Elder Kindred Network: question

Are EKN's cumulative? -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <3lpgck$r...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > Are EKN's cumulative? I think it would depend on who plays the card. The corrected rules 13.2 states that only one reaction card of a given type can be played per action. I would believe that this applies to a given Meth. So, IMO one Meth could only play 1 EKN. But I see nothing to stop another Meth with Ventrue from playing an additional EKN. Although 13.2 does say that only one reaction card of a given type may be played in response to an action, I do believe that it is reasonable to think that applies to each individual Meth. (I know, using reason again to try and explain the rules is very dangerous.) Reasoning goes like this: Player A bleeds player B, Player B Wakes a minion and attempts to intercept with Enhanced Senses, Stealth is raised, B cannot block so a minion uses Deflection to bounce the bleed to player C. It would be reasonable for Player C to be able to use a Wake, an Enhanced Senses, and /or a Deflection. Otherwise, Player C could be in big trouble. Well, that's my two cents worth. I'm anxious to hear what others think. stephen

In article <3lqbr8$r...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > >7.2.2. Minion Cards > > Reaction cards: You or your minions use these cards to respond to actions > >of a minion controlled by another Methuselah. These cards can only be > >played when it is not your turn. The same reaction card type cannot be > >used twice by a minion during the same reaction. Reaction cards do not tap > >the minion using the card. > And, according to Tom, this it the correctly stated way of things. > The "You" in section 13.2 refers to the Minion, not the Methuselah. Not to be too argumentative, but if that were the case, why use the example of a Wake in 13.2? I can see no reason for a single minion to have to use 2 Wakes to contest a single action. (Well, I take that back, if someone superior form of the misted out of combat, I guess it would be the same action. But that might not be a common enough situation to warrant it's inclusion as an example.) So, I feel I could reasonably argue that much like the 7.2.2 wording "you or your minions", the you could reasonably be taken for meaning the Meth. I couldn't find another example in the rules where 'you' was meant to be used for 'your minion'. The writers were pretty careful to say minion when they talked about minions. Well, that's my take on it at least. I am naturally willing to bow to the majority or an 'official' ruling. stephen

kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes: >Are EKN's cumulative? Yes. (Because it doesn't invoke a "state" - such as being Famous or Having Rats in PLay).

hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) writes: [ quoted text not captured ] >> Are EKN's cumulative? [ quoted text not captured ] Well, the corrected rules also say: >7.2.2. Minion Cards > > Reaction cards: You or your minions use these cards to respond to actions >of a minion controlled by another Methuselah. These cards can only be >played when it is not your turn. The same reaction card type cannot be >used twice by a minion during the same reaction. Reaction cards do not tap >the minion using the card. And, according to Tom, this it the correctly stated way of things. The "You" in section 13.2 refers to the Minion, not the Methuselah. L. Scott

Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote: : Are EKN's cumulative? Ooooh... Nasty! I see no reason why not. Political Backlash cards are almost identical in their effect - differ only in the time they can be played and the fact that the amount of blood lost is a fixed sum - and the ruling on those is that multiple opponents can throw out multiple cards and they accumulate in their effects. EKN should be the same, I would think... Ouch! Shane Travis | A man who carries a cat by the tail learns sht...@duke.usask.ca | something he can learn no other way. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Mark Twain

hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) writes: >In article <3lqbr8$r...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >> The "You" in section 13.2 refers to the Minion, not the Methuselah. >Not to be too argumentative, but if that were the case, why use the >example of a Wake in 13.2? So that a single Minion could not "cycle" through the six wakes in his Methuselah's hands, possibly. (I'm stretching here) or Because someone forgot to change the text to something that made sense (Like Telepathic Counter)? >I couldn't find another >example in the rules where 'you' was meant to be used for 'your minion'. >The writers were pretty careful to say minion when they talked about >minions. Well, in 7.2.2 (the passage I quoted earlier) it says "Reaction cards: You ... use these cards to respond" And "you" don't use these cards at all - you have an untapped minion use the card. Also: 12.3.1: You may attempt to bleed the player who is your Prey. 15.1: If you used a weapon or strike card for a maneuver... Both of these are under the "Things a Minion Does" category. L. Scott

Well, it probably seems like my group is in the minority at this point. We have always read the 13.2 ruling of only 1 reaction card of a given type per declared action to mean a Meth. can only use 1 card per action. This would mean if s/he tried to Wake a vamp, and could not succeed in blocking, s/he couldn't wake another vamp to try. We have understood this as a rule making carfeful consideration of defense a must. If you chose to wake the wrong vamp, and it couldn't muster enough intercept, while if you had roused a different vamp it would have blocked- well, then you misplayed. Otherwise there is little incentive to not put a vast quantity of Wakes in your deck. ( And I don't want to start another round of WwEF bashing here.) We assumed that the Wake example was chosen particularly for the reason we have stated, because it was the card most likely to be used by different vamps against an action. Scott, you brought up Telepathic Counter. Does this ruling mean that if you have 4 vamps with superior auspex and 4 Counters in your hand that you could counter a bleed or 8 pool? Does this also mean that if you use Deflection to bounce a bleed, and it gets bounced back, that you could use another Deflection to bounce it again? I have always seen the 1 reaction per Meth. per action as a balancing rule. Perhaps I see it very differently from others, and am in the minority. Or perhaps just differently from the DT. Curious as to what others think, and not just the DT ruling. stephen

