Rule Team Rulings 9/28/98

Rules Team Rulings 9/28/98. The errata and rulings below go into effect for DCI Sanctioned Tournaments on 11/1/98 (the standard delay for rulings and errata issued after the 15th of the month). The clarifications apply immediately, of course. ERRATA ------ Powerbase: New York The action to steal the blood cannot be taken by your own Sabbat vampires. (The WotC spoiler list has text to this effect, but the actual card does not.) Reform Body Can be played in combat (as a combat card) by either combatant, acting or reacting/blocking. Can also be played (as a reaction card) from Torpor, even though only Ready vampires can play reaction cards by default. (To match the original intent of the card as verified by one of the playtesters of the Sabbat expansion). RULINGS ------- Requirement: another card If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available. Examples: Compel the Spirit cannot be played if the retainer or ally in question is in your ash heap - it cannot be played on a Mummy (who was returned to your library rather than the ash heap). And Brujah Frenzy cannot be played if there is no suitable minion for the Brujah to enter combat with. REVERSAL: This ruling reverses an old ruling on Strike: Steal/Destroy Equipment/Weapon. Such strikes cannot be used if the opposing minion doesn't have a suitable Equipment/Weapon to be destroyed/stolen. Strike: Combat Ends followed by combat cards. Combat cards cannot be played after combat. REVERSAL: This includes after a Srike: Combat Ends resolves. (So you cannot play Pulled Fangs, Disarm, Amaranth, etc. after a strike: end combat). Note: superior Psyche! is played at the end of combat (so, technically, after combat) by card text, so can still be used after a strike: end combat. Note 2: effects which are to occur at the end of a round/combat will still occur if the round/combat is ended by strike: combat ends (like superior Drawing out the Beast's damage and inferior Undead Persistence's torpor). Rotschreck REVERSAL: Cannot be used if the "attempt to use aggravated damage" is not applicable at the current range. The most common example is an aggravated hand strike done at long range. CLARIFICATIONS -------------- Betrayer The "other Methuselah" is announced when the card is played (before any decisions are made to play Sudden Reversal, for example). Mind Rape and Return to Innocence When played on a vampire who is then the victim of a Banishment, these cards (like all minion cards) become uncontrolled (and cease to function) until the vampire returns to the controlled area. When the vampire returns to the controlled area, these cards' effects resume, ready to be "activated" at the next appropriate time. Return to Innocence Return to Innocence doesn't care if the player who is your Prey changes (via Dramatic Upheaval or whatever). During your untap, you will remove the vampire from play and your Prey (whoever that is at the time) will burn X pool (assuming Return to Innocence hasn't been burned before then, of course). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

LSJ (VtES Rep) (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: : Rules Team Rulings 9/28/98. : The errata and rulings below go into effect for DCI Sanctioned : Tournaments on 11/1/98 (the standard delay for rulings and errata : issued after the 15th of the month). : The clarifications apply immediately, of course. : ERRATA : ------ : Reform Body : Can be played in combat (as a combat card) by either combatant, acting : or reacting/blocking. : Can also be played (as a reaction card) from Torpor, even though only : Ready vampires can play reaction cards by default. : (To match the original intent of the card as verified by one of the : playtesters of the Sabbat expansion). Yay! I thought this ruling would never be made, since Reform Body had already been partially fixed. But I'm really happy it's here. I remember asking about this back when Sabbat came out. A vampire playing Reform Body as a reaction does still have to be untapped to play it though, right? : RULINGS : ------- : Requirement: another card : If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, : then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available. : Examples: Compel the Spirit cannot be played if the retainer or ally ^^^^^^ should be 'can only', right? : in question is in your ash heap - it cannot be played on a Mummy (who : was returned to your library rather than the ash heap). And Brujah : Frenzy cannot be played if there is no suitable minion for the Brujah : to enter combat with. : REVERSAL: This ruling reverses an old ruling on Strike: Steal/Destroy : Equipment/Weapon. Such strikes cannot be used if the opposing minion : doesn't have a suitable Equipment/Weapon to be destroyed/stolen. : Strike: Combat Ends followed by combat cards. : Combat cards cannot be played after combat. : REVERSAL: This includes after a Srike: Combat Ends resolves. : (So you cannot play Pulled Fangs, Disarm, Amaranth, etc. after : a strike: end combat). This is not quite the result I was looking for. ;-) But I think it's acceptable. It's probably a pretty rare case anyway. : Note: superior Psyche! is played at the end of combat (so, : technically, after combat) by card text, so can still be used after : a strike: end combat. : Note 2: effects which are to occur at the end of a round/combat : will still occur if the round/combat is ended by strike: combat : ends (like superior Drawing out the Beast's damage and inferior : Undead Persistence's torpor). On the whole, looks good. Josh no new fixes yet, evidently...

LSJ (VtES Rep) wrote: > Strike: Combat Ends followed by combat cards. > Combat cards cannot be played after combat. > How about fixing the rule that S:CE and S:Dodge beat First strike even when not striked with first strike? Currently the ruling is AFAIK: Time of resolving strikes: S:CE S:Dodge First Strike Strike I would prefer: First Strike S:CE S:Dodge Strike So if someone strikes with first strike someone which ends combat, the latter one would still take the damage from the former minion's strike, and then combat would end (no additional strikes). which would make those cards granting first strike worthwile playing. (That is: that would give some decks, especially Assamite and Celerity driven decks another *active* possibility to beat S:CE *reliably*, thus making those decks and clan more effective) Michael Beer

Michael Beer <Mi...@leila.ping.de> wrote: > How about fixing the rule that S:CE and S:Dodge beat First strike > even when not striked with first strike? Why is that broken? (I realize that it could be changed, but I don't see why the change would be any more "fixed" than the current rule.) Hunter -- Hunter Johnson /\ http://www.io.com/~jhunterj/ SJG Errata Guy /()\ http://www.sjgames.com/errata/ Knightmare Chess Guru /____\ http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/

J. Hunter Johnson wrote: > Michael Beer <Mi...@leila.ping.de> wrote: > > > How about fixing the rule that S:CE and S:Dodge beat First strike > > even when not striked with first strike? > > Why is that broken? (I realize that it could be changed, but I don't > see why the change would be any more "fixed" than the current rule.) > It isn't broken in any way. I just thought that such a change would let Assamite become a competetive clan (at least a little bit more than now). It won't change much (since First Strikes are difficult to get) but would benefit those who care about first strike. Muddled Vampire Hunter may be a greater threat, but he is still *very* easy to kill and is unique. That's all. Michael Beer

