Ok, first of all, myopinion on the Monocle.
Its an obviously great card, but people read too much into it. It says
on the card that the person must answer truthfully. "Will you answer
affirmatvely to my next question?" Truthfully, I could not possibly
answer that question without knowing what the next one would be. If I
answered yes OR no, then I would not be giving an honest answer. <>shrugs<>
ANYWAY, here's a situation which I don't think too many people have
thought about yet. There is a Tremere who has the special ability to
transfer one blood from herself to any Tremere in the game. Well, what
I'm wondering is, can she transfer blood from herself to uncontrolled
vampires? No where on the card does it say that the Tremere she
transfers has to be ready, much less even controlled. SO, if she can,
then once you get a hunting ground out, she's either you're own personal
edge (put one on an uncontrolled trememere and slurp it off during
influence) or she's an infinitely cool version of Arcane Library!
Whatcha all think?
As to trading, I'm looking for the following cards:
Malkavian Madness Network
Kine Dominance
Soul Gem
Golconda
Freak Drive
Day Operation
Entrancement
Renegade Garou
Monocle of Clarity
Charnas the Imp
I have a ton of extra rares among them a large number of Justicar and
Praxis Seizures, Segnir Dagger, Blood Puppy, Fragment of the Book of Nod,
Fists of Death, Ghoul Escort, Tasha Morgan, Art Museum, Behind You,
Aaron's Feeding Razor, Dawn Ooperation
Gypsies, Thadius Zho, Temptation of a greater Power, and those are just
off the top of my head! Mail me if you're interested in doing some trading!
S. Dembo <sde...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>...There is a Tremere who has the special ability to>transfer one blood from herself to any Tremere in the game. Well, what
>I'm wondering is, can she transfer blood from herself to uncontrolled
>vampires? No where on the card does it say that the Tremere she>transfers has to be ready, much less even controlled...
Cards never interact with uncontrolled vampires unless they say they do;
Sabine (the vampire you're thinking of) doesn't say she can give blood
to uncontrolled Tremere, so can. Cards *can* interact freely with vampires
both ready and in torpor unless the card says otherwise; Sabine doesn't say
anything about that, so can transfer blood to any controlled vampire.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
In article <3cs0eh$q...@tequesta.gate.net>,
Brian Wilson <bwi...@gate.net> wrote:
>Uncontrolled vampires are not considered "in the game," and so Sabine
>cannot transfer blood to them. For your own personal edge, try a Hunting
>Ground and a Blood Doll.
>
Rules section 11.1 (The Playing Area) defines the uncontrolled region
as being in the game. Regardless of any rulings about Sabine, the
uncontrolled vampires are definitely 'in the game,' they just might
be exempt from Sabine (although I personally don't think that they
should be).
| 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
Before I could do anything to stop it, S. Dembo wrote:
> ANYWAY, here's a situation which I don't think too many people have
> thought about yet. There is a Tremere who has the special ability to
> transfer one blood from herself to any Tremere in the game. Well, what
> I'm wondering is, can she transfer blood from herself to uncontrolled
> vampires? No where on the card does it say that the Tremere she
> transfers has to be ready, much less even controlled. SO, if she can,
> then once you get a hunting ground out, she's either you're own personal
> edge (put one on an uncontrolled trememere and slurp it off during
> influence) or she's an infinitely cool version of Arcane Library!
> Whatcha all think?
Uncontrolled vampires are not considered "in the game," and so Sabine
cannot transfer blood to them. For your own personal edge, try a Hunting
Ground and a Blood Doll.
--
Arrogantly twisting the sterile canvas snoot of a | a-Henh!
fully charged icing annointment utensil, he poots forth |
a tiny green rosette near the summit of a dense but | Brian
radiant muffin of his own design. | Wilson
|
We miss you, Frank! |
Before I could do anything to stop it, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
I think a few keys didn't fire on this one:
> Cards never interact with uncontrolled vampires unless they say they do;
> Sabine (the vampire you're thinking of) doesn't say she can give blood
> to uncontrolled Tremere, so can.
Probably ought to read:
Cards never interact with uncontrolled vampires unless they say they do;
Sabine (the vampire you're thinking of) doesn't say she can give blood
to uncontrolled Tremere, so *she cannot*.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Before I could do anything to stop it, Joe Cochran wrote:
> Rules section 11.1 (The Playing Area) defines the uncontrolled region
> as being in the game. Regardless of any rulings about Sabine, the
> uncontrolled vampires are definitely 'in the game,' they just might
> be exempt from Sabine (although I personally don't think that they
> should be).