In article <3lrl2t$f...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >Well, in 7.2.2 (the passage I quoted earlier) it says "Reaction cards: >You ... use these cards to respond" And "you" don't use these cards at all - >you have an untapped minion use the card. > >Also: 12.3.1: You may attempt to bleed the player who is your Prey. >15.1: If you used a weapon or strike card for a maneuver... > >Both of these are under the "Things a Minion Does" category. This 13.2 vs. 7.2.2 thing has been brought up several times (once or twice by me and now by others). Basically, we're just going to have to decide which section to trust and live with it. | 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

hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) >Well, it probably seems like my group is in the minority at this point. >We have always read the 13.2 ruling of only 1 reaction card of a given >type per declared action to mean a Meth. can only use 1 card per action. Regardless of the intent of the rules writers, I don't think the testers addressed issues with multiple reaction cards per Methuseleh. Who needs EKN when you can slap down 4 Political Backlashes. The "one per minion" interpretation, is so universal I don't think there's any way to change it, even if it should be changed. Incidentally, my group played as yours until the "clarified" rules came out and were digested. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Stephen Beaulieu (hi...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote: : Scott, you brought up Telepathic Counter. Does this ruling mean that if : you have 4 vamps with superior auspex and 4 Counters in your hand that you : could counter a bleed [f]or 8 pool? Logically, that would be the conclusion. : Does this also mean that if you use : Deflection to bounce a bleed, and it gets bounced back, that you could use : another Deflection to bounce it again? Uh-huh. Have seen this done (albeit with Telepathic Misdirection). Perfectly legal. : I have always seen the 1 reaction per Meth. per action as a balancing : rule. Perhaps I see it very differently from others, and am in the : minority. Or perhaps just differently from the DT. This is not necessarily a bad thing. :-) I don't have a problem (in general) with multiple copies of the same reaction being used on an action - it (generally) doesn't unbalance too many things IMHO. I do think that Political Backlash is one of the cards that needs to be restricted to one per Meth per Referendum in light of that ruling so as to not make it too overwhelming... [ quoted text not captured ]

hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) wrote: > Scott, you brought up Telepathic Counter. Does this ruling mean that if > you have 4 vamps with superior auspex and 4 Counters in your hand that you > could counter a bleed or 8 pool? Does this also mean that if you use > Deflection to bounce a bleed, and it gets bounced back, that you could use > another Deflection to bounce it again? Peace Stephen, Yes, you could play multiple TCs if you have multiple minions with Auspex. Yes, you could do multiple Deflections of the same bleed with sufficient minions. > I have always seen the 1 reaction per Meth. per action as a balancing > rule. Perhaps I see it very differently from others, and am in the > minority. Or perhaps just differently from the DT. That is one reaction per Meth per minion per action. My group has absolutely no problem with it this way. Multiple reactions from different minions isn't very common. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

A given *minion* cannot use the same reaction twice in response to an action. A player can use the same reaction multiple times during an action, as long as a new minion is using it each time. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: > hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) >addressed issues with multiple reaction cards per Methuseleh. Who needs >EKN when you can slap down 4 Political Backlashes. Well, I must say that I wouldn't be very happy waiting for a failed vote with 4 Political Backlashes in my hand. And EKN makes room for other cards in your deck with the ability of doing even more pool loss than 8. ))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

I must say, that when a vote is called (by another Methuselah), and I whip out Elder Kindred Network, usually that methuselah suffers some harsh pool loss. The only time I haven't seen anyone deal a ton of damage with an elder kindred network is when the person calling the vote had kissed every ass in the game (often a very good idea, it worked for him in this case) by giving everyone camarilla exemplaries. EKN is a great card! Erik

In article <3mgvkq$r...@nic.umass.edu>, epr...@titan.oit.umass.edu (Erik Price (trainee)) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] i can agree with erik, elder kindred network is a realy powerful card. the original post that started this thread stated something to the order of "why use ekn when i can throw down 4 polit backlashes?". basically, 4 polit backlashes would be hard to throw (4 untapped minions and 4 cards in hand). why not just use both. last night my prey called a praxis vote. the other guys had minimal votes, so i had sir walter nash throw down an ekn, dread gaze (plus the votes from 2 other princes and 2 from my hand) for a total of 10 against (figuring the other votes). basically, my prey lost lots of blood with a polit backlash added in there- and learned not to call votes to get them out of his hand. moral of the story- ekn is a bitchin card- even better with polit backlash. harpua