du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > LSJ (VtES Rep) (vte...@wizards.com) wrote: > : Reform Body > : Can be played in combat (as a combat card) by either combatant, acting > : or reacting/blocking. > : Can also be played (as a reaction card) from Torpor, even though only > : Ready vampires can play reaction cards by default. > > A vampire playing Reform Body as a reaction does still have to be untapped > to play it though, right? Right. > : RULINGS > : ------- > : Requirement: another card > : If a card targets (chooses, selects, is played on, etc.) another card, > : then the card can only be played if an appropriate target is available. > : Examples: Compel the Spirit cannot be played if the retainer or ally > ^^^^^^ > should be 'can only', right? Oops! Right. > : in question is in your ash heap - it cannot be played on a Mummy (who > : was returned to your library rather than the ash heap). And Brujah > : Frenzy cannot be played if there is no suitable minion for the Brujah > : to enter combat with. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Chris Berger wrote: > Besides, Assamites as > a clan should never have existed. There is little to no > historical/mythological precedent for them and they fill no game world > niche in V:TM. They are an utterly superfluous clan and were not very > well designed. They seem to be based on the modern Western stereotype of the Arab as terrorist and assassin. That always kinda bothered me. If they had delved a little deeper into Arabic/Mid-Eastern folklore, perhaps they could have found a more worthy inspiration and created a clan with some depth. > (Sorry, that doesn't have much bearing on Jyhad, but > it's one of my pet-peeves about V:TM.) Well, it does kinda relate to Jyhad, because WOD gives Jyhad its atmosphere. My knowledge of the WOD comes to me strictly second hand through Jyhad, and I was still bothered by the Assamites. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980929075403.11561A-100000@amanda>, [ quoted text not captured ] Sigh, it must be the changing of the seasons, effect of the equinox on hormones kinda thing .. there i was feeling all brotherly and agreeing with 'most everything on the newsgroup, and then suddenly along comes this ..... gentlemen, the assamites are perhaps the MOST historical thing in WoD. There really is [or was] an Alamut, the mountain from which the eponymous Old Man directed the sect of the assassins. Originally they were formed during the crusades, and perhaps may be said to constitute the original patriotic resistance to foreign oppression [o alright, perhaps the Maccabees beat them to that particular punch]. The assassins frightened the crusaders so much that supernatural powers and pacts with evil were a routine part of western discourse about them, so it is entirely appropriate for them to be vampiric in the WoD. As for the Arab as terrorist and assassin, well, one of the many clever things about the WoD is that you get to think long and hard about the path from goodness, and the perception of evil .... it's not bad to want to stay young and beautiful, is it? So you have to adopt an unusual diet, it's not as if you're murdering anyone, is it? O dear, but i was just so HUNGRY ..... and so on. There may not be vampires in the real world, but we still in our different ways fall from goodness through exactly the same stages, even the Intrinsically Noble and Chivalrous Sons and Daughters of Sem ...... Legbiter, who always wanted to be the Germans when he was a little boy in the playground ...... [ quoted text not captured ]

Michael Beer wrote: > J. Hunter Johnson wrote: > > > Michael Beer <Mi...@leila.ping.de> wrote: > > > > > How about fixing the rule that S:CE and S:Dodge beat First strike > > > even when not striked with first strike? > > > > Why is that broken? (I realize that it could be changed, but I don't > > see why the change would be any more "fixed" than the current rule.) > > Our play group has the house rule that First Strike beats Dodge and it doesn't make First Strike broken at all. There are so few cards with First Strike that we thought this only made sense and we are even now debating about whether or not to make First Strike take precedence over S:CE in our group. After all, we think that a Muddled Vampire hunter that gets the drop on little Gideon Fontaine before he is asked to "bow down before the one you know" should get his shot in and THEN end the combat. We have playtested for awhile now and by our rules, people seem to be a lot more willing to play with First-Strike effects. Myron Mychal

Chris Berger wrote: > None of those things would break the game. Nevertheless, they are all > just as pointless and unfounded as making First Strike happen before > dodge and S:CE. > > -Chris Well, I don't know about you, but I like playing with all of my cards and there is a whole box of Muddled Vampire Hunters right here that never see play because of S:CE. My proposedchange in "First Strike" is nowhere near as "off the wall" as the suggestions YOU seem to make about changing rules. Forgive me for trying to help my playgroup find uses for cards that would otherwise be deemed "wallpaper" . . . hmm - let's also just totally rip up all copies of "Concealed Weapon" since it technically HAS that Obfuscate symbol on it and Disguised Weapon is just soooo much better and for that matter, let's just get rid of the assamites in general since there is no reason to play with them. There is no need to be so patronizing when giving your stand on your side of an argument by the way. Myron Mychal

In article <6ur0dm$dv4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Legbiter, who always wanted to be the Germans when he was a little boy in the > playground ...... Off topic, but thoughts of Eric Cartman just came to mind. "Cartman, you always cheat when we play Americans vs. Bosnians!" Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <361107BD...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> writes >Well, I don't know about you, but I like playing with all of my cards and >there is a whole box of Muddled Vampire Hunters right here that never see play >because of S:CE. Do you never play stealth cards because someone else might play intercept too? Do you never play Potence cards in case someone else plays Skin of Steel? Do you never play bleed modifiers in case someone else has Archon Investigation? -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

James Coupe wrote: > In article <361107BD...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, Myron Mychal > <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> writes > >Well, I don't know about you, but I like playing with all of my cards and > >there is a whole box of Muddled Vampire Hunters right here that never see play > >because of S:CE. > > Do you never play stealth cards because someone else might play > intercept too? All I am saying is that IF the First Strike rule would be able to beat S:CE, it would see play in my group. Because of the mechanics of the game, and the propensity for S:CE to dominate the game as it does in a lot of the games I play around here, we play cards that can stop S:CE . . . I am sure you would too if S:CE were dominant in your group > Do you never play Potence cards in case someone else plays Skin of > Steel? > > Do you never play bleed modifiers in case someone else has Archon > Investigation? Once again, I am just trying to find a way to MAKE cards playable . . . tell me - how playable IS the MVH? Really . . . how many of you Malkavian players really consider him a vital addition to your deck's strategy???

In article <6uoo9j$8eo$2...@hiram.io.com>, J. Hunter Johnson <jhun...@dillinger.io.com> wrote: >Michael Beer <Mi...@leila.ping.de> wrote: > >> How about fixing the rule that S:CE and S:Dodge beat First strike >> even when not striked with first strike? > >Why is that broken? (I realize that it could be changed, but I don't >see why the change would be any more "fixed" than the current rule.) I agree with not changing things that aren't broken (at least official changes), but didn't First Strike originally work this way? -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