Perhaps the uncontrolled region is "in the game," but those uncontrolled
vampires are not. Neither are contested vampires. Until they are
controlled and turned face up, they are not considered "in the game."
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3d473k$1q...@tequesta.gate.net>,
Brian Wilson <bwi...@gate.net> wrote:
>Before I could do anything to stop it, Joe Cochran wrote:>> Rules section 11.1 (The Playing Area) defines the uncontrolled region
>> as being in the game. Regardless of any rulings about Sabine, the>>Perhaps the uncontrolled region is "in the game," but those uncontrolled
>vampires are not. Neither are contested vampires. Until they are
>controlled and turned face up, they are not considered "in the game."
>
Please, if you're going to make a statement countering something that
I have quoted from the rules, either use the rules or a ruling from
WotC (or Tom) to back your statement up. Because my only answer to
post is:
Yes, they *are* in the game. Ref: Rules section 11.1. The crypt and
library are not defined in the play area, and are thus not "in the
game," but the uncontrolled vampires are "in the game."
If you plan on posting and telling me "no, they're not" without
something to back up your statement, you might as well just save
your bandwidth for someone who will listen.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Before I could do anything to stop it, Joe Cochran wrote:
> Please, if you're going to make a statement countering something that
> I have quoted from the rules, either use the rules or a ruling from
> WotC (or Tom) to back your statement up. Because my only answer to
> post is:
Temper, temper...
> Yes, they *are* in the game. Ref: Rules section 11.1. The crypt and
> library are not defined in the play area, and are thus not "in the
> game," but the uncontrolled vampires are "in the game."
Perhaps a change in wording is in order. Try on "in play" instead of "in
the game." Certainly all of the cards in my deck, in my crypt, and in my
hand are "in the game," as are the glass beads I use for counters and the
piece of felt that I play on. However, not all of the cards are "in
play," specifically, those in my hand, those in my ash heap, those in my
deck, those vampires who are as of yet uncontrolled, and those vampires,
locations, and titles which are contested.
> If you plan on posting and telling me "no, they're not" without
> something to back up your statement, you might as well just save
> your bandwidth for someone who will listen.
Okay, here's some rules backup for you. Section 8 - Contested Cards: "If
your contested card is the only contested card not being yielded, you
turn it face up and move it into play, untapped, at the start of your
turn." Clearly these contested cards were "in the game," yet they were
"out of play." To add insult to injury, here's a snippet from section
12.4: "Putting Vampires into Play: At the end of the influence phase, a
vampire in your inactive region with as many blood counters on it as its
blood capacity becomes controlled, is turned right-side up, and is put
into the active region." So yes, those uncontrolled vampires are "in the
game," but they are not "in play."
Now go play whatever cheesy rules you want to and wave the rule booklet
and jump up and down. Put me in your kill file and have a nice day.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3d4oha$7...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
Joe Cochran <js...@megavolt.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
>In article <3d473k$1q...@tequesta.gate.net>,
>Brian Wilson <bwi...@gate.net> wrote:>>Before I could do anything to stop it, Joe Cochran wrote:>>> Rules section 11.1 (The Playing Area) defines the uncontrolled region
>>> as being in the game. Regardless of any rulings about Sabine, the>>
>>Perhaps the uncontrolled region is "in the game," but those uncontrolled
>>vampires are not. Neither are contested vampires. Until they are
>>controlled and turned face up, they are not considered "in the game."
>>>
>Please, if you're going to make a statement countering something that
>I have quoted from the rules, either use the rules or a ruling from
>WotC (or Tom) to back your statement up. Because my only answer to
>post is:
>
>Yes, they *are* in the game. Ref: Rules section 11.1. The crypt and
>library are not defined in the play area, and are thus not "in the
>game," but the uncontrolled vampires are "in the game."
>
>If you plan on posting and telling me "no, they're not" without
>something to back up your statement, you might as well just save
>your bandwidth for someone who will listen.
I believe there is a section in the rule book about bringing vampires into
play(or something like that in the index). In that section, it infers that
even though vamps in the crypt might be "in the game"(as are vamps created by
the embrace and vamps in the ash heap and also vamps that are being contested
at that same moment) the are not officially in play. My feeling is that the
people that wrote up sabine's card meant to say that she could transfer 1
blood to any vampire in play, but thats just my feeling.
Anyway with regards to vampires in the uncontrolled region, counters on them
do not, repeat do _not_ stand for health like blood on sabine does. Rather,
blood counters on uncontrolled vampires stands for influence placed on that
vamp to bring it under your control. Saying that sabine can trade one of her
health blood counters for an influence blood counter is slightly nonsensical.
In article <3d58m1$2g...@tequesta.gate.net>,
Brian Wilson <bwi...@gate.net> wrote:
>Perhaps a change in wording is in order. Try on "in play" instead of "in
>the game." Certainly all of the cards in my deck, in my crypt, and in my
>hand are "in the game," as are the glass beads I use for counters and the
>piece of felt that I play on. However, not all of the cards are "in
>play," specifically, those in my hand, those in my ash heap, those in my
>deck, those vampires who are as of yet uncontrolled, and those vampires,
>locations, and titles which are contested.
Okay, let's take that for a sec. I'll buy that they're not in play,
especially given the good justification you've given. I suppose the
big question now is what good is defining "the playing area" if it
doesn't define vampires? This is more of a broken rules question.
If the uncontrolled area is defined as a play area, while the crypt
ash heap and library aren't, what's the difference between this area
and those others? There are cards that affect the crypt, cards that
affect libraries, and cards that affect uncontrolled vampires. Why
is the uncontrolled region defined differently?
The only card that seems to be worded as 'in the game' versus 'in
play' is Sabine, leading me to believe that she can be used on any
vampire, controlled or uncontrolled. This doesn't reconcile with
Tom's ruling on Sabine. So what I'm wondering is why the rules even
bother with making a distinction between the uncontrolled vampires
and the other stuff.
>> If you plan on posting and telling me "no, they're not" without
>> something to back up your statement, you might as well just save
>> your bandwidth for someone who will listen.>
>Okay, here's some rules backup for you. Section 8 - Contested Cards: "If
>your contested card is the only contested card not being yielded, you
Thank you. That's all I ask, a common basis. That's a tenant for
rational discussion.
>12.4: "Putting Vampires into Play: At the end of the influence phase, a
>vampire in your inactive region with as many blood counters on it as its
>blood capacity becomes controlled, is turned right-side up, and is put
>into the active region." So yes, those uncontrolled vampires are "in the
>game," but they are not "in play."
Actually, the header of that section is the only place where the concept
of 'in play' is mentioned. And that particular section (with the header
as is) seems to conflict with 11.1. I've asked Tom to look into what
the rules *should* say there...
>Now go play whatever cheesy rules you want to and wave the rule booklet
>and jump up and down. Put me in your kill file and have a nice day.
I'm sorry if you got the impression that I was trying to rules-lawyer
you to death. All I was asking for was a common basis for rational
discussion. Otherwise, we end up shouting "No it isn't" "Yes it is"
at each other all day with nothing coming from it.
Oh, and should you ever get the chance to ask anyone with whom I've
played *any* game what kind of person I am, you'd find that I am fair,
nice, and generally try to make sure that we're all having a good
time. I don't cheese the rules, and I try to make sure that I abide
by them at all times, even if I let others off the hook when they make
a mistake. So don't go making assumptions about what kind of player I
am from one message on the internet.
I don't want to put you in my killfile, either. All I wanted was a
little common footing.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Before I could do anything to stop it, Joe Cochran wrote:
> Okay, let's take that for a sec. I'll buy that they're not in play,
> especially given the good justification you've given. I suppose the
> big question now is what good is defining "the playing area" if it
> doesn't define vampires? This is more of a broken rules question.
> If the uncontrolled area is defined as a play area, while the crypt
> ash heap and library aren't, what's the difference between this area
> and those others? There are cards that affect the crypt, cards that
> affect libraries, and cards that affect uncontrolled vampires. Why
> is the uncontrolled region defined differently?
I don't have Sabine in front of me to read, but I know that it's been
ruled that the only cards that can affect uncontrolled vampires are those
that say so on the card face. Sabine doesn't say she can move blood to
uncontrolled vampires, and so she does not have this ability.
> I'm sorry if you got the impression that I was trying to rules-lawyer
> you to death. All I was asking for was a common basis for rational
> discussion. Otherwise, we end up shouting "No it isn't" "Yes it is"
> at each other all day with nothing coming from it.
Well, check me if I'm wrong, but that last message sure read like a
flame. Keep in mind that all net users are equipped with flamethrowers,
and may attempt to inflict aggravating damage. I would have happily
provided rules references if you had written, "Hey - can you come up with
some rules references for that stuff?" instead of just blasting away. As
it is, I *unhappily* provided said references.
At any rate, I much prefer a civil discussion as well.
> Oh, and should you ever get the chance to ask anyone with whom I've
> played *any* game what kind of person I am, you'd find that I am fair,
> nice, and generally try to make sure that we're all having a good
> time. I don't cheese the rules, and I try to make sure that I abide
> by them at all times, even if I let others off the hook when they make
> a mistake. So don't go making assumptions about what kind of player I
> am from one message on the internet.
Sage advice. I've made no assumptions about what kind of player you are.
I offered my opinion and you stomped on my toes. It doesn't matter to me
whether you read my posts or not, or whether or not you are a good, fair
player since I don't play with you. If you plan to blast everybody who
posts without a rules reference, though, you'll be doing a lot of blasting.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3d721d$a...@tequesta.gate.net>,
Brian Wilson <bwi...@gate.net> wrote:
>I don't have Sabine in front of me to read, but I know that it's been
>ruled that the only cards that can affect uncontrolled vampires are those
>that say so on the card face. Sabine doesn't say she can move blood to
>uncontrolled vampires, and so she does not have this ability.
For the time being, I'm accepting the Sabine ruling, but I'll still
question it. :-) Sabine says "in the game," which is where this whole
bloody thread got started. That's what makes the question "what does
'in the game' mean" so important to this. Why would she say 'in the
game' as opposed to 'controlled by any player,' 'in play on any
Methuselah's side' or somesuch? That's my main question.
>Well, check me if I'm wrong, but that last message sure read like a
>flame. Keep in mind that all net users are equipped with flamethrowers,
Straw. Camel. :-(
Sorry about that.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Before I could do anything to stop it, Joe Cochran wrote:
> For the time being, I'm accepting the Sabine ruling, but I'll still
> question it. :-) Sabine says "in the game," which is where this whole
> bloody thread got started. That's what makes the question "what does
> 'in the game' mean" so important to this. Why would she say 'in the
> game' as opposed to 'controlled by any player,' 'in play on any
> Methuselah's side' or somesuch? That's my main question.
I could *swear* that Tom posted on this very subject in the
not-too-distant past. It might have been back in the Deckmaster group,
though. Might be worth skimming back there, or checking out the latest
rulings file.
> >Well, check me if I'm wrong, but that last message sure read like a
> >flame. Keep in mind that all net users are equipped with flamethrowers,> Straw. Camel. :-(> Sorry about that.
No harm done. If nobody ever flared up it just wouldn't be the internet.
My apologies for my crispy reply as well.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3d7nce$3f...@tequesta.gate.net>,
Brian Wilson <bwi...@gate.net> wrote:
>Before I could do anything to stop it, Joe Cochran wrote:
>>> For the time being, I'm accepting the Sabine ruling, but I'll still
>> question it. :-) Sabine says "in the game," which is where this whole
>> bloody thread got started. That's what makes the question "what does
>> 'in the game' mean" so important to this. Why would she say 'in the
>> game' as opposed to 'controlled by any player,' 'in play on any
>> Methuselah's side' or somesuch? That's my main question.>
>I could *swear* that Tom posted on this very subject in the
>not-too-distant past. It might have been back in the Deckmaster group,
>though. Might be worth skimming back there, or checking out the latest
>rulings file.
>
I know Tom's ruling. I'm just questioning it. I want to know why the
ruling was made, and where the rules need changing (because they're
*really* broken around this 'in play' 'in the game' area). There's a
conflict in the way that the rules are defined, and that bothers me,
since in many respects Jyhad is a much more carefully designed game.
I want to settle, for myself at least, exactly where the problem is
and what the rules should say. If Tom can't answer, I want to know
what the rules team has to say about it.
Tell you what, let's broaden the question a bit, to the real issue.
Even if Sabine read 'controlled by any Methuselah,' the ambiguity
about 'in play' would still exist. How should the rules be fixed
to correctly convey the terms 'in play' and 'in the game'? Tom?
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@megavolt.cc.vt.edu (Joe Cochran) writes:
>Yes, they *are* in the game. Ref: Rules section 11.1. The crypt and
>library are not defined in the play area, and are thus not "in the
>game," but the uncontrolled vampires are "in the game."
>
>If you plan on posting and telling me "no, they're not" without
>something to back up your statement, you might as well just save
>your bandwidth for someone who will listen.
From the rtulings file as posted by Tom Wylie :
21) Vampire "Sabine Lafitte": can you transfer blood onto an
uncontrolled Tremere, or does "in the game" mean "in play"?
Not to an uncontrolled vampire, but you can to a vampire in torpor. It
should read "in play."
Nyahh. :)
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.