6 damage from a blurred sword is realistic, then so is 9 from a chainsaw (ever gotten hit with one of those? :-) A chainsaw can't be used on the first turn to: a) balance the card b) simulate "starting" the chainsaw - most people may be able to get away with a loaded .44, but certainly not a running chainsaw :-)

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >dle...@curly.cc.emory.edu (David Leader) wrote: >Peace David, >> : o. Reaction cards can be played by Minion controlled by a Methuselah >> : other than the Methuselah controlling the action minion, even on >> : your own turn. >> : [LSJ] >> This is a bad rule for MANY reasons: most importantly, during votes. The >> Dread Gaze, which requires no disciplines, was MEANT to only be used on >> vampires. Also, are you allowing WWeF to be played cross the table >Good point. I must really be out of it. Could somebody explain this again, cause I can't make any sense out of that whatsoever. I think: You can't play Dread Gaze without a disciplined vampire (presence) You can't play Dread gaze during a vote you call You can't play Surprise Influence during a vote that you call You can play WwEF, but never across the table (only on vampires that you control, that is); certainly in response to any action taken by another Methuselah's Minions (execpt during your own turn by a Networking Malk). What am I missing here? Thanks.

In article <3lu3in$q...@moe.cc.emory.edu>, David Leader <dle...@curly.cc.emory.edu> wrote: >Many people actually believe that in all cases, Shotgun is better than >Chainsaw. What people DON'T understand is that you can undead strength or >other attack modifiers, whereas Shotguns cannot.... Guess again. Chainsaws aren't melee weapons. "Add +1 damage to hand or melee weapon" doesn't apply to a Chainsaw. -- James Buster bit...@netcom.com

kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes: >What about the official rules? It is almost net consensus that >official Jyhad is broken. (Monocle alone is enough. Even without >referring to future questions, it can make all but one of your >minions unblockable.) Why? You aren't required to keep the option open to obey the monocle, only to obey it if it comes up. I'm probably just missing the specific question you're referring to, and it's a hideously broken card, regardless. -- Aaron Mandelbaum

In article <bitbugD6...@netcom.com>, James Buster <bit...@netcom.com> wrote: >>Many people actually believe that in all cases, Shotgun is better than >>Chainsaw. What people DON'T understand is that you can undead strength or >>other attack modifiers, whereas Shotguns cannot.... > >Guess again. Chainsaws aren't melee weapons. "Add +1 damage to hand or >melee weapon" doesn't apply to a Chainsaw. Which is why we play with a house rule of Chainsaw being a Melee Weapon. It settles that part nicely, and lets the chainsaw become equivalent to the Shotgun again. However, by the WotC official rules, a Chainsaw is completely 100% inferior to a Shotgun... [ quoted text not captured ]

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3lsudc$7...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>General Rules >>------------- >>o. The (D) symbol has no affect on the game. All actions targetting another >> Methuselah or her cards directly are directed. All other actions are not. >> Thus, (D) bleed cards can still only target your Prey, as per the rules. >> Note that this does not affect votes in any way. >> [LSJ] > Sigh. You'll notice that I changed the subject line above. If >you're going to call this net.personality generated, this rule does not >belong. We have *no* consensus on this rule, and thus either no >interpretation of this rule should be provided or both interpretations >should be provided. If you provide one side of something that is still >in debate, you are providing your own personal house rules, not the >net's house rules. CORRECT! That's why I made it clear that this is a compilation of all house rules, from all sources. That's why I asked for submissions. That's why I put [LSJ] after all of "my" house rules. I realize that with people reading the posts as cock-eyed as some, we will never reach a consensus of any type (except that WotC whould be doing a better job). If you have something constructive to add to the list, by all means let me know. If you want to start a net.consensus house rule file, go ahead. This is a net.personality house rules file, including house rules from various net personalities (hmm, clever name, eh?) >>o. Reaction cards can be played by Minion controlled by a Methuselah >> other than the Methuselah controlling the action minion, even on >> your own turn. >> [LSJ] > The only time this ever is broken is during the Madness Network. >Personally, I think an erratum on the MMN is much more appropriate than >a problematic change to a metarule. Generic rules are better than peicemeal card errata. And, again, what problems? There are none, because the only thing this change currently affects is the MMN. >>o. Combat cannot occur with a vampire in torpor. Diablerie is possible >> if the opposing minion is a ready vampire, otherwise nothing happens. >> [LSJ] > How is this a house rule? How can a vampire in torpor legally >get into combat in the current rules? Brujah Frenzy, for instance, on a Brujah leaving torpor. > We play it with the Chainsaw strikes as written, but add the >word "Melee" to the card. Thank You, I will add your house rule to the list. > There's no elegant way to make this card nice. Just use a house >rule of "The Monocle's intent is an information gathering device, not a >binding command device. Please use it with that intent. If your play >group is unable to do so, do not play with it." Thank You, I will add your house rule to the list. >>Parity Shift - may only redistribute pool up to the difference between the >> selected Methuselah's pool and your own pool. >> [LSJ] > Again, still in dispute, and thus shouldn't be here. Again, as it is a house rule, it belongs here. Rotschreck. > It still takes a minute to figure out that you're saying that it >hoses the vampire about to receive the damage. That needs to be crystal >clear from word one, especially given the previous debate on the card. >The rest can be a separate paragraph and nobody would care. Well, rotschreck hosing the vampire receiving the damage is not a house rule, now is it? >>Sport Bike - is not optional. >> [LSJ] > Woah! Where did that one come from? If anything, that one will >shortly be in dispute, because Equipment is not mandatory. Why should >the Bike be mandatory when all other equipment isn't? Equipment is mandatory - ask Tom about the Laptop. Weapons' strikes are not mandatory, but that's another subject. >>The 2nd Tradition - may be used by an untapped Prince/Justicar for +2 >> intercept. >> [LSJ] > The card should read "Prince/Justicar. +2 Intercept. If >tapped, vampire untaps. Vampire must attempt to block." Same thing. Do you want a separate entry in the list?

> >>o. Combat cannot occur with a vampire in torpor. Diablerie is possible > >> if the opposing minion is a ready vampire, otherwise nothing happens. > >> [LSJ] > > > How is this a house rule? How can a vampire in torpor legally > >get into combat in the current rules? > > Brujah Frenzy, for instance, on a Brujah leaving torpor. Peace Scott, Is BF a legal play in this case? I haven't looked closely enough at the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3m0ljd$m...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >> Sigh. You'll notice that I changed the subject line above. If > > >CORRECT! >That's why I made it clear that this is a compilation of all house rules, >from all sources. That's why I asked for submissions. That's why I put [LSJ] >after all of "my" house rules. I realize that with people reading the posts >as cock-eyed as some, we will never reach a consensus of any type (except >that WotC whould be doing a better job). I apologize for being antagonistic. As I noted elsewhere, this message (which was just listed as "the house rules list" with no preamble) appeared on my server and was read by me long before the previous discussion on making the list up appeared. I now have a better idea as to what you're trying to do. The only problem is what happens when one or more of us play with the rules as written? For instance, the Chainsaw may have each of us play it a different way, and get 7 or 8 entries, while (D) bleeds may only have two entries and lots of us who play by the rules as written. Unless you mention the people who use the written rules, you bias this list away from the official rules. Will you add entries for those of us who stand by the official rules on controversial points? >>>o. Combat cannot occur with a vampire in torpor. Diablerie is possible >>> if the opposing minion is a ready vampire, otherwise nothing happens. >>> [LSJ] > >> How is this a house rule? How can a vampire in torpor legally >>get into combat in the current rules? > >Brujah Frenzy, for instance, on a Brujah leaving torpor. We seem to be stuck in a loop here. I'm for fixing cards, and you're for fixing rules. At least if we understand this, we'll work together better (this regarding the reaction-MN thing). In this case, again I'd say fix the card (because that's the only one I can think of that would do it). But I do understand why you have it here. >>>Parity Shift - may only redistribute pool up to the difference between the >>> selected Methuselah's pool and your own pool. >>> [LSJ] > >> Again, still in dispute, and thus shouldn't be here. > >Again, as it is a house rule, it belongs here. I ask that an entry be placed saying that my house rules are to play the card by the official interpretation. > >Rotschreck. >> It still takes a minute to figure out that you're saying that it >>hoses the vampire about to receive the damage. That needs to be crystal >>clear from word one, especially given the previous debate on the card. >>The rest can be a separate paragraph and nobody would care. > >Well, rotschreck hosing the vampire receiving the damage is not a house rule, >now is it? Honestly, I don't know. I'm playing hose receiver right now because the last thing I saw was receiver, but this rule has flipflopped so many times that even the official rules are house rules. I'd include it in this list until such time as WotC gets it straight. If ever. >>>The 2nd Tradition - may be used by an untapped Prince/Justicar for +2 >>> intercept. >>> [LSJ] > >> The card should read "Prince/Justicar. +2 Intercept. If >>tapped, vampire untaps. Vampire must attempt to block." > >Same thing. Do you want a separate entry in the list? Actually, I was just trying to help make the wording more precise. The entry as stands works. Believe me, I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I'm just adding my bit. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3m144t$j...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. followed up to L. Scott Johnson. James, I think that what Scott is looking for is not a list of house rules we as a group recommend to be played, but rather a poll of what rules we use. At least, it makes more sense to think of it that way. Sound right, Scott? [ quoted text not captured ]

>> o. Master Out-of-Turn cards may be played whenever appropriate in lieu >> of you next Master Phase, as per the rulebook. >> [LSJ] > >Sorry, but the rulebook defines Out of Turn to mean _not_ _during_ your >turn, so you can't justify it like that. This also horribly unbalances >certain OoTMs. I keep waiting for someone to say which OoTMs become unbalanced, and why. A few ppl at least mention Major Boon, I'm guessing because you would know that no bleed boosts would be used :), ok, so fix the card -- can't be used when you are causing the bleed. What are the others? thanks, -steve kertes ker...@geoworks.com

In article <3m161o$f...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >In article <3m0ljd$m...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>Brujah Frenzy, for instance, on a Brujah leaving torpor. it seems that a global rule fix (and a fairly simple one) would take care of this: "If a vampire in torpor takes an action that is blocked, there is no combat; the blocker has the opportunity to commit diablirie." this is the text on, for example, rapid healing, and it makes enough sense that i feel it should be global, applying to movement of the slow body (where it may be already -- i don't remember the cardtext clearly enough) as well as the other actions allowable in torpor. comments? heckler -- "A global village is NOT supposed to be an anarchic tyranny of the discourteous!" pers...@athena.mit.edu, vox clamans

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > o. The (D) symbol has no affect on the game. All actions targetting another > Methuselah or her cards directly are directed. All other actions are not. > Thus, (D) bleed cards can still only target your Prey, as per the rules. > Note that this does not affect votes in any way. > [LSJ] Peace Scott, Uh, yeah, right. I want to know what sort of people you play with/against to cause (D) actions [bleeds] to be a problem. > o. Reaction cards can be played by Minion controlled by a Methuselah > other than the Methuselah controlling the action minion, even on > your own turn. > [LSJ] I'll agree with that, we do that for MadNet anyway. > o. Master Out-of-Turn cards may be played whenever appropriate in lieu > of you next Master Phase, as per the rulebook. > [LSJ] Sorry, but the rulebook defines Out of Turn to mean _not_ _during_ your turn, so you can't justify it like that. This also horribly unbalances certain OoTMs. > o. Actions by vampires in torpor can be blocked by Kindred ONLY. > [LSJ] I thought that was the rules. > o. Transferring equipment from a vampire in torpor can be done by > Kindred ONLY. > [LSJ] Why not? > o. Combat cannot occur with a vampire in torpor. Diablerie is possible > if the opposing minion is a ready vampire, otherwise nothing happens. > [LSJ] I didn't think it was possible to cause combat in torpor. > o. Cards which cannot be used by vampires going to torpor (Pulled Fangs, > Amaranth) cannot be used by a vampire burned in combat either. > [LSJ] This is common sense and if I found someone who demanded to play otherwise, I'd send them back to play Mt$ with the other munchkins. > o. Strike: Combat Ends resolves during normal strike resolution (still > before first strikes). If the opposing strike is also: End Combat, > both have their usual effect. > [LSJ] I'll agree that this /should/ be the official ruling. > Card-Specific Rules > ------------------- > Blood Rage - requires (th) not (fo). > [LSJ] This should also be official. > Bonding - only one of Bonding, Condition, or Threats Card may be used > during a single action. > [LSJ] This should be official. > Brujah Frenzy - may be played only on a Ready Brujah. Can only send the > Acting Brujah into combat with a Ready Minion. > [LSJ] I'll have to look at the card closer; you don't have to include the second part as you can't go to combat with a torpored/uncontrolled minion. > Chainsaw - does 3 damage each strike, not usable first round. > [LSJ] Chainsaw should be a Melee weapon, no other changes are necessary. > Chantry - may be applied during Untap, not Master phase. > [LSJ] Why? > Charming Lobby - use as an action to call a vote at +1 stealth. If > successful, call a vote by playing a Political Action card or by naming > a vote allowed by a card in play. If the vote succeeds, the next vote > will pass as well. > [LSJ] I'll agree with this. > Concealed Weapon - does not require (ob). > [LSJ] Should be official. > Day Operation - is unblockable, even with the aid of Eagle's Sight. > [LSJ] This IS the official stance. > Eagle's Sight - allows only the attempt to block. Attempting to block an > unblockable action is futile. > [LSJ] This is also the official stance. > Elder Kindred Network - has no effect on a successful Referendum. > [LSJ] As is this. > Enchant Kindred - is at +1 stealth when attempting the superior version. > [LSJ] Don't get me started. > Faceless Night - taps any minion who attempted to block when the action > becomes blocked or when the action resolves, as appropriate. > [LSJ] I don't see how this is much of a difference. > Frenzy - may be played even if you have not Minions involved in the Combat. > [LSJ] This is the official stance. > Haven Uncovered - does not prevent its victim from being attacked in torpor. > [LSJ] Like you NEED a +1 stealth to diablerize. > Lextalionis - may be called when a Methuselah has gained a victory point > since the start (untap) of your last turn. > [LSJ] Huh? > Parity Shift - may only redistribute pool up to the difference between the > selected Methuselah's pool and your own pool. > [LSJ] Should work this way, but I will play it the official way. > Sport Bike - is not optional. > [LSJ] Why shouldn't SB be optional? > Taste of Vitae - only one of these may be played per minion per round. > [LSJ] This should be the official stance. > The 2nd Tradition - may be used by an untapped Prince/Justicar for +2 > intercept. > [LSJ] This is how the card is printed/phrased. [Thanks Curt.] [ quoted text not captured ]

sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) wrote: > > James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: > : sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > : > Frenzy - may be played even if you have not Minions involved in the Combat. > : > [LSJ] > > : This is the official stance. > > Currently, you may not play any combat effects on a combat in which you do > not have a minion involved; no Elysium, no Mob Connections, no Trap, etc. > unless it explicitly says so on the card. I would assume this would also > apply to Frenzy. (Don't have a Frenzy so it may say that it can be done, > but if it did I'm guessing there wouldn't need to be a house rule.) Peace Shane, I could be wrong (it won't be the last time), but I have always thought that Frenzy was one of those cards that could be played when not involved in a combat. > : > Haven Uncovered - does not prevent its victim from being attacked in torpor. > : > [LSJ] > > : Like you NEED a +1 stealth to diablerize. > > I often do... That's what Obfuscate is for. You do not need a free +1 to diablerize. > : > Sport Bike - is not optional. > : > [LSJ] > > : Why shouldn't SB be optional? > > Because no other non-combat equipment is optional. Let's see "other non-combat equipment." Like Soul Gem, Monocle, Aaron's Feeding Razor, Sport Bike, Laptop Computer. I think that is all of them. Soul Gem: ok, not optional (why would you ever want it to be?) Monocle: optional Aaron's Feeding Razor: not optional [?] (again, why would you not want to?) Sport Bike: optional (for good reason) Laptop Computer: [here's where I get into trouble] optional [I thought that retainers were mandatory and equipment optional] Aren't LCs optional? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3m1v1u$c...@nunki.usc.edu>, gomi no sensei <pech...@nunki.usc.edu> wrote: >it seems that a global rule fix (and a fairly simple one) would take care >of this: "If a vampire in torpor takes an action that is blocked, there > >comments? Go check out the thread on MN vs reaction rule change. All of the points I'm bringing up there apply here. Basically, fix the card, not the rule. It's the card's responsibility to clean up its own mess. [ quoted text not captured ]

sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >Currently, you may not play any combat effects on a combat in which you do >not have a minion involved; no Elysium, no Mob Connections, no Trap, etc. >unless it explicitly says so on the card. I would assume this would also >apply to Frenzy. (Don't have a Frenzy so it may say that it can be done, >but if it did I'm guessing there wouldn't need to be a house rule.) You are correct. Frenzy does not specifically allow being used on a combat when the playing Methuseleh is not involved. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

James R. McClure Jr. writes: >Aren't Laptop Computers optional? Not in my group. We think it's the current ruling. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: : sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) wrote: : > : Like you NEED a +1 stealth to diablerize. : > : > I often do... : That's what Obfuscate is for. You do not need a free +1 to diablerize. So one should only be able to get through to Diablerize if one has Obfuscate? Seems a bit limiting to me. I like this option, which is why I voted for it in the House Rulings list. If you don't, then vote against it and Scott will your name to the 'Opposed' line. If you are neutral, say nothing and you will be ignored. :-) : > : > Sport Bike - is not optional. : > : > [LSJ] : > : > : Why shouldn't SB be optional? : > : > Because no other non-combat equipment is optional. : Let's see "other non-combat equipment." Like Soul Gem, Monocle, Aaron's : Feeding Razor, Sport Bike, Laptop Computer. I think that is all of them. : Soul Gem: ok, not optional (why would you ever want it to be?) : Monocle: optional : Aaron's Feeding Razor: not optional [?] (again, why would you not want to?) : Sport Bike: optional (for good reason) : Laptop Computer: [here's where I get into trouble] optional [I thought : that retainers were mandatory and equipment optional] : Aren't LCs optional? Forgot about the Monocle. Yes, okay - I guess there is optional non-combat equipment, but TTBOMK Laptops are not one of them. I seem to remember Tom coning on this group and ruling that the laptop was not optional. Like you, however, I could be wrong/mis-remembering, but it is on this ruling that (I believe) the non-optional Sports Bike is built. Shane Travis | Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits sht...@duke.usask.ca | are objects of scorn to Americans who blow horns Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | to break up traffic jams. | -- Mary Ellen Kelly

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3m144t$j...@hermes.louisville.edu>, >James R. McClure Jr. followed up to L. Scott Johnson. > James, I think that what Scott is looking for is not a list of >house rules we as a group recommend to be played, but rather a poll of >what rules we use. At least, it makes more sense to think of it that >way. > Sound right, Scott? Precisely

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > > "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: > > >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > >> o. The (D) symbol has no affect on the game. All actions targetting another > >> Methuselah or her cards directly are directed. All other actions are not. > >> Thus, (D) bleed cards can still only target your Prey, as per the rules. > >> Note that this does not affect votes in any way. > >> [LSJ] > > >Peace Scott, > > >Uh, yeah, right. I want to know what sort of people you play with/against > >to cause (D) actions [bleeds] to be a problem. > > You don't necessarily have to run into a problem to fix one, you know. Peace Scott, Yes, but you do normally have to have some sort of justification for calling it a problem before you fix it. > >Sorry, but the rulebook defines Out of Turn to mean _not_ _during_ your > >turn, so you can't justify it like that. This also horribly unbalances > >certain OoTMs. > > "Horribly" unbalances is simply an adjustment to some. > And the original rulebook simply says "as appropriate" and that you > "Can play one when it not your turn" - not that you can't play one > on your own turn. > Sorry. That's original rulebook _isn't_ the rulebook, though. That's like saying "I think black was cheated in the revised Magic rules when they weakened Protection vs. White, so I'm always going to play that you can't stop the damage of a Black Knight with Circle of Protection:Black or Healing Salve." I truely don't believe that they would have chosen the phrase "Out of Turn" unless they really meant "not during your own turn," especially after all the linguistic problems they had with Magic (unlimited vs. revised). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3m238q$a...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > Brujah Frenzy - Master: out-of-turn. > Play this card when a Brujah another Methuselah controls takes an action > that remains unblocked. The Brujah's action is blocked and the Brujah > must enter combat with the minion of your choise. The minion becomes > tapped. The minion and the Brujah may not have the same controller. > > So, yes. Just a quick question- does this mean the vamp has gotten out of torpor or not? If the action was blocked then I would assume that the vamp would not, but the rules on leaving torpor state that if the action is blocked no combat occurs, but the blocking vamp gets the opportunity to diablerize. My take on this would be that if you played the BF, then you succeed in blocking with a vamp of your choice without having the intercept. That vamp could then diablerize, or not as it chose. But, since I have been making the Golden Rule of Cards arguments in other places, here is my take from that point of view. Combat is allowed, but unless 2 pts of aggravated damage are done, the blocked vamp simply goes back to torpor. I guess that this might be a good ploy to let the vamp in torpor beat up on someone else, but I don't see much else use for it. What do you guys/gals think? stephen

re: optional equipment Aaron's feeding razor -- why it's optional: because you don't really need it if you have a hunting ground, or if you don't hunt much. (as tremere, stealing blood & hunting grounds, i don't hunt much) (for example, that is) Soul gem -- optional: If i don't have a golconda, i would never play with one. And guess what, i tgot no golcondas. The other thing is, i'm not really willing to risk burning my vamp just so i can "hiope" that the next card in my crypt is a lower blood vamp. Furthermore, i don't play with many high blood vamps anyways, so chances are i won't get one into play, so why play with the soul gem? *shrug* (when, instead, i can make my deck smaller, faster, more effective..)

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >> >>o. Combat cannot occur with a vampire in torpor. Diablerie is possible >> >> if the opposing minion is a ready vampire, otherwise nothing happens. >> >> [LSJ] >> >> > How is this a house rule? How can a vampire in torpor legally >> >get into combat in the current rules? >> >> Brujah Frenzy, for instance, on a Brujah leaving torpor. >Peace Scott, >Is BF a legal play in this case? I haven't looked closely enough at the >card. Brujah Frenzy - Master: out-of-turn. Play this card when a Brujah another Methuselah controls takes an action that remains unblocked. The Brujah's action is blocked and the Brujah must enter combat with the minion of your choise. The minion becomes tapped. The minion and the Brujah may not have the same controller. So, yes. Note, there's another house rule in the list making BR playable only on a Ready Brujah, and only sending him into combat with a ready Minion. But it's only a house rule.

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: > The only problem is what happens when one or more of us play >with the rules as written? For instance, the Chainsaw may have each of >us play it a different way, and get 7 or 8 entries, while (D) bleeds may >only have two entries and lots of us who play by the rules as written. >Unless you mention the people who use the written rules, you bias this >list away from the official rules. Will you add entries for those of us >who stand by the official rules on controversial points? Sure. Anyone opposed to a given house rule should let me know, please, so I can list them in a (hitherto unknown) Opposed line. Please quote the entirety of the rule you oppose, please. (PS - got you down for opposed to Parity Shift X-Y max N.) L. Scott

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >> o. The (D) symbol has no affect on the game. All actions targetting another >> Methuselah or her cards directly are directed. All other actions are not. >> Thus, (D) bleed cards can still only target your Prey, as per the rules. >> Note that this does not affect votes in any way. >> [LSJ] >Peace Scott, >Uh, yeah, right. I want to know what sort of people you play with/against >to cause (D) actions [bleeds] to be a problem. You don't necessarily have to run into a problem to fix one, you know. >Sorry, but the rulebook defines Out of Turn to mean _not_ _during_ your >turn, so you can't justify it like that. This also horribly unbalances >certain OoTMs. "Horribly" unbalances is simply an adjustment to some. And the original rulebook simply says "as appropriate" and that you "Can play one when it not your turn" - not that you can't play one on your own turn. Sorry. >> o. Actions by vampires in torpor can be blocked by Kindred ONLY. >> [LSJ] >I thought that was the rules. No. Allys can block a vampire rescuing himself, but they can't diablerize. >> o. Transferring equipment from a vampire in torpor can be done by >> Kindred ONLY. >> [LSJ] >Why not? Because it's a house rule :-) >> o. Combat cannot occur with a vampire in torpor. Diablerie is possible >> if the opposing minion is a ready vampire, otherwise nothing happens. >> [LSJ] >I didn't think it was possible to cause combat in torpor. Well, like I said, you don't have to wait for a problem to fix it. {Misc deleted - answers above}

James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote: : sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: : > o. Actions by vampires in torpor can be blocked by Kindred ONLY. : > [LSJ] : I thought that was the rules. Not currently. Got nailed by Tom on this one when we submitted him the Rules Guide for approval... (They can block a vampire trying to rescue himself, but do not have the opportunity to commit diablerie.) : > o. Transferring equipment from a vampire in torpor can be done by : > Kindred ONLY. : > [LSJ] : Why not? If I may, Scott... This rule and the above rule sort of go hand in hand. If Kine cannot find a vampire in Torpor to block an action, then they cannot find a Vampire in Torpor to 'heist' his equipment. (Even though they are on the same side, the minions don't necessarily _know_ that...) Kine cannot interact IN ANY WAY with a vampire in torpor - wither your own or someone else's. : > Frenzy - may be played even if you have not Minions involved in the Combat. : > [LSJ] : This is the official stance. Currently, you may not play any combat effects on a combat in which you do not have a minion involved; no Elysium, no Mob Connections, no Trap, etc. unless it explicitly says so on the card. I would assume this would also apply to Frenzy. (Don't have a Frenzy so it may say that it can be done, but if it did I'm guessing there wouldn't need to be a house rule.) : > Haven Uncovered - does not prevent its victim from being attacked in torpor. : > [LSJ] : Like you NEED a +1 stealth to diablerize. I often do... : > Sport Bike - is not optional. : > [LSJ] : Why shouldn't SB be optional? Because no other non-combat equipment is optional. : > The 2nd Tradition - may be used by an untapped Prince/Justicar for +2 : > intercept. : > [LSJ] : This is how the card is printed/phrased. [Thanks Curt.] But it;s not the way WotC _ruled_, so playing it the way it is phrased becomes a house rule. Silly, no? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3m3sp0$d...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >In article <3m1v1u$c...@nunki.usc.edu>, > Go check out the thread on MN vs reaction rule change. All of >the points I'm bringing up there apply here. Basically, fix the card, >not the rule. It's the card's responsibility to clean up its own mess. apologies, joseph, but i'm siding with l. scott on this one -- a comprehensive rules framework allows rule-breaking cards to function smoothly, whereas multiply errata'd/liquid paper'd/band-aided rules on each and every individual card simply create poor gameflow (if you don't have access to the errata list, how do you play?) and leave the door open for further rulebreaking cards that have to be further errata'd. also, since movement of the slow body and rapid healing (the two action cards that currently allow action in torpor, as far as i know) specifically mention that if blocked, there is no combat, et. al., it seems natural to make it a global rule, which would fix brujah frenzy without requiring errata, as well as taking care of any future cards that permit action in torpor without having to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. re: madness network, the official ruling is that it's meant to disallow reaction cards (and, imo, it should have said so on the card), and that that effect is part of its unpleasantness. that's a ruling i can live with, and it renders the current madness network discussion moot. a m:tg analogy: dwarven weaponsmith, in antiquities and revised. the anti- quities version had a large block of small print defining its use, text that was open to loopholing and misinterpretation. in revised, 'sacrifice' was clearly defined, became a global rule, and the cardtext of the revised weaponsmith was modified to use this new definition. an elegant solution to a card that went outside current rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

Stephen Beaulieu (hi...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote: : sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: : > Brujah Frenzy - Master: out-of-turn. : > Play this card when a Brujah another Methuselah controls takes an action : > that remains unblocked. The Brujah's action is blocked and the Brujah : > must enter combat with the minion of your choise. The minion becomes : > tapped. The minion and the Brujah may not have the same controller. : > : > So, yes. : Just a quick question- does this mean the vamp has gotten out of torpor or : not? If the action was blocked then I would assume that the vamp would : not, but the rules on leaving torpor state that if the action is blocked : no combat occurs, but the blocking vamp gets the opportunity to : diablerize. This is an example of a broken card and/or a broken rule. We have a situation where two things are supposed to be happening simultaneously, both perfectly legal according to part of the rules and illegal according to others. The Brujah rescues itself from torpor, successfully, then has a BF played on it. It must go into combat, and cannot go into combat simultaneously. In effect, you _have_ to have a house rule to cover this situation, because the existing rules do not cover it. I am of the opinion that the action is simply blocked (as it says on the card), and whoever is designated as the recipient of a frenzying Brujah now has the opportunity to attempt diablerie. No combat occurs, and it diablerie is not chosen, then the Brujah slips back into Torpor, minus 2 blood for the attempt. In other words, I like the 'no combat coming out of torpor' part of the rules better than the actual text of the card... [ quoted text not captured ]

Oops. I might've misinterpreted everything (in fact, i think i have) so i'm sorry if it was just a dumb post..heh

Using equipment is always optional, using retainers is not. So using Laptop Computer is optional, but using Tasha Morgan is not. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

On Wed, 5 Apr 1995 20:27:27 GMT, James Buster <bit...@netcom.com> wrote: >In article <3lu3in$q...@moe.cc.emory.edu>, >David Leader <dle...@curly.cc.emory.edu> wrote: >>Many people actually believe that in all cases, Shotgun is better than >>Chainsaw. What people DON'T understand is that you can undead strength or >>other attack modifiers, whereas Shotguns cannot.... > >Guess again. Chainsaws aren't melee weapons. "Add +1 damage to hand or >melee weapon" doesn't apply to a Chainsaw. >-- > James Buster > bit...@netcom.com > not to mention the fact that a shotgun can use Mansopper, Glaser and Dragonbreath rounds!!! -Dr. Dalleus, Giovanni Primogen Defenestrate: webster's defines it as the action of throwing someone through a window. Who'd a thunk it. V V V V V_--_V TICK IS KEEN!! |_ _ | /|||| \ || || // -_- \\ \\_____//

In article <72402.k...@gold.tc.umn.edu>, kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu <kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote: >not to mention the fact that a shotgun can use Mansopper, Glaser and >Dragonbreath rounds!!! a shotgun cannot use glaser rounds, since glaser rounds cannot be used the first time a given gun is used in a given combat, and a shotgun can only be used once in a given combat. any other ammo cards are cool, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, my bad :-). Any reasoning for this, or is it just more "We Say So" ?

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > > > Using equipment is always optional, using retainers is not. So using > Laptop Computer is optional, but using Tasha Morgan is not. > > > Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for > aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Peace Tom, Thanks. Glad to see that you are back. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3m7v0l$j...@nunki.usc.edu>, gomi no sensei <pech...@nunki.usc.edu> wrote: >apologies, joseph, but i'm siding with l. scott on this one -- a >comprehensive rules framework allows rule-breaking cards to function >smoothly, whereas multiply errata'd/liquid paper'd/band-aided rules on >each and every individual card simply create poor gameflow (if you don't >have access to the errata list, how do you play?) and leave the door open >for further rulebreaking cards that have to be further errata'd. That's why cards that break the rules should be fire-tested far beyond normal means before they leave the factory. The rules as written cover all aspects of normal gameplay, and are not broken. MN is a horribly written card that does not take into account all ramifications of its effect. If MN didn't exist, there would be absolutely no problem with the rules as written. >also, since movement of the slow body and rapid healing (the two action >cards that currently allow action in torpor, as far as i know) specifically >mention that if blocked, there is no combat, et. al., it seems natural >to make it a global rule, which would fix brujah frenzy without requiring >errata, as well as taking care of any future cards that permit action in >torpor without having to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Sorry, but the phrase on those two cards really falls under the category of "helpful reminder" rather than "new rule." The current rule under 16.2 Leaving Torpor is the precedent. It can be broadened, but it is there. BF doesn't work because it is an out of turn card that breaks the fundamental rules of blocking actions. >re: madness network, the official ruling is that it's meant to disallow >reaction cards (and, imo, it should have said so on the card), and that >that effect is part of its unpleasantness. that's a ruling i can live >with, and it renders the current madness network discussion moot. Where did you hear this? The DT said that the rules were "quite clear," but that doesn't speak to the intent of the card. The DT ruled that you could not play reactions by the wording of the rules, not by asking RG what the card's intent was, so there is no way for you or me to say that we know what the card was officially "meant" to do. If it was meant to disallow reactions, you are correct. But I feel that the whole reaction issue was not thought through, and the original intent was to have a 'mini-turn' for Malkavians in the middle of the round. I'm guessing, sure, but no more than you are. >a m:tg analogy: dwarven weaponsmith, in antiquities and revised. the anti- >quities version had a large block of small print defining its use, text >that was open to loopholing and misinterpretation. in revised, 'sacrifice' >was clearly defined, became a global rule, and the cardtext of the revised >weaponsmith was modified to use this new definition. an elegant solution >to a card that went outside current rules. That problem was a blanket problem for the whole Antiquities expansion. DW was one of twenty or so cards that had it. The Magic Team's intent was to add a new thing to the rules that would apply to many cards (how many cards no ask for the sacrifice of something other than a creature?), not to break the rules for one or two cases (how many MN-like cards would you like to see in V:tES?). The analogy doesn't apply. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >dle...@curly.cc.emory.edu (David Leader) writes >>: Parity Shift - may only redistribute pool up to the difference between >the >>: selected Methuselah's pool and your own pool. >>: [LSJ] > >>I like it the other way better... otherwise, the card sucks.... I like >>being able to kill people with it... if you do that, you may want to >>remove the prince/justicar restraint > >Many hold the opinion that's it's supposed to be very difficult to oust >with votes. Apart from Parity Shift, it is, so the Shift sticks out. Say what? Conservative Agitation is idential in damage potential. Kine Resources Contested is simply a fixed-damage version of the same. Parity shift differs from Cons. Agitation as follows : o Can only target someone with more blood than you o Needs Prince/Justicar o (V rarity as opposed to common) but.. o You can also gain blood with the same card. The restrictions seem to balance out the advantages. The larger the game, the larger blood total you can steal, but the the harder it is to muster the votes needed to pass - unless you care to use some of the pool in question to bribe others to help. IMHO, this is a great card, balanced, useful, and one that promotes player interaction. Alec -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>dle...@curly.cc.emory.edu (David Leader) writes >>>: Parity Shift - may only redistribute pool up to the difference between >>the >>>: selected Methuselah's pool and your own pool. >>>: [LSJ] >> >>>I like it the other way better... otherwise, the card sucks.... I like >>>being able to kill people with it... if you do that, you may want to >>>remove the prince/justicar restraint >> >>Many hold the opinion that's it's supposed to be very difficult to oust >>with votes. Apart from Parity Shift, it is, so the Shift sticks out. >Say what? Conservative Agitation is idential in damage potential. Kine >Resources Contested is simply a fixed-damage version of the same. Almost identical. Parity Shift has a damage potential of one more, since ConserAg requires the damage to be split. >Parity shift differs from Cons. Agitation as follows : > o Can only target someone with more blood than you > o Needs Prince/Justicar > o (V rarity as opposed to common) >but.. > o You can also gain blood with the same card. You can gain a *LOT* of blood. Unless you balance the card as per the name: ONly distibute up to X of that pool which is in excess of your own. >The restrictions seem to balance out the advantages. The larger the game, the >larger blood total you can steal, but the the harder it is to muster the votes >needed to pass - unless you care to use some of the pool in question to bribe >others to help. IMHO, this is a great card, balanced, useful, and one that >promotes player interaction. I agree, it is fine to play either way - not too terrible at all. I just think the name means something other than the official effect. That's the real reason for our house rule. LSJ

Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) wrote: : gomi no sensei <pech...@nunki.usc.edu> wrote: : >re: madness network, the official ruling is that it's meant to disallow : >reaction cards (and, imo, it should have said so on the card), and that : >that effect is part of its unpleasantness. that's a ruling i can live : >with, and it renders the current madness network discussion moot. : Where did you hear this? The DT said that the rules were "quite : clear," but that doesn't speak to the intent of the card. The DT ruled : that you could not play reactions by the wording of the rules, not by : asking RG what the card's intent was, so there is no way for you or me : to say that we know what the card was officially "meant" to do. If it : was meant to disallow reactions, you are correct. : I'm guessing, sure, but no more than you are. You may have missed Tom's recent post on this subject; here it is again for your 'enjoyment'. ======================= From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Subject: Re: Malk Madness Net and Reaction (Hah!) Date: 7 Apr 1995 22:51:41 GMT You cannot play reaction cards during your turn. Therefore, if a Malkavian takes advantage of the Madness Network to act on your turn, you cannot react to that action. THIS IS DELIBERATE. Because the card is doing exactly what it is intended to, there is very little change that anything is going to be changed to disallow the combination. If you want to be able to react to other players' Malkavians... you'd better get rid of the Madness Network. Yes, the card is unpleasant, but it's not a mistake. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. ============================ [ quoted text not captured ]

>Using equipment is always optional, using retainers is not. So using >Laptop Computer is optional, but using Tasha Morgan is not. >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Is WotC trying to put in employment protection for retainers? Once you hire them you can't fire them? Hmm. Lets's think about this. [Tatiana Romanov is trying to intercept Rake's Parity Shift. She needs a Spirit's Touch so Rake won't beat hear face in. Of course, once she has +1 intercept, she can't touch ...] Mr. Winthrop: Excuse me, miss Romanov. Tatiana: [wreathed in incense] Please leave. You're disturbing my seance. Mr. Winthrop: Miss Romanov, there is a serious threat to the balance of power. At 2 AM tonight .. Tatiana: It is important that I learn of this ONLY from the spirits. As your mistress, I order you to keep silent. Mr. Winthrop: My deepest apologies, Miss Romanov, but that would be dereliction of duty. As I was saying,... Tatiana: [getting desperate] Get out of here! Take the day off or something! Mr. Winthrop: I work only during the night. I haven't had a night off since 1926. The attempt will be made by Prince Rake of Atlanta on.. Tatiana: SHUT UP, you pompous twit! Mr. Winthrop: Dock 5 by the waterfront. [Ghostly sounds from departing spirits] Tatiana: ARRRRGH! [Tatiana has to intercept anyway, and, sure enough, Rake beats her face in.] Moral of the story: always conduct THOROUGH pre-employment screening :-) I understand that Jyhad is a game first and a simulation second. There are other things in the game which are not logical, and really couldn't be. But why would equipment be optional and retainers not? I see no reason they shouldn't follow the same rules. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : [Tatiana Romanov is trying to intercept Rake's Parity Shift. She needs a : Spirit's Touch so Rake won't beat hear face in. Of course, once she has : +1 intercept, she can't touch ...] : Mr. Winthrop: Excuse me, miss Romanov. : Tatiana: [wreathed in incense] Please leave. You're disturbing my seance. : Mr. Winthrop: Miss Romanov, there is a serious threat to the balance of : power. At 2 AM tonight .. Dialogue continues.... see previous post or whatever... I just wanted to say that this was WICKED FUNNY and if anyone else (or you, good sir) cares to do another one I'd love to read it. Erik

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : dle...@curly.cc.emory.edu (David Leader) writes : >: o. Reaction cards can be played by Minion controlled by a Methuselah : >: other than the Methuselah controlling the action minion, even on : >: your own turn. : >: [LSJ] : >This is a bad rule for MANY reasons: most importantly, during votes. The : >Dread Gaze, which requires no disciplines, was MEANT to only be used on : >vampires. : Not a problem. The "All kindred" on Dread Gaze adds a restriction to : vampires I was under the impression that Dread Gaze was a Presence discipline. What's the deal here? : >Also, are you allowing WWeF to be played cross the table What's WWeF? : >: Taste of Vitae - only one of these may be played per minion per round. : >: [LSJ] : >It's not a powerful enough card to put this restriction on it. : ER - um - you're not playing this one to its potential. Anybody using it : with the ability to enter combat can obtain an essentially unlimited blood : supply. Even with LSJ's rule it's still probably too powerful I thought that you could only play one of a certain kind of card during a certain action-- you can't play two bewitching orations on someone calling a vote, et cetera. Wouldn't taste of vitae apply to this? Erik

Erik Price (trainee) (epr...@titan.oit.umass.edu) wrote: : CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : : dle...@curly.cc.emory.edu (David Leader) writes : : >This is a bad rule for MANY reasons: most importantly, during votes. The : : >Dread Gaze, which requires no disciplines, was MEANT to only be used on : : >vampires. : I was under the impression that Dread Gaze was a Presence discipline. : What's the deal here? Dread Gaze (req. Presence) was momentarily confused with Surprise Influence (no discipline req.) : : >Also, are you allowing WWeF to be played cross the table : What's WWeF? Wake With Evening's Freshness : : >: Taste of Vitae - only one of these may be played per minion per round. : : >: [LSJ] : I thought that you could only play one of a certain kind of card during a : certain action-- you can't play two bewitching orations on someone : calling a vote, et cetera. Wouldn't taste of vitae apply to this? This restriction does not apply to cards played in combat, except tht you may only play only one strike card per available strike. Thus, one could legitimately play 3 Taste of Vitae (since they are not a strike card) and gain back 3x as much blood as was lost by the opponent. [ quoted text not captured ]

Shane Hamish William Travis (sht...@herald.usask.ca) wrote: : : : >: Taste of Vitae - only one of these may be played per minion per round. : : : >: [LSJ] : : I thought that you could only play one of a certain kind of card during a : : certain action-- you can't play two bewitching orations on someone : : calling a vote, et cetera. Wouldn't taste of vitae apply to this? : This restriction does not apply to cards played in combat, except tht you ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ : may only play only one strike card per available strike. Thank you for clarifying that for me. So I can play two Undead strengths in one combat, just not two Lost in Crowds for the same action right? Erik

epr...@titan.oit.umass.edu (Erik Price (trainee)) writes: >Thank you for clarifying that for me. So I can play two Undead strengths >in one combat, just not two Lost in Crowds for the same action right? Exactly. The only one per restrictions in combat are: a) One strike in each strike declaration phase. If you get additional phases via additional strike or presses to additional rounds you may the use same strike each time, assuming you have enough copies of that card available. b) One Additional Strike card per round. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Harpua (rho...@hamilton.edu) wrote: : this is kind of an interesting twist to the "RPG" in card games, i dont' : think it's what the DT(R) had in mind, but hey you never know... : i think our version of the dialogue went along with an action: : ozmo bleeds using a spying mission: : me "ozmo will video tape you having sex" : next bleed @+3 (+1 for ozmo) : "ozmo will broadcast the video he took of you having sex during prime time" : tee hee hee, : harpua Ho, that's HARSH. I think that would be more of a Govern the Unaligned, Spying Mission, and Conditioning (@+1 [base] +2 [govern] +2 [spying mission] +3 [conditioning] for a total of 9). I think that if he broadcasted it during like, daytime TV, in the middle of a soap opera, it would just be @+1 +2. Erik

In article <3mc8j8$h...@nic.umass.edu>, epr...@titan.oit.umass.edu (Erik Price (trainee)) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] ditto... [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >I agree, it is fine to play either way - not too terrible at all. >I just think the name means something other than the official effect. Why? It's a parity shift -- ie, a reversal, not just equality. If it was 'Camarilla Welfare' or something, it'd be a different story... :) -- Aaron Mandelbaum

Aaron Mandelbaum (ad...@po.cwru.edu) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Exactly, it's a reversal. For example: you have 7 blood, and I have 5. I use parity shift. Now, I have 7 blood, and you have 5. This is a reversal. But if there are 5 people playing, the end result would be: I have 10 blood, and you have 2. This is NOT a reversal. Please note that I do support the official interpretation of parity shift, but L. Scott Johnson's argument is still valid. Larrx...

In article <3me5ph$r...@news.bu.edu>, Larry Harriman <la...@bu.edu> wrote: >Aaron Mandelbaum (ad...@po.cwru.edu) wrote: >: Why? It's a parity shift -- ie, a reversal, not just equality. If it was >: 'Camarilla Welfare' or something, it'd be a different story... :) > >Exactly, it's a reversal. For example: you have 7 blood, and I have 5. I >use parity shift. Now, I have 7 blood, and you have 5. This is a reversal. >But if there are 5 people playing, the end result would be: I have 10 blood, >and you have 2. This is NOT a reversal. Please note that I do support the >official interpretation of parity shift, but L. Scott Johnson's argument is >still valid. Sure it's a reversal. You were in the ahead of me (you had more blood than I did) and now you don't. You were winning, now you're not. Complete reversal. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3mbv2q$p...@tribune.usask.ca>, Shane Hamish William Travis <sht...@herald.usask.ca> wrote: >Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) wrote: >: Where did you hear this? The DT said that the rules were "quite >: clear," but that doesn't speak to the intent of the card. The DT ruled > >You may have missed Tom's recent post on this subject; here it is again >for your 'enjoyment'. No, I did not miss it. I didn't read it until after I made this post, but my basic argument still stands. Go read my response to Tom. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>Using equipment is always optional, using retainers is not. So using >>Laptop Computer is optional, but using Tasha Morgan is not. >Well, my bad :-). >Any reasoning for this, or is it just more "We Say So" ? It's just the way the game was designed. We certainly don't want people to be forced to use guns, for example, and there's no differentiation made between types of equipment. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hee! The explanation I was given about equipment vs. retainers is basically that retainers simply modify the vampire, whereas equipment gives the vampire an ability it can use, or not, at its option. I don't know the exact roots of this distinction, but I strongly suspect that it was seen as simpler to make the distinction than to go around writing "optional" (or "mandatory") on half the equipment and retainers. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>>Using equipment is always optional, using retainers is not. So using >>>Laptop Computer is optional, but using Tasha Morgan is not. >>Well, my bad :-). >>Any reasoning for this, or is it just more "We Say So" ? >It's just the way the game was designed. We certainly don't want people >to be forced to use guns, for example, and there's no differentiation made >between types of equipment. The question was Taisha vs. Laptops. If + bleed is ever optional, when may you declare it? That's an important issue, and not answered, to my knowledge. As to the gun issue, there are many ways around that problem. The people who write the game don't need to be rules lawyers around literal interpretations. It's pretty weird to say the Taisha and a Laptop differ fundamentally in their use because of the wording of the Magnum card. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >The explanation I was given about equipment vs. retainers is basically that >retainers simply modify the vampire, whereas equipment gives the vampire >an ability it can use, or not, at its option. I don't know the exact >roots of this distinction, but I strongly suspect that it was seen as >simpler to make the distinction than to go around writing "optional" (or >"mandatory") on half the equipment and retainers. The simple distinction, IMO, is that abilities are optional in combat and mandatory otherwise. This saves the trouble of "equipment/retainer use timing rules". Yes, it means you can distract your own Murder of Crows with birdseed, but what's the harm in that? I can live with the humorous interaction of Mr Winthrop with superior Auspex, if there's a good game reason. Alternatively, come up with timing rules for out-of-combat use (you need them anyway if laptops are optional) and make everything optional. But if equipment is optional, retainers should be too. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3mi8e0$2...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >Brujah Frenzy can be used to stop a Brujah from rescuing itself from >torpor, but no combat can ensue, since vampires in torpor cannot >engage in combat. Why not? (If your just using my rules, I'd like some credit :-).

Brujah Frenzy can be used to stop a Brujah from rescuing itself from torpor, but no combat can ensue, since vampires in torpor cannot engage in combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >>Brujah Frenzy can be used to stop a Brujah from rescuing itself from >>torpor, but no combat can ensue, since vampires in torpor cannot >>engage in combat. >Why not? "why not" which? If you mean "vampires in torpor cannot engage in combat", we have been saying this since last fall, ever since people first started asking "What happens if a vampire with Haven Uncovered goes into torpor?" The answer being that since a vampire in torpor cannot enter combat, the Haven Uncovered is dormant for the duration. [ quoted text not captured ]

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >them anyway if laptops are optional) and make everything optional. But if >equipment is optional, retainers should be too. My interpretation of the matter is that retainers have a will of their own. They go where the vampire goes but otherwise the vampire does not have a control over them. Two examples: Wolf companion. Wolf won't harm the vampire but the controlling vampire cannot stop them from doing the damage to the opponent. Charnas the Imp. The vampire has no control over Charnas other than that Charnas follows it everywhere. But if using retainers is optional, then the vampire could choose not to be damaged by Charnas. Charnas is special in the way that the vampire cannot harm it but other than that it is an ordinary retainer. If the use of it would be optional, it would never do any damage. Or would Charnas then be an exception? ))marko -- Never try to be amusing and order something like a "pint of dishwater". Judging by the state of some of our larger brewers' beers, you just might get it. The Surrey Pub Guide

ma...@beta.hut.fi (Marko Puumalainen) writes: >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >>them anyway if laptops are optional) and make everything optional. But if >>equipment is optional, retainers should be too. >My interpretation of the matter is that retainers have a will of >their own. They go where the vampire goes but otherwise the vampire >does not have a control over them. >Two examples: >Wolf companion. >Wolf won't harm the vampire but the controlling vampire cannot stop >them from doing the damage to the opponent. >Charnas the Imp. >The vampire has no control over Charnas other than that Charnas >follows it everywhere. But if using retainers is optional, then the >vampire could choose not to be damaged by Charnas. Charnas is special >in the way that the vampire cannot harm it but other than that it is >an ordinary retainer. If the use of it would be optional, it would >never do any damage. All this hooha results from trying to shoehorn all retainers into one ruling. From the game standpoint, some retainers are written to be optional (Ghoul Retainer, Resplendent Protecter, Jackie Therman), while others are written to be mandatory (Charnas, Wolf Companion, Murder of Crows). From the simulation standpoint, some retainers can and will do the vampire's bidding (the human ones), while others either can't understand the bidding (Wolves and Crows) or don't care (Charnas). I find it telling that there appears to be a perfect match between the game and the simulation standpoints - the retainers the vampire couldn't give orders to are written as mandatory, those it could give orders to are written as optional. The out-of-combat retainers (Taisha Morgan, Mr. Winthrop, etc.) require a ruling. From the game standpoint, they are equivalent to certain equipment and ought to work by the same rules. At present, there is no method for declaring when an out-of-combat retainer or equipment is used, so they all should be mandatory. Logically, the equipment can simply not be turned on, and most of the the relevant retainers are clearly able to understand "take the day off" (Raven Spy is the exception). I would be happy with a ruling on when those abilities get used, making them all optional. I would be content to leave things as they are, with all these abilities mandatory because there's no rules for saying whether you use them. But splitting them just because of a compulsion to issue blanket rules where they are neither necessary nor appropriate? I can't sign on to that. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >All this hooha results from trying to shoehorn all retainers into one >ruling. From the game standpoint, some retainers are written to be >optional (Ghoul Retainer, Resplendent Protecter, Jackie Therman), while >others are written to be mandatory (Charnas, Wolf Companion, Murder of >Crows). From the simulation standpoint, some retainers can and will do >the vampire's bidding (the human ones), while others either can't >understand the bidding (Wolves and Crows) or don't care (Charnas). >I find it telling that there appears to be a perfect match between the >game and the simulation standpoints - the retainers the vampire couldn't >give orders to are written as mandatory, those it could give orders to are >written as optional. > >The out-of-combat retainers (Taisha Morgan, Mr. Winthrop, etc.) require a >ruling. From the game standpoint, they are equivalent to certain >equipment and ought to work by the same rules. At present, there is no >method for declaring when an out-of-combat retainer or equipment is used, >so they all should be mandatory. Logically, the equipment can simply not >be turned on, and most of the the relevant retainers are clearly able to >understand "take the day off" (Raven Spy is the exception). I would be ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Remember that each player's turn does not cover a single day. If you want to argue whether the ruling is reasonable from a simulation standpoint, I would point out that each turn is probably weeks or months worth of time, not a couple of days, and it's extremely strange that you would tell Tasha to go away for these two months, come back for these two, go away for these two... It certainly makes sense that you would be able to ditch a combat-oriented retainer for a day or two, since combats would only cover that kind of timeframe, but there isn't a compelling argument for bleed retainers (for example) just "taking the month off". [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: : >The out-of-combat retainers (Taisha Morgan, Mr. Winthrop, etc.) require a : >ruling. From the game standpoint, they are equivalent to certain : >equipment and ought to work by the same rules. At present, there is no : >method for declaring when an out-of-combat retainer or equipment is used, : >so they all should be mandatory. Logically, the equipment can simply not : >be turned on, and most of the the relevant retainers are clearly able to : >understand "take the day off" (Raven Spy is the exception). I would be : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : Remember that each player's turn does not cover a single day. Do not tread down this path, Tom, for once you get away from 'how the rules work' and into 'how one interprets the actual vampires and effects interacting in an imaginary game world' then my view is just as valid as yours... : It certainly makes sense that you would be able to : ditch a combat-oriented retainer for a day or two, since combats would : only cover that kind of timeframe, but there isn't a compelling argument : for bleed retainers (for example) just "taking the month off". "You might picture bleeding as paying bribes, spreading rumours, burning down property, etc." [12.3.1 - Bleed] Tasha Morgan is AT ALL TIMES out there gathering information on who to bribe, what properties are not as well guarded and therefore open to destruction, what secrets a key minion has so that one can better blackmail him, etc. Having brought me the information, she then leaves it in my hands to do with as I please. Should I choose not to act on the info given to me, Tasha assumes I had a good reason and continues to dig for more info that might be of use. Thus, when looked at from a 'game-world' point of view, Tasha Morgan is an optional retainer. I have even less problem believing in optional plus-bleed retainers than I do in optional combat-oriented retainers; one would have to _know_ that a particular action would be intercepted and therefore result in combat in order to give the retainer the 'night off' (assuming unintentional combat), or else one would have to order a retainer to stand there and do nothing while watching his boss get beaten to a pulp. This holds less 'realism' for me.... Shane Travis | The stupid neither forgive nor forget; tra...@duke.usask.ca | The naive both forgive and forget; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | The wise forgive but do not forget. | -- Thomas Szasz

Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote: >Do not tread down this path, Tom, for once you get away from 'how the >rules work' and into 'how one interprets the actual vampires and effects >interacting in an imaginary game world' then my view is just as valid as >yours... Our opinions on what the game "ought" to be simulating are equally valid. However, part of the reason I'm here is to inform you of what the design team considers the game to be simulating. Scott(?) presented an argument against the rule on retainers based on what he thought we were supposed to be simulating, so I pointed out an alternate viewpoint. >Tasha Morgan is AT ALL TIMES out there gathering information on who >to bribe, what properties are not as well guarded and therefore open to >destruction, what secrets a key minion has so that one can better >blackmail him, etc. Having brought me the information, she then leaves >it in my hands to do with as I please. Should I choose not to act on the >info given to me, Tasha assumes I had a good reason and continues to dig >for more info that might be of use. Thus, when looked at from a >'game-world' point of view, Tasha Morgan is an optional retainer. Tasha is not necessarily going out and getting information for you. She's probably just taking care of some of the day-to-day (night-to-night?) stuff for the vampire, giving the vampire more time to devote to bleeding activities. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell from the Tasha art just what she's supposed to be doing, but this is almost certainly the function that J.S. Simmons is serving, for example... taking care of the legal hassles a vampire accumulates over the centuries. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : >Tasha Morgan is AT ALL TIMES out there gathering information on who : >to bribe, what properties are not as well guarded and therefore open to : >destruction, what secrets a key minion has so that one can better : >blackmail him, etc. Having brought me the information, she then leaves : >it in my hands to do with as I please. Should I choose not to act on the : >info given to me, Tasha assumes I had a good reason and continues to dig : >for more info that might be of use. Thus, when looked at from a : >'game-world' point of view, Tasha Morgan is an optional retainer. : Tasha is not necessarily going out and getting information for you. : She's probably just taking care of some of the day-to-day (night-to-night?) : stuff for the vampire, giving the vampire more time to devote to : bleeding activities. Given that interpretation, why doesn't the vampire have more time to do things like, say, hunting or finding weaponry then? Why is it that the _only_ thing that extra time can be used for is bleeding someone? This is getting increasingly far-fetched. Seems to me that even if this _were_ the absolute, bar-none interpretation of what effects were taking place in the Game World, it is an even _better_ argument for making Tasha optional; why does the vampire HAVE to use that extra time for bleeding? Even if we say that no other game-affecting actions can be taken with this copious free time, who is to say that the vampire isn't using the extra time to kick back with a bottle of B+, make a little whoopee, or just hang out with friends? : Unfortunately, there's no way to tell from the : Tasha art just what she's supposed to be doing, but this is almost : certainly the function that J.S. Simmons is serving, for example... : taking care of the legal hassles a vampire accumulates over the centuries. Wow. Totally different interpretation than I had; vampires got legal hassles? What, copyright infringement? I had always assumed that Simmons had access to some mighty important and secret papers that aided immensely in taking down other Meth's corporate structure and power bases. Whichever interpretation one takes, it still doesn't explain why they are mandatory. In mine, I could choose not to use the info; in either I could decide to give old J.S. the night/week/month/year off because I am afraid of people tracking his connection back to me and exposing his position... Any other good game-related reasons why they should be mandatory? You are just building the case for optional retainers so far... Shane H.W. Travis | Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for tra...@duke.usask.ca | thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Hebrews 13:2

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Tasha is not necessarily going out and getting information for you. >She's probably just taking care of some of the day-to-day (night-to-night?) >stuff for the vampire, giving the vampire more time to devote to >bleeding activities. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell from the >Tasha art just what she's supposed to be doing, but this is almost >certainly the function that J.S. Simmons is serving, for example... >taking care of the legal hassles a vampire accumulates over the centuries. Hmm. I figured Simmons was out making legal trouble for the prey, and Tasha was doing something similar but causing scandal troubles rather than legal troubles. Alec -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.