In article <361248A6...@cco.caltech.edu>, Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: >> >> Our play group has the house rule that First Strike beats Dodge and it >> doesn't make First Strike broken at all. > >Oh, well there's a good reason to make senseless changes. I think we >should play with a rule that the first time there is a Master: Out of >Turn card played in a game, all methuselahs gain 1 pool. Hey, it >doesn't make M:OoT's broken at all. Further, there are pretty few >M:OoT's played, and there's only a special effect for the *first* one in >a game. So let's add that rule. While I agree that it's not good to make random changes, this isn't exactly a fair comparison. The suggested First Strike rule makes a certain amount of sense, would indeed improve the viability the viability of celerity combat, and wasn't this the way the rules originally worked? Your example is simply random. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <gCb7IHAO...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <361107BD...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, Myron Mychal ><mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> writes >>Well, I don't know about you, but I like playing with all of my cards and >>there is a whole box of Muddled Vampire Hunters right here that never see play >>because of S:CE. > >Do you never play stealth cards because someone else might play >intercept too? > >Do you never play Potence cards in case someone else plays Skin of >Steel? > >Do you never play bleed modifiers in case someone else has Archon >Investigation? > No, not exactly. However Competitivly... I never play straight celerity, because it sucks without potence. I never use weapons, because they suck. I never use allies, because they suck. And I definitly don't use concealed weapon. Now, I've certainly made less competitive decks in an attempt to find an angle with these kinds of cards, but your examples weren't really fair comparisons to, or examples of, what Myron was trying to say. The chief problem with fixing such wallpaper is that the game works fine without them (they essentially don't exist competitively), and that you'd have to get people to agree upon a fix. The only time one seems to be able to get any sort of consensus for a fix is when a card is either ambigous, clearly violates the rules, or is just too powerfull -- LSJ has gone so far as to say that he won't try to fix wallpaper. Personally, I think fixing wallpaper is great -- If you fixed the groups of cards I mentioned, you'd have a similar effect to releasing a whole new set -- but it's pretty much in the realm of House Rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6ur0dm$dv4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980929075403.11561A-100000@amanda>, > >Sigh, it must be the changing of the seasons, effect of the equinox on >hormones kinda thing .. there i was feeling all brotherly and agreeing with >'most everything on the newsgroup, and then suddenly along comes this ..... >gentlemen, the assamites are perhaps the MOST historical thing in WoD. There >really is [or was] an Alamut, the mountain from which the eponymous Old Man >directed the sect of the assassins. Originally they were formed during the >crusades, and perhaps may be said to constitute the original patriotic >resistance to foreign oppression [o alright, perhaps the Maccabees beat them >to that particular punch]. The assassins frightened the crusaders so much >that supernatural powers and pacts with evil were a routine part of western >discourse about them, so it is entirely appropriate for them to be vampiric >in the WoD. As for the Arab as terrorist and assassin, well, one of the many >clever things about the WoD is that you get to think long and hard about the >path from goodness, and the perception of evil .... it's not bad to want to >stay young and beautiful, is it? So you have to adopt an unusual diet, it's >not as if you're murdering anyone, is it? O dear, but i was just so HUNGRY >..... and so on. There may not be vampires in the real world, but we still in >our different ways fall from goodness through exactly the same stages, even >the Intrinsically Noble and Chivalrous Sons and Daughters of Sem ...... Wow, I actually find myself agreeing (rather vehemently) with you Sir Legbiter... The assamites in the RPG can indeed easily become a vehicle for power gamers, but so can many of the other clans, and anyway that's a problem for the GM to sort out. >Legbiter, who always wanted to be the Germans when he was a little boy in the >playground ...... They had all those cool tanks that the (western) allies simply lacked... [ quoted text not captured ]

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad: 30-Sep-98 Re: Rule Team Rulings 9/28/98 by Chris Ber...@cco.caltech > > Our play group has the house rule that First Strike beats Dodge and it > > doesn't make First Strike broken at all. > > Oh, well there's a good reason to make senseless changes. I think we > should play with a rule that the first time there is a Master: Out of > Turn card played in a game, all methuselahs gain 1 pool. Hey, it > doesn't make M:OoT's broken at all. Further, there are pretty few > M:OoT's played, and there's only a special effect for the *first* one in > a game. So let's add that rule. > > None of those things would break the game. Nevertheless, they are all > just as pointless and unfounded as making First Strike happen before > dodge and S:CE. > > -Chris The whole concept of First Strike is that you are striking before your opponent can do anything about it. Thus they shouldn't be quick enough to awe you with their Majestic presence, and they definitely shouldn't be quick enough to dodge! In Magic:TG, First Strike damage resolves before the other creature's damage resolves; in my opinion, Jyhad should be played the same way. Also, Celerity is an extremely weak skill as it is -- it could use some advantages like First Strike being worth playing... Jim

On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980929075403.11561A-100000@amanda>, > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Chris Berger wrote: > > > Besides, Assamites as > > > a clan should never have existed. There is little to no > > > historical/mythological precedent for them and they fill no game world > > > niche in V:TM. They are an utterly superfluous clan and were not very > > > well designed. > > > > They seem to be based on the modern Western stereotype of the Arab as > > terrorist and assassin. That always kinda bothered me. If they had > > delved a little deeper into Arabic/Mid-Eastern folklore, perhaps they > > could have found a more worthy inspiration and created a clan with > > some depth. > > > > > (Sorry, that doesn't have much bearing on Jyhad, but > > > it's one of my pet-peeves about V:TM.) > > > > Well, it does kinda relate to Jyhad, because WOD gives Jyhad its > > atmosphere. My knowledge of the WOD comes to me strictly second hand > > through Jyhad, and I was still bothered by the Assamites. > > Sigh, it must be the changing of the seasons, effect of the equinox on > hormones kinda thing .. there i was feeling all brotherly and agreeing with > 'most everything on the newsgroup, and then suddenly along comes this ..... > gentlemen, the assamites are perhaps the MOST historical thing in WoD. That's not a very defensible statement. WoD's entire schtick is to relate the various events of history to the machinations and feudings of ancient vampires. This is a typical example, and not any more or less historical than the rest. > There > really is [or was] an Alamut, the mountain from which the eponymous Old Man > directed the sect of the assassins. Originally they were formed during the > crusades, and perhaps may be said to constitute the original patriotic > resistance to foreign oppression [o alright, perhaps the Maccabees beat them > to that particular punch]. Right. I have no problem with the idea that the historical Old Man of the Mountains and many of his followers were actually vampires. This is no different from saying that the Ventrue was behind the destruction of Carthage; or that a certain historical 15th Century Wallachian warlord named Vlad the Impaler was embraced by a Tzimisce and became Count Dracula; or that the downfall of the Soviet Union was caused by the reawakening of the ancient Nosferatu, Baba Yaga. It was a good idea, but it was a small idea. Too small to base an entire clan on. I have no problem with an (small, recent) organization of vampires making trouble for the Crusaders. I do have trouble with the idea that an Ancient Andedeluvian who has existed from before the dawn of recorded history, has spent his entire existence hanging out on a mountain with his followers for no other purpose than to make scare the Crusaders when they finally show up. > The assassins frightened the crusaders so much > that supernatural powers and pacts with evil were a routine part of western > discourse about them, so it is entirely appropriate for them to be vampiric > in the WoD. Right. They are based, not on Arab folklore, but rather on western horror legends of scary Arabs. And this was allowed to remain as the entire basis/inspiration for all of Arabic Vampiredom. An entire freakin' cln, descended from an Antediluvian, was based on this extremely limitted notion. That is a horrendous insult to the rich culture and folklore of the Arab world. The Arabs have an ancient and well developed culture and a large body of folklore. They have tales of Giants, evil Djinnis, Efreets, Ghouls and Soul Eaters. The word "Ghoul" is, in fact, drawn from Arabic folklore. Arabic culture has influenced our own vampiric myths, which come largely from the Balkans where Christian and Moslem cultures clashed. I think it would have been best if some research had been done into Ghost stories and Legends told *by* the Arabs, rather than merely being lazily satisfied with the ghost stories and legends told *about* them by others. But all the Assamite designers did is look at this isolated historical event and project it onto a clan of vampires and extend it forewards and backwards in history. As such, they are a shallow one-note clan of Muslim Assassim Vampires who, oddly enough, seem to have existed since before Mohammed. Their design seems totally based on western perceptions and charicatures of Muslim culture, and not on any Arabic notions of what Evil Supernatural Creatures are like. Their special discipline, Quietus, has little depth. It is simply a discipline for Assassins, with no indication that it ever served, or is capable of serving, other purposes. > As for the Arab as terrorist and assassin, well, one of the many > clever things about the WoD is that you get to think long and hard about the > path from goodness, and the perception of evil .... it's not bad to want to > stay young and beautiful, is it? So you have to adopt an unusual diet, it's > not as if you're murdering anyone, is it? O dear, but i was just so HUNGRY > ..... and so on. There may not be vampires in the real world, but we still in > our different ways fall from goodness through exactly the same stages, even > the Intrinsically Noble and Chivalrous Sons and Daughters of Sem ...... All beside the point. Allowing this boring one-note clan to represent the Arab world is an insult to that rich culture. I have no problem with the idea of a small organization of Arabian Vampire Assassins operating at various points in history, provided that this is not all that there is to Arabian vampires and the Arabian world of darkness. Let them have other options as well, other aspects, other attributes, more variety, other inspirations. Whoever designed the Assamites thought of Arabs in simplistic terms, and designed a simplistic clan or Fanatical Muslim Assassim Vampires with their own custom made Assassination discipline, addicted to blood instead of Hashish. Once you give a vampire this one-note discipline of Quietus, it is hard to conceive of him as anything but an assassin. They conceived this clan as having existed since before the dawn of history to serve no other purpose. Boooring. [ quoted text not captured ]

Michael Beer wrote: > > J. Hunter Johnson wrote: > > > Michael Beer <Mi...@leila.ping.de> wrote: > > > > > How about fixing the rule that S:CE and S:Dodge beat First strike > > > even when not striked with first strike? > > > > Why is that broken? (I realize that it could be changed, but I don't > > see why the change would be any more "fixed" than the current rule.) > > > > It isn't broken in any way. I just thought that such a change would let > Assamite become a competetive clan (at least a little bit more than now). > It won't change much (since First Strikes are difficult to get) but would > benefit those who care about first strike. Muddled Vampire Hunter may be > a greater threat, but he is still *very* easy to kill and is unique. > If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But, on a more constructive note... As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a competitive clan. Clans don't win games, decks do. A deck does not have to be built around a clan. Interesting decks usually aren't. Besides, Assamites as a clan should never have existed. There is little to no historical/mythological precedent for them and they fill no game world niche in V:TM. They are an utterly superfluous clan and were not very well designed. (Sorry, that doesn't have much bearing on Jyhad, but it's one of my pet-peeves about V:TM.) And last... Muddled Vampire Hunter is already a strong card (and is not unique). Making strong cards stronger for no good reason seems a bit sketchy to me (and changing rules to increase the power of a few underpowered cards seems a bit wrong as well). -Chris

> > Michael Beer wrote: > > > J. Hunter Johnson wrote: > > > > > Michael Beer <Mi...@leila.ping.de> wrote: > > > > > > > How about fixing the rule that S:CE and S:Dodge beat First strike > > > > even when not striked with first strike? > > > > > > Why is that broken? (I realize that it could be changed, but I don't > > > see why the change would be any more "fixed" than the current rule.) > > > > > Our play group has the house rule that First Strike beats Dodge and it > doesn't make First Strike broken at all. Oh, well there's a good reason to make senseless changes. I think we should play with a rule that the first time there is a Master: Out of Turn card played in a game, all methuselahs gain 1 pool. Hey, it doesn't make M:OoT's broken at all. Further, there are pretty few M:OoT's played, and there's only a special effect for the *first* one in a game. So let's add that rule. Further, let's add the rule that each time you declare a strike in combat when you are using a weapon and have a retainer, you should take the top card of your library and put it in your ash heap. Then take a random card from your ash heap and shuffle it back into your library. Since the situation doesn't come up much and since the discard and reshuffle are both random it shouldn't break the game. So, how about it? How about we create a rule that you must shuffle one crypt card into your library when you begin the game, and when that card is on top of your deck (or if you draw it), you shuffle it into your crypt. That shouldn't break the game either. [ quoted text not captured ]

Myron Mychal wrote: > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > None of those things would break the game. Nevertheless, they are all > > just as pointless and unfounded as making First Strike happen before > > dodge and S:CE. > > > > Well, I don't know about you, but I like playing with all of my cards and > there is a whole box of Muddled Vampire Hunters right here that never see play > because of S:CE. My proposedchange in "First Strike" is nowhere near as "off > the wall" as the suggestions YOU seem to make about changing rules. > Actually, those suggestions are just as off-the-wall in an a priori sense. It is screwing with a game mechanic just because you feel like it. It improves maybe one wallpaper card. It also improves at least 1 really good card. Why? Because you (and others, I must admit) feel like it. It's all fine and good to play with house rules, but even there I must state a passive objection. It is much easier to play with other people (outside your playgroup) as well as to discuss the game if everyone plays the same game. I can't presume to tell you what to do in your games (well, I can tell you all I want, but then you won't even take me partially seriously), but I can say that I think such a rule doesn't help the game and creates a disparity between the game you are playing and the game I am playing (and, IMO this is kind of a bad thing for various reasons that I won't post right now; if you want to know my reasons, post back and yell at me some more and I'll almost certainly respond). It is obvious that the original designer went to great effort to cause S:CE and dodge to resolve before first strike, most likely in order to more closely simulate the RPG from which Jyhad was derived, as well as to be more "realistic" (meaning game-world realistic, as I can't make much judgement as to how realistic vampires would act). > Forgive > me for trying to help my playgroup find uses for cards that would otherwise be > deemed "wallpaper" . . . hmm - let's also just totally rip up all copies of > "Concealed Weapon" since it technically HAS that Obfuscate symbol on it and > Disguised Weapon is just soooo much better and for that matter, let's just get > rid of the assamites in general since there is no reason to play with them. > Concealed Weapon was a misprint, plain and simple. This has been shown to about 90% confidence. However, it still has not been errata'd and most people still do not use a house rule to that effect. As for the Assamites, I have seen many good decks that used Assamites. If you can't build a good deck that uses purely Assamites (and I'm actually not sure if you can or not) then that's perfect. One-clan decks are narrow. Narrow decks have weaknesses. That is good. If truly narrow decks had no weaknesses, each deck would use 90 copies of a single card and nothing else. (True, unfocused decks also have weaknesses, but a balance can be struck.) > There is no need to be so patronizing when giving your stand on your side of > an argument by the way. > I didn't feel I was being patronizing. I felt that I had a point to make, and used some extreme examples which parralel the point I was trying to discredit. And besides, I feel that there is usually justification for being at least slightly impolite when posting to USENET. Afterall, if you're intelligent enough to use a computer (note: this sounds slightly patronizing to me when I read it. This time that is certainly not intended. I am obviously aware that you are easily intelligent enough to use a computer), then you are also intelligent enough to realize that any opinion I may have of you means less than nothing. And any insult or patronization directed at you is not going to irrevocably scar your psyche. ("Oh no! I have been insulted by some nerd on USENET who thinks he knows everything! Whatever will I do?") -Chris "There are no broken cards, only broken legs. So play with 7/7, or I'll find out where you live." 8)

Jasper Phillips wrote: > > I never play straight celerity, because it sucks without potence. > One-discipline decks are narrow. Narrow decks have weaknesses. > I never use weapons, because they suck. > > I never use allies, because they suck. > > And I definitly don't use concealed weapon. > Concealed Weapon was a misprint. I am actually in favour of errata to remove the obfuscate symbol. However, I don't feel all that strongly about it. So, as long as the Rules Team feels that the misprint is desirable, I can live with it. Note that a change to this card would help both weapons and allies as well. (Also, if you care, a lot of the cards in the playtest set immensely help out weapons and allies. I'd much prefer that new cards in the mix (if ever they come) address the balance rather than new rules.) > Now, I've certainly made less competitive decks in an attempt to > find an angle with these kinds of cards, but your examples > weren't really fair comparisons to, or examples of, what Myron > was trying to say. > I don't believe that's true, as I stated in my reply to him. I feel that those changes have as much effect on the game, as little basis in "game-world" mechanics, and overall as much reason to exist as the first strike "fix." -Chris

Jasper Phillips wrote: > > While I agree that it's not good to make random changes, this isn't > exactly a fair comparison. The suggested First Strike rule makes > a certain amount of sense, would indeed improve the viability > the viability of celerity combat, and wasn't this the way the > rules originally worked? Your example is simply random. > The way the rules originally worked is the way the work now. At no point in the history of Jyhad (at least, after its commercial release) has first strike beaten dodge or S:CE. The rest of your reply I have addressed elsewhere... 8) -Chris

In article <36112009...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> writes >Once again, I am just trying to find a way to MAKE cards playable . . . tell me >- >how playable IS the MVH? Really . . . how many of you Malkavian players really >consider him a vital addition to your deck's strategy??? As a vital addition to the strategy, no. Malkavians don't do combat well. Stealth bleed, yes. Intercept, moderately. Combat, not well at all. As a supplement to the deck, a prayer card to get the weenies, perhaps, he is useful. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote: > > Wow, I actually find myself agreeing (rather vehemently) with you > Sir Legbiter... The assamites in the RPG can indeed easily become a vehicle > for power gamers, but so can many of the other clans, and anyway that's > a problem for the GM to sort out. > They almost always become a vehicle for power gamers, as for anyone else they are just completely uninteresting. They have been created exactly as stereotypical terrorists. The historical/mythological significance that Legbiter mentions (sorry it's not quoted... I'm not going to go cut and paste now...) is both obscure and (more importantly) gives no justification for these creatures to be considered vampires. There would be as much justification for making a clan that's just like faeries or just like werewolves and saying that they're just a different type of vampire. Instead, those concepts, which were both interesting and diverse were developed into their own games. This mystical assassin stuff is neither interesting(okay I suppose this is opinion), diverse, nor in any way fits with the concept of vampires (almost all of which come from European legend/history. Their discipline, Quietus, is described as having the goal of "a quiet death." This reminds me of a fake Magic card I once saw in the Duelist that was sent in by some 6 year old (or at least had the intellect of a 6 year old, much like your average Magic player). It was called "Creeping Deth" and it had a quote that said, "The worst thing about Creeping Deth is DETH!!!!!!" The whole concept of Quietus is cheesy in the extreme. Rather than concentrating on a theme or an ability, such as all of the major clan disciplines (that is, the Cam disciplines, vic, obt, dem) and even some of the minor clan disciplines (nec and chi), the discipline is given various powers that just allow it to cause death. Lame. (note: I also don't particularly like a few of the other minor clan disciplines as they were obviously created just for the sake of creating disciplines, but none of those clans is quite as distasteful to me as the Assamites.) Okay, a bunch of the powers center around the manipulation of blood.... Isn't this what Thaumaturgy is? Thaumaturgy (a fairly lame discipline in itself) is magic of the blood. Okay, so I suppose Quietus is the layman's manipulation of blood? But not even all of the powers center around blood manipulation. Silence of Death comes to mind. And those that do center around blood manipulation sometimes affect the Assamite's blood, sometimes another vampire's blood, sometimes a human. This just strengthens the idea that Quietus is simply a discipline that tries to combine everything possible for killing. That would be like making a discipline called Socialness, which combines all aspects of Dominate, Presence, Dementation, and a little bit of Obtenebration and Chimerstry. Oh wait... Socialness isn't mysterious enough... let's call it Maitriser (meaning approximately "control"). The goal of Maitriser is "ultimate control." Or how about a combo of Potence, Foritude, Celerity, and Vicissitude. Call it Corpus (or whatever, I don't care). The goal of Corpus is "combat power." True, Quiteus isn't all that powerful, but the simple fact that it's a combination of Thaumaturgy, Obfuscate, and Vicissitude with a little bit of "instant death" power added in makes it lame without being horrible overpowered (although it can still be too strong). If I wanted to make a character that was like an Assamite(which I wouldn't), I would give it Thaumaturgy, Obfuscate, and Celerity. So what if I had to be a Pander or Caitiff. At least then I wouldn't have to pigeon-hole my character as a Middle-Eastern terrorist Muslim (because, of course, all religious Arabs are blood thirsty and wacko, right?). I suppose I wouldn't get stuff like Weakness, but that's a fairly crappy power anyway. Or, if I wanted to make an effective assassin, it'd be easy with Obfuscate and a few freebie points spent to up my Firearms stat to 5 and then specialize in Sniper Rifle. I suppose Auspex would be good for an assassin also, and probably Celerity. All in all, Quietus as a discipline did not need to be made, as it, along with the clan that practices it, fits no niche in the game. Just to belabour the point a little more, let's take a look at some disciplines: Animalism: Control animals and manipulate "the Beast." Auspex: Sensory enhancement. Celerity: Quickness. Chimerstry: Illusions. Dementation: Causing insanity in others Dominate: Commanding others. Fortitude: Toughness. Necromancy: Communicating with and manipulating wraiths. Obfuscate: Hiding. Obtenebration: Manipulation of shadows. Potence: Strength. Presence: Evoking(or suppressing) emotions in others. Protean: Shapeshifting. Thaumaturgy: Blood Magic. Vicissitude: Molding flesh. Quietus: Quiet death. Note that everything up there consists of some talent or property of the vampire, which can be applied to achieve an end. Quietus, however, has an end, and then gives you various abilities with which to achieve that end. Even if you ignore some of its powers and say it manipulates blood, this is still bad. All living things have blood, therefore Assamites have power over everything. Hmm... Animalism can only control animals. Dominate can only control intelligent beings with less power than the dominating vampire. Once again, my problem with Quietus isn't so much its strength, but its scope, and the fact that there was no need for it. My problem with the Assamites is partly aesthetic, partly because they are so one-dimensional, and very much because of Quietus as a discipline. If they had been made with Cel/Obf/Tha, I wouldn't hate them as much. I'd still hate them, but not as much. Okay, that's all for now. Sorry to rant, but I've wanted to say all that for a while now, and the newsgroup is a great place to do that, since you can't make me stop until I'm finished. :-P -Chris

In article <3612BC6F...@cco.caltech.edu>, Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: [My text snipped] >The way the rules originally worked is the way the work now. At no >point in the history of Jyhad (at least, after its commercial release) >has first strike beaten dodge or S:CE. Ahhh. Not too suprising really, since when I started playing we made graver rules errors than that. ;-) Note that I'm not actually for changing the rules, although I do think this would help celerity, I do think the Assamites are weak, and I don't think it would make Muddles overpowered at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3612C9E8...@cco.caltech.edu>, Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: [snip] >Okay, that's all for now. Sorry to rant, but I've wanted to say all >that for a while now, and the newsgroup is a great place to do that, >since you can't make me stop until I'm finished. :-P > > -Chris *ROTFL* Ok, I guess we've all got our pet peeves. I still think that if the assamites are kept mysterious and behind the scenes it can work decently, certainly more often as plot devices than PCs. Also, there's no real reason to stick to the clan stereotypes. And I've always thought the historical link was far from obscure, all it takes is the slightest smidge of Middle Eastern History; where do you think the word assasin comes from? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Sigh, it must be the changing of the seasons, effect of the equinox on > hormones kinda thing .. there i was feeling all brotherly and agreeing with > 'most everything on the newsgroup, and then suddenly along comes this ..... > gentlemen, the assamites are perhaps the MOST historical thing in WoD. It is part of WoD's whole schtick is to relate the various events of history to the machinations and feudings of ancient vampires. This is a typical example, and not any more or less historical than the rest. > There > really is [or was] an Alamut, the mountain from which the eponymous Old Man > directed the sect of the assassins. Originally they were formed during the > crusades, and perhaps may be said to constitute the original patriotic > resistance to foreign oppression [o alright, perhaps the Maccabees beat them > to that particular punch]. Right. I have no problem with the idea that the historical Old Man of the Mountains and many of his followers were actually vampires. This is no different from saying that the Ventrue were behind the destruction of Carthage; or that a certain historical 15th Century Wallachian warlord named Vlad the Impaler was embraced by a Tzimisce and became Count Dracula; or that the downfall of the Soviet Union was caused by the reawakening of the ancient Nosferatu, Baba Yaga. It was a good idea, but it was a small idea. Too small to base an entire clan on. I have no problem with an (small) faction of mid-eastern vampires making trouble for the Crusaders. I do have trouble with the idea that an Ancient Andedeluvian who has existed from before the dawn of recorded history, has spent his entire existence hanging out on a mountain with his followers for no other purpose than to make scare the Crusaders when they finally show up, defend Islam from Westerners, and develope Assassination as a mystical art, and otherwise fulfill the Westerner's conception of the Arab as fanatical bogeyman. This is totally Anachronistic. What did the poor fool live for before Mohammed? What did he live for before the Crusades? Why are he and his followers so frigging fascinated with Assassination? > The assassins frightened the crusaders so much > that supernatural powers and pacts with evil were a routine part of western > discourse about them, so it is entirely appropriate for them to be vampiric > in the WoD. Right. They are based, not on Arab folklore, but rather on western horror legends of scary Arabs. And this was allowed to remain as the entire basis/inspiration for all of Arabic Vampiredom. An entire freakin' cln, descended from an Antediluvian, was based on this extremely limitted notion. That is a horrendous insult to the rich folklore of the Arab world. The Arabs have an ancient and well developed culture and a large body of folklore. They have tales of Giants, evil Djinnis, Efreets, Ghouls and Soul Eaters. The word "Ghoul" is, in fact, drawn from Arabic folklore. Arabic culture has influenced our own vampiric myths, which come largely from the Balkans where Christian and Moslem cultures clashed. I think it would have been best if some research had been done into Ghost stories and Legends told *by* the Arabs, rather than merely being lazily satisfied with the ghost stories and legends told *about* Arabs by Westerners. The designers of clan Assamite look at this isolated historical event and anachronistically projected it onto a clan of vampires and extend it forewards and backwards in history. As such, they are a shallow one-note clan of Muslim Assassim Vampires who, oddly enough, seem to have existed since before Mohammed. Their design seems totally based on western perceptions and charicatures of Muslim culture, and not on any Arabic notions of what Evil Supernatural Creatures are like. Their special discipline, Quietus, has little depth. It is simply a discipline for Assassins, with no indication that it ever served, or is capable of serving, other purposes. > As for the Arab as terrorist and assassin, well, one of the many > clever things about the WoD is that you get to think long and hard about the > path from goodness, and the perception of evil .... it's not bad to want to > stay young and beautiful, is it? So you have to adopt an unusual diet, it's > not as if you're murdering anyone, is it? O dear, but i was just so HUNGRY > ..... and so on. There may not be vampires in the real world, but we still in > our different ways fall from goodness through exactly the same stages, even > the Intrinsically Noble and Chivalrous Sons and Daughters of Sem ...... All beside the point. Allowing this boring one-note clan to represent the Arab world is an insult to that rich culture. I have no problem with the idea of a small faction of Arabian Vampire Assassins operating at various points in history. They could profess the Muslim religion, as some vampires retain loyalty to Christianity. Such a faction would have have its origens later than 622 AD of course. But this should not all that there is to Arabian vampires and the Arabian world of darkness. Let them have other options as well, other aspects, other attributes, more variety, other inspirations. Whoever designed the Assamites thought of Arabs in simplistic terms, and designed a simplistic clan or Fanatical Muslim Assassim Vampires with their own custom made Assassination discipline, addicted to blood instead of Hashish. Once you give a vampire this one-note discipline of Quietus, it is hard to conceive of him as anything but an Assassin. They conceived [ quoted text not captured ]

On 30 Sep 1998, Jasper Phillips wrote: > And I've always thought the historical link was far from obscure, > all it takes is the slightest smidge of Middle Eastern History; > where do you think the word assasin comes from? Hashishin (because the Old Man's followers were reputedly addicted to Hashish). It's no more or less obscure than many historical events that are reinterpreted in WoD annals. But it's nothing to base an entire clan of vampires on. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Chris Berger wrote: > Okay, that's all for now. Sorry to rant, but I've wanted to say all > that for a while now, and the newsgroup is a great place to do that, > since you can't make me stop until I'm finished. :-P Thank you for saying better than I could why the Assamites are such a lame concept. I especially liked your point about Quietus not being an ability that can be used for varied purposes, but a purpose in itself. Even their clan symbol is lame. [ quoted text not captured ]

[snip some stuff] > > The assassins frightened the crusaders so much > > that supernatural powers and pacts with evil were a routine part of western > > discourse about them, so it is entirely appropriate for them to be vampiric > > in the WoD. > > Right. They are based, not on Arab folklore, but rather on western horror > legends of scary Arabs. And this was allowed to remain as the entire > basis/inspiration for all of Arabic Vampiredom. An entire freakin' cln, > descended from an Antediluvian, was based on this extremely limitted > notion. > > That is a horrendous insult to the rich culture and folklore of the Arab > world. > > The Arabs have an ancient and well developed culture and a large body > of folklore. They have tales of Giants, evil Djinnis, Efreets, Ghouls and > Soul Eaters. The word "Ghoul" is, in fact, drawn from Arabic folklore. > Arabic culture has influenced our own vampiric myths, which come largely > from the Balkans where Christian and Moslem cultures clashed. I think it > would have been best if some research had been done into Ghost stories and > Legends told *by* the Arabs, rather than merely being lazily satisfied > with the ghost stories and legends told *about* them by others. > [snip some more stuff] Although this is obviously a dispute about taste [which therefore has no future] i do think that the above points need to be qualified: if the research could have been done WELL, it would have been good. However, i have to say that i think White Wolf are VERY BAD at making up stories about non-American cultures. Their stuff about Britain and Russia [countries which i know reasonably well] is embarrassingly awful and stereotypical, and Kindred of the East is ..... well, on the principle that if you can't say anything nice about something you ought to keep stumm, it is a large red book with yellow writing on the cover. I wouldn't dispute that the assamites are one-dimensional and don't fairly represent arab culture, but i do maintain that the basic assamite is a Noble figure, and far from an insult to anyone. You are both, of course, quite right about the suckiness of Quietus. Fortunately quite a few of the two-dimensional assamites have thaumaturgy. If only it weren't for *%^&ing S:CE they might actually be quite fun to play with ..... Actually, the people who did a good job on real non-european folklore concering vampirism were Steve Jackson Games. Check out GURPS Bloodtypes for some REALLY nice [or nasty] tales of the African, Malay, Chinese and Arabian Night Terrors ...... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:59:37 -0500, Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> wrote: >James Coupe wrote: > >> In article <361107BD...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com>, Myron Mychal >> <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> writes >> >Well, I don't know about you, but I like playing with all of my cards and >> >there is a whole box of Muddled Vampire Hunters right here that never see play >> >because of S:CE. >> >> Do you never play stealth cards because someone else might play >> intercept too? > >All I am saying is that IF the First Strike rule would be able to beat S:CE, it >would see play in my group. Because of the mechanics of the game, and the >propensity for S:CE to dominate the game as it does in a lot of the games I play >around here, we play cards that can stop S:CE . . . I am sure you would too if >S:CE were dominant in your group Or play with 40+ strike cards, 6ish Psyches, and a healthy "THEY GOTTA RUN OUT OF 'EM SOMETIME" mentality. =) But ANYWAY... >Once again, I am just trying to find a way to MAKE cards playable . . . tell me - >how playable IS the MVH? Really . . . how many of you Malkavian players really >consider him a vital addition to your deck's strategy??? Muddles is awesome =) Ok, yeah, he's not much vs. S:CE, but hey. You weren't sending him after anyone with more than 3 blood on them ANYWAY, were you? So he's probably not beating up anyone -too- critical. And think of it this way,... what if the one time he rushes they DON'T happen to have S:CE? Oops! He's unique, so you can't have Mobs o' Muddles... so there isn't a question of whether he'd be EXTREMELY useful or not. so 2 pool? Not terribly expensive when you get down to it. Besides, he can always be left untapped and used as a sacrificial blocker with some teeth to him if the situation becomes desperate. Is he a vital addition? Nah. Is he not bad to have a couple of in the deck anyway just for the hell of it? Yep. Specially for those nasty abrasive Potence weenies, since Muddles -is- using a hand strike. ;) -- Derek (replying by email? correct the spelling on my domain. :)

Ok, I'm not going to cut and paste the whole rant against Quietus and other minor disciplines. All I have to say is, if you play V:TM and ever read the Assamite clanbook, it goes into great depth as to how and why the Assamites came into being. As for Quietus resembling Thaumaturgy, of course it does. Assamites practice ritual thaumaturgy. Not all of them are the assasins of the sect. In fact, that's a big reason why the Tremere hate them. Now in V:tES, making a good Assamite deck is a near-heroic feat. I've tried, and I've also tried all the other Assamite decks that have been posted here. My win percentage has been mediocre at best, and usually depended on a great deal of luck. In V:tES, Assamites just don't strike the fear that they do in real WoD games. One other point... there are in fact Clans that hold a great affinity with the Fae, as well as one that holds even mroe strongly with the Garou than Gangrel. If I had my source books in front of me I'd even give you there names. But saying a clan has no basis in the game because you find it weak... well then, don't play them. My 2 cents, Paul [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote: > J. Hunter Johnson <jhun...@dillinger.io.com> wrote: > >Michael Beer <Mi...@leila.ping.de> wrote: > >> How about fixing the rule that S:CE and S:Dodge beat First strike > >> even when not striked with first strike? > > > >Why is that broken? (I realize that it could be changed, but I don't > >see why the change would be any more "fixed" than the current rule.) > > I agree with not changing things that aren't broken (at least > official changes), but didn't First Strike originally work this > way? No. All strikes (even done with First Strike) have always been "canceled" by Dodge, and S:CE has always ended combat at the start of strike resolution (before any damage is dealt or other strike effects occur). [Jyhad rulebook, 15.3] -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html

Chris Berger wrote: > Actually, those suggestions are just as off-the-wall in an a priori > sense. It is screwing with a game mechanic just because you feel like > it. It improves maybe one wallpaper card. It also improves at least 1 I disagree. Your suggestions were entirely random in my opinion whereas my suggestions are an attempt to make an unplayable game-mechanic into a playable one, and in all honesty, if one card gets promoted from non-wallpaper status without any other cards being promoted TO wallpaper status, I believe it improves the game . . . makes a useful resource out of a previously non-useful resource at no extra cost and also makes me happy when I open a pack to say "YESSSS!!!!! I got a card with First Strike!!!" They totally removed the definition of "Paralyze" in the game when they changed editions, they should have just done the same with "First Strike" and simply defined it for the Muddled Vampire Hunter (as per Stake/Wooden Stake) I am just trying to either make USE of a game mechanic that is currently useless or drop it altogether. > really good card. Why? Because you (and others, I must admit) feel > like it. It's all fine and good to play with house rules, but even > there I must state a passive objection. It is much easier to play with > other people (outside your playgroup) as well as to discuss the game if > everyone plays the same game. Well . . . in all honesty "same game" is really becoming quite the pain with Jyhad/V:tES since now I can't honestly just read my cards and determine how to play them - I need to surf the net to see what I can do with it. I just found out TODAY that "cross table" bleeds are not allowed?!?!?!?! Hmmm . . . why even bother having the "D" action definition anymore???? ANd you know what? I even downloaded some of the most recent rules changes and this one seems to have completely slipped by me - can anyone point me to a place where I can see this as "official" because I still do not believe it. > I can't presume to tell you what to do in your games (well, I can tell > you all I want, but then you won't even take me partially seriously), > but I can say that I think such a rule doesn't help the game and creates > a disparity between the game you are playing and the game I am playing > (and, IMO this is kind of a bad thing for various reasons that I won't > post right now; if you want to know my reasons, post back and yell at me > some more and I'll almost certainly respond). It is obvious that the While I agree that we should all be playing the same game if we want to talk about strategy, if people can arbitrarily change rules for what (IMO) are idiotic reasons (and I can't wait to see what the logic is for not allowing cross-table bleeeds) then I can stand on my pulpit and defend rules changes I think should be made and you can stand and yours and defy my reasons for changing them. All I can say is that overall, I think changes are being made that should NOT be made and changes that SHOULD be made are slipping by the rules "experts." I wonder how many hours of playtesting people out there who DO have an effect on rules changes actually perform. Come try my playgroup - we playtest EVERY weekend . . . EVERY weekend. And we play with every card in the game . . . > original designer went to great effort to cause S:CE and dodge to > resolve before first strike, most likely in order to more closely > simulate the RPG from which Jyhad was derived, as well as to be more Well hooray for the RPG but this is still a card game and while I can try to make a wonderful game based on my favorite themes, I can still make some downright stupid game mechanics for the SAKE of theme. To be honest, the RPG is a casual interest of mine for flavor alone, but I have never played it and seriously doubt I will play it. I like that Jyhad/V:tES has a framework to work around other than little hearts and clubs on the cards, but I think that to make a good CARD game, you can sacrifice certain thematic aspects. Besides . . . the theme of Rotschreck in the RPG (I have looked this up) is that a vampire coming in the face of receiving aggro damage (not even struck by it - just the POSSIBILITY of it) ends up going to torpor out of shear terror. They have destroyed the theme time and again for that card to the point where they simply banned it, so I don't think the game designers are all that interested in "maintaining theme" over the sake of improving the game itself. > "realistic" (meaning game-world realistic, as I can't make much > judgement as to how realistic vampires would act). And who can judge that the "turn-on" ability of something like Majesty is faster than a celeritous vampire trying to strike before the power comes into effect??? It's a cops-and-robbers argument that kindergarteners go through every day on the playground . . . "No Bobby - I shot you first!!" . . . "No Tommy, I shot YOU first!" Everyone's definition of realism in this case will be different, and I think that for the game's sake, they should PLAYTEST PLAYTEST PLAYTEST . . . and then determine who strikes first - the cop or the robber - for the better of the game. I mean, you argue your point very well and you say that you don't think the game would improve, but have you really tried to make that rule change and see that the game does not improve?? Really . . . try it . . . THEN knock me down by saying that you made a celeritous Malkavian combat deck with MVH and it did nothing for you . . . just play it a lot more than once though . . . and give those MVH the chance to use Concealed Weapon too and maybe you'll see (like my group) how much more fun it can be or maybe you'll think that First Strike is way TOO powerful or maybe you'll see that it makes no difference . . . but please try it first, because I have, and I wouldn't try to fight for such a change arbitrarily. > Concealed Weapon was a misprint, plain and simple. This has been shown > to about 90% confidence. However, it still has not been errata'd and > most people still do not use a house rule to that effect. As for the And this is another change that my group plays with that we REALLY enjoy. Allies become a lot more useful (a LOT more) and clans like the Toreador can be particularly nasty when they surprise you with a hidden gun whereas most people in my group would block Toreador from equipping a LOT of the time. It is something we have playtested and doesn't make any other cards useless, but makes yet another card useful. So in our games, we have made the MVH, Backstab and Concealed Weapon playable and we are really gonna nail down the Rotschreck card because a lot of guys here want to build a deck around it. We even like Rowan Rings and the Pralyze rule because it gives another check-and-balance against Fortitude. > Assamites, I have seen many good decks that used Assamites. If you > can't build a good deck that uses purely Assamites (and I'm actually not > sure if you can or not) then that's perfect. One-clan decks are > narrow. Narrow decks have weaknesses. That is good. If truly narrow EVERY deck has weaknesses. That is like saying that mono-color decks in Magic have weaknesses because they are narrow. The efficiency of a single-clan deck is that you can always count on the disciplines you need to be available and though that is also possible with SOME clan combinations, it is still a lot easier to count on one clan in appearance. However, you will have weaknesses because there is no clan that can master bleeding, voting AND combat otherwise we'd all play it. If the First Strike rule-change would make Assamites more playable, then that is great!!!! Another deck archetype becomes playable and the game is enriched. In our group, the Backstabbing Assamites tend to do fairly well. It has certainly made "Backstab" into a popular trade card whereas before we made the change, it was a beer coaster. > I didn't feel I was being patronizing. I felt that I had a point to > make, and used some extreme examples which parralel the point I was > trying to discredit. And besides, I feel that there is usually I love a good argument even with someone I don't know, as long as their points are expressed in an intelligent manner. It enriches the discussion and sometimes maybe even convinces me to change my thinking and helps me to adapt - part of the glory of being human. However, your comments did seem patronizing to me, primarily because I have been here for a short time and tried to voice my opinion and felt that I was being answered by "an experienced poster to the newsgroup trying to 'put me in my place' as a newbie." Though that may have not been your intent, your comments came off as patronizing nonetheless and if you had actually told me that you had tried the game with my proposed changes and found that it did nothing, then I would have acknowledged it as a lot of experience in playing the game and willingness to try something regardless of what the infamous "they" might say. I just like intelligent arguments and most of your posts (as I have been reading everything before I post here) seem to be well thought-out and informed. It just seemed odd that your first answer to me displayed a heightened level of pure cynicism is all. > USENET. Afterall, if you're intelligent enough to use a computer (note: > this sounds slightly patronizing to me when I read it. This time that > is certainly not intended. I am obviously aware that you are easily > intelligent enough to use a computer), then you are also intelligent > enough to realize that any opinion I may have of you means less than > nothing. And any insult or patronization directed at you is not going > to irrevocably scar your psyche. ("Oh no! I have been insulted by some > nerd on USENET who thinks he knows everything! Whatever will I do?") Oh - I don't take it personally at all. Conversation is conversation . . . but I just wanted to point out that you might do a better job of convincing me of your side of an argument if you aren't being patronizing to me. I don't know you at all and I would live a comfortable and happy life even if you did tell me I was a complete idiot and had no idea how to play Jyhad/V:tES. I am very experienced at "selective hearing" and "selective reading" in the case of USENET. No offense taken at all, Chris. Just looking for some good discussion on my favorite card game. Myron Mychal

Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> wrote: > my suggestions are an attempt to make an unplayable game-mechanic > into a playable one, The existing mechanic isn't unplayable -- I've played games with it, and seen other do so as well. You're trying to make cards that you find unplayable playable by changing the mechanics -- which may not be a bad thing, but isn't the same thing either. Hunter -- Hunter Johnson /\ http://www.io.com/~jhunterj/ SJG Errata Guy /()\ http://www.sjgames.com/errata/ Knightmare Chess Guru /____\ http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980930010733.24364B-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> writes >Even their <Assamites - JC> clan symbol is lame. Hell, no. The Assamite clan symbol is k3wl. ;) No, I do honestly really like it, because it's intricate and decorative and seems to suit them. If you want a bad clan symbol, pick on the Lasombra and the Tzimisce. [ quoted text not captured ]

J. Hunter Johnson wrote: > Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> wrote: > > > my suggestions are an attempt to make an unplayable game-mechanic > > into a playable one, > > The existing mechanic isn't unplayable -- I've played games with it, > and seen other do so as well. You're trying to make cards that you > find unplayable playable by changing the mechanics -- which may not be > a bad thing, but isn't the same thing either. I will say that the best success I had with using First Strike cards without mucking up the rules of strike orders is in a game where I knew that people would be playing with a lot of equipment, so I had a Brujah celerity deck that stole/smashed all the toys . . . again - that was really situational. When you played with it, what was your strategy? When it was successful, why was it successful?? Myron

Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> wrote: > J. Hunter Johnson wrote: >> Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> wrote: >>> my suggestions are an attempt to make an unplayable game-mechanic >>> into a playable one, >> The existing mechanic isn't unplayable -- I've played games with >> it, and seen other do so as well. You're trying to make cards that >> you find unplayable playable by changing the mechanics -- which may >> not be a bad thing, but isn't the same thing either. > I will say that the best success I had with using First Strike cards > without mucking up the rules of strike orders is in a game where I knew > that people would be playing with a lot of equipment, so I had a Brujah > celerity deck that stole/smashed all the toys . . . again - that was > really situational. When you played with it, what was your strategy? > When it was successful, why was it successful?? I've played games with the mechanic -- that doesn't mean I've built decks around cards with First Strike. You said the mechanic was unplayable, and it's not. I'm arguing semantics because your statement had a more negative spin than it should, IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

J. Hunter Johnson wrote: > I've played games with the mechanic -- that doesn't mean I've built > decks around cards with First Strike. You said the mechanic was > unplayable, and it's not. I'm arguing semantics because your > statement had a more negative spin than it should, IMO. Okay - perhaps we need to figure out what we all mean by "unplayable." To me, the term means that certainly I can legally play a card because it is in the realm of the rules, but there are so many better cards to use that I wouldn't consider serious use of this "unplayable" card in my deck. Sure - First Strike is playable against decks that do not use S:CE, Dