LSJ simple Derange question

When the CE is released will the Sabbat Derange be changed? So the (Sabbat)Derange will now be playable by a Malkavian and will require clan instead of Dem to play??? Emile "We are an ape with a symbiotic relationship to a mushroom"

In message <cbf416fb.02072...@posting.google.com>, Emile Bosman <ebo...@hotmail.com> writes: >When the CE is released will the Sabbat Derange be changed? >So the (Sabbat)Derange will now be playable by a Malkavian and will >require clan instead of Dem to play??? All cards are played by the most recent printing, when that printing enters into legal play. The Sabbat Derange won't "change" until: - the Camarilla edition becomes V:EKN legal (30 days after release) - alternatively, a tournament that specifically allowed TCE cards early -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D You don't need to hear it but I'm dried up EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 and sick to death of love. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

ebo...@hotmail.com (Emile Bosman) wrote in message news:<cbf416fb.02072...@posting.google.com>... > When the CE is released will the Sabbat Derange be changed? > So the (Sabbat)Derange will now be playable by a Malkavian and will > require clan instead of Dem to play??? > Right. BUT... you can now play it only on YOUNGER vampires. That's the big change. (Sniff, too sad.) Joscha

>Right. BUT... you can now play it only on YOUNGER vampires. That's the >big change. (Sniff, too sad.) But you can *move* it to *any* vampire. So you just play with some non-Malk/!Malk weenies, play Derange on them and have them move it to Arika. Halcyan 2

In message <20020722085605...@mb-fy.aol.com>, Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> writes: >>Right. BUT... you can now play it only on YOUNGER vampires. That's the >>big change. (Sniff, too sad.) > >But you can *move* it to *any* vampire. <pedantry> Except a Malkavian Antitribu. </pedantry> And probably, post release, a Malkavian. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:k2U9iyJJ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <20020722085605...@mb-fy.aol.com>, Halcyan 2 > <halc...@aol.com> writes: [re: Derange] > >But you can *move* it to *any* vampire. > > <pedantry> Except a Malkavian Antitribu. </pedantry> > > And probably, post release, a Malkavian. CE text: "Derange. Malkavian; Malkavian Antitribu. This is a +1 stealth action. (D) Put this card on a younger vampire. The vampire with this card is considered to be the same clan as the acting vampire. The vampire with this card does not untap as normal. During his or her controller's untap phase, he or she may burn 1 blood to untap. The vampire with this card may move it to another vampire as a (D) action. This card cannot be played on a Malkavian or Malkavian antitribu." LSJ - does the "cannot be played" sentence mean that it also can't be *moved* to a Malk or !Malk? Or is "played" referring (as usual) only to the card being played from hand? Josh ranged

Joshua Duffin wrote: > LSJ - does the "cannot be played" sentence mean that it also can't > be *moved* to a Malk or !Malk? Or is "played" referring (as usual) > only to the card being played from hand? Attempting to move it to vampire X would be playing it on vampire X. It cannot be moved to a vampire that card text prevents it from being played on. See also Master: Discipline cards. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38EA021C.86C3671D%40white-wolf.com -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D3C4073...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > LSJ - does the "cannot be played" sentence mean that it also can't > > be *moved* to a Malk or !Malk? Or is "played" referring (as usual) > > only to the card being played from hand? > > Attempting to move it to vampire X would be playing it on vampire X. > It cannot be moved to a vampire that card text prevents it from being > played on. > See also Master: Discipline cards. > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38EA021C.86C3671D%40white-wolf.com Hmm. I'd find the phrases "placed on" or "put on" more clear than just stating that "played on" is equivalent to those in this context, given the "play vs use" distinction drawn for other cards. (Or, "cannot be played on or moved to.") Too late now, I guess. :-( Master: Disciplines should also IMO use another phrase than "play" to mean that they can't be moved to vamps with superior. It's not consistent, to my mind, with the "standard" VTES use of "play a card". Josh standardoriffic

In message <ahhfrv$smnbb$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >> Attempting to move it to vampire X would be playing it on vampire X. >> It cannot be moved to a vampire that card text prevents it from being >> played on. >> See also Master: Discipline cards. >> >> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38EA021C.86C3671D%40white-wolf.com > >Hmm. I'd find the phrases "placed on" or "put on" more clear >than just stating that "played on" is equivalent to those in >this context, given the "play vs use" distinction drawn for >other cards. (Or, "cannot be played on or moved to.") > >Too late now, I guess. :-( *IF* the Camarilla Edition is reprinted and they can sneak a couple of word changes in, akin to Sabbat War's reprint fixing Power Structure et al, I'd certainly support writing it as: "This card cannot be played on or moved to a Malkavian or Malkavian /antitribu/." There's certainly space at the bottom. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:m49dxMht...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > > *IF* the Camarilla Edition is reprinted and they can sneak a couple of > word changes in, akin to Sabbat War's reprint fixing Power Structure et > al, I'd certainly support writing it as: > > "This card cannot be played on or moved to a Malkavian or > Malkavian /antitribu/." > > There's certainly space at the bottom. Yes, I agree. Including about the space at the bottom. (On a side note, Derange has 10 lines of text (counting the "+1 stealth action" line) and space for one or two more at the bottom. In Magic I think seven lines is the max? Apparently we win the "that's a whole lot of text" battle, heh.) Ah, if only I could help proofread/copy-edit/layout new cards/ rulebooks/etc before they were final. ;-) Josh wants what i have not got

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ahhs1l$th7mj$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > Yes, I agree. Including about the space at the bottom. (On a > side note, Derange has 10 lines of text (counting the "+1 stealth > action" line) and space for one or two more at the bottom. In > Magic I think seven lines is the max? Apparently we win the > "that's a whole lot of text" battle, heh.) > That's what I have dubbed SLS, or Seven-Line Syndrome. Once a card has surpassed seven lines of text, it's not worth reading. I still don't know what Fata Amria really does. And I still don't like the "recruitment" aspect of the new Derange. Are they Malkavians or Settites, for Caine's sake?

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:iC__8.629089$cQ3.100846@sccrnsc01... > > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:ahhs1l$th7mj$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > > > Yes, I agree. Including about the space at the bottom. (On a > > side note, Derange has 10 lines of text (counting the "+1 stealth > > action" line) and space for one or two more at the bottom. In > > Magic I think seven lines is the max? Apparently we win the > > "that's a whole lot of text" battle, heh.) > > > That's what I have dubbed SLS, or Seven-Line Syndrome. Once a card has > surpassed seven lines of text, it's not worth reading. I still don't > know what Fata Amria really does. I think the "Seven Line Syndrome" phrase originated in talking about Magic cards - whether it was because seven was the most lines a Magic card could have or because seven just sounds good, I don't know... Fata Amria has thirteen lines. Wow. :-) > And I still don't like the "recruitment" aspect of the new Derange. > Are they Malkavians or Settites, for Caine's sake? Heh. Apparently when the Malkavians make you crazy, you become crazy just like them. Josh crazy like a fox!

>crazy like a fox! Foxes are cute! My personal favorite is definitely the arctic fox! They're just absolutely darling! Gray foxes are a close second because they can climb trees which is kinda funny - a fox in a tree! I know lots of people prefer red foxes and I guess they're okay but I think they're a bit over-rated. Red might have been an okay color for foxes 100 or even 50 years ago but they really should keep up with the latest in coat styles. And kit foxes are just kinda funky looking with those giant ears! Halcyan 2 fox hunting isn't very nice for the foxes!

>> LSJ - does the "cannot be played" sentence mean that it also can't >> be *moved* to a Malk or !Malk? Or is "played" referring (as usual) >> only to the card being played from hand? > >Attempting to move it to vampire X would be playing it on vampire X. >It cannot be moved to a vampire that card text prevents it from being >played on. >See also Master: Discipline cards. #1. Okay, I'm a bit confused. So "move" and "play" are considered to be the same thing in this context. Now where does that leave "put"? Is a vampire (with Card A) putting Card A on another vampire analogous to a vampire (with Card B) moving Card B on another vampire? #2. To further discussion "put" vs. "move" vs. "play": I control Smudge with a Secure Haven and Arika with a Society of Leopold. If Arika puts the Society of Leopold on Smudge, does it cost me a pool? #3. In previous statements, it seemed like you made it clear that "playing" a card refers only to playing from one's hand. Is that true or false? (Trying to avoid tricky wording). #4. Since moving Derange to vampire X is the same thing as playing it on vampire X, when I move a Derange, do I burn a counter off of my Visit from the Capuchin? (I did *play* the Derange). #5. A minion with a superior Total Insanity (and thus cannot play action cards) clearly cannot play a Derange (from your hand) on someone else. Can he/she move (which is the same thing as play) a Derange onto another vampire? Thanks! Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >> LSJ - does the "cannot be played" sentence mean that it also can't > >> be *moved* to a Malk or !Malk? Or is "played" referring (as usual) > >> only to the card being played from hand? > > > >Attempting to move it to vampire X would be playing it on vampire X. > >It cannot be moved to a vampire that card text prevents it from being > >played on. > >See also Master: Discipline cards. > > #1. Okay, I'm a bit confused. So "move" and "play" are considered to be the > same thing in this context. Now where does that leave "put"? Is a vampire (with > Card A) putting Card A on another vampire analogous to a vampire (with Card B) > moving Card B on another vampire? Context is key. > #2. To further discussion "put" vs. "move" vs. "play": I control Smudge with a > Secure Haven and Arika with a Society of Leopold. If Arika puts the Society of > Leopold on Smudge, does it cost me a pool? No. > #3. In previous statements, it seemed like you made it clear that "playing" a > card refers only to playing from one's hand. Is that true or false? (Trying to > avoid tricky wording). It true for most things. Some things mean "placed on", though. Ian is the obvious example. > #4. Since moving Derange to vampire X is the same thing as playing it on > vampire X, when I move a Derange, do I burn a counter off of my Visit from the > Capuchin? (I did *play* the Derange). No. (The vampire played it). > #5. A minion with a superior Total Insanity (and thus cannot play action cards) > clearly cannot play a Derange (from your hand) on someone else. Can he/she move > (which is the same thing as play) a Derange onto another vampire? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D3CB56D...@white-wolf.com... > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > #1. Okay, I'm a bit confused. So "move" and "play" are considered to > > be the > > same thing in this context. Now where does that leave "put"? Is a > > vampire (with > > Card A) putting Card A on another vampire analogous to a vampire > > (with Card B) > > moving Card B on another vampire? > > Context is key. In other words, the word "play" means different things in VTES in different contexts. Ick. :-) > > #4. Since moving Derange to vampire X is the same thing as playing it > > on vampire X, when I move a Derange, do I burn a counter off of my > > Visit from the Capuchin? (I did *play* the Derange). > > No. (The vampire played it). The moved Derange is played by the vampire but not by the Methuselah? Could we use any more confusing terminology? Is there any way to change the wording at least of current/ future cards to avoid this kind of opacity? Josh insane in the membrane

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020722202901...@mb-mw.aol.com... > >crazy like a fox! [snip] > fox hunting isn't very nice for the foxes! Dude, you are *such* a freak it's amazing how freaky you are. You're like the freakiest freak that ever freaked. :-) You're right though, arctic foxes are very cute. Josh but that would require some kind of re-freak-ulator

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3D3CB56D...@white-wolf.com... > > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > > > #1. Okay, I'm a bit confused. So "move" and "play" are considered to > > > be the > > > same thing in this context. Now where does that leave "put"? Is a > > > vampire (with > > > Card A) putting Card A on another vampire analogous to a vampire > > > (with Card B) > > > moving Card B on another vampire? > > > > Context is key. > > In other words, the word "play" means different things in VTES > in different contexts. Ick. :-) > > > > #4. Since moving Derange to vampire X is the same thing as playing it > > > on vampire X, when I move a Derange, do I burn a counter off of my > > > Visit from the Capuchin? (I did *play* the Derange). > > > > No. (The vampire played it). > > The moved Derange is played by the vampire but not by the > Methuselah? Could we use any more confusing terminology? ? Methuselahs play cards from their hands. This is not played form the hand. Why the need to turn such trivial matters into big bogeymen? > Is there any way to change the wording at least of current/ > future cards to avoid this kind of opacity? Have to work out the validity of the underlying assumptions of that question in order to find an answer. I think the question you're trying to ask is: can cards that refer to something being placed on use "placed" instead of "played" for clarity? If so, the answer is "of course". [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D3DB370...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > The moved Derange is played by the vampire but not by the > > Methuselah? Could we use any more confusing terminology? > > ? > Methuselahs play cards from their hands. > This is not played form the hand. > > Why the need to turn such trivial matters into big bogeymen? You're right that it's relatively trivial. But it seems to me entirely unnecessary to use the word "play" to describe a vampire moving a card that's already "in play" - to call that "playing" the card confuses the usual distinction that cards are "played" from the hand (as opposed to "used" or "moved" or "stolen" while in play). > > Is there any way to change the wording at least of current/ > > future cards to avoid this kind of opacity? > > Have to work out the validity of the underlying assumptions of > that question in order to find an answer. > > I think the question you're trying to ask is: can cards that > refer to something being placed on use "placed" instead of > "played" for clarity? > > If so, the answer is "of course". Good. We (and by "we" I mean "you") should make it so. :-) Josh 401 access denied

LSJ wrote: > (re: Josh's comments about the confusion over what the word "play" means in various contexts on different cards.) > Why the need to turn such trivial matters into big bogeymen? Is this a trick question? 1) "Trivial matters" like these determine how the game is played. 2) The way functional card text is written on some of these cards doesn't seem to make the meaning as apparent as it could be. I feel somewhat vindicated that other people are having some trouble easily understanding the intended meaning of "play" on a card. I still don't think dictionary definitions always resolve these things. Fred

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 05:05:25 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >I feel somewhat vindicated that other people are having some >trouble easily understanding the intended meaning of "play" on >a card. I still don't think dictionary definitions always resolve >these things. Indeed. I heard an interesting story last night about the use of the word "may" in WRG wargame rules. These were written by military academy types (Sandhurst) and the word "may" has a specific technical meaning for them. In ordinary life it just implies that something is optional. But in military orders it gives the NCO permission to query the order (because sergeants' advice is worth listening to). If the order was issued as a plain imperative then any hesitation could be taken as disobedience and the NCO might be shot for it. So, in that context, "may" means "you must unless you have a good reason not to". This makes quite a difference in rule texts. Andrew

Frederick Scott wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > (re: Josh's comments about the confusion over what the word > "play" means in various contexts on different cards.) > > Why the need to turn such trivial matters into big bogeymen? > > Is this a trick question? > > 1) "Trivial matters" like these determine how the game is played. The quote in question cast the problem as something bigger than it is. "Could we use any more confusing terminology?" > 2) The way functional card text is written on some of these > cards doesn't seem to make the meaning as apparent as it could > be. Correct. As I said in the post to which you've just followed up. > I feel somewhat vindicated that other people are having some > trouble easily understanding the intended meaning of "play" on > a card. I still don't think dictionary definitions always resolve > these things. Of course. Hence the idea that it is ambiguous. Again, as I said in the post to which you've just followed up. Why snip those points and then present them as contrary to mine? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > 2) The way functional card text is written on some of these > > cards doesn't seem to make the meaning as apparent as it could > > be. > > Correct. As I said in the post to which you've just followed up. I didn't catch that meaning in your response to Josh. The way you phrased your answer seemed a bit cryptic. But OK, glad we agree. > > I feel somewhat vindicated that other people are having some > > trouble easily understanding the intended meaning of "play" on > > a card. I still don't think dictionary definitions always resolve > > these things. > > Of course. Hence the idea that it is ambiguous. Again, as I said > in the post to which you've just followed up. > > Why snip those points and then present them as contrary to mine? Again, I didn't understand that that's what you were saying. (Tricky stuff, this business of context.) Sorry, I don't mean to attack you when you were just in the process of conceding that Josh's concern was valid. Fred

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ahhvvj$st1md$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:iC__8.629089$cQ3.100846@sccrnsc01... > > > > > > > That's what I have dubbed SLS, or Seven-Line Syndrome. Once a card has > > surpassed seven lines of text, it's not worth reading. I still don't > > know what Fata Amria really does. > > I think the "Seven Line Syndrome" phrase originated in talking > about Magic cards - whether it was because seven was the most > lines a Magic card could have or because seven just sounds good, > I don't know... > No way, dude! Mine, all mine! Ask James Coupe, he'll tell you. 8) Uh... yeah, I had to work *way* too long today. But on the bright side, my cable is back up after being fux0r3d for far too long.

In message <LAK09.671596$352.140019@sccrnsc02>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: <Seven Line Syndrome> >No way, dude! Mine, all mine! Ask James Coupe, he'll tell you. 8) Oh, err, yes. It's all Chris's. Please note: What follows is not related to the above. Is that cheque in the post for me? [ quoted text not captured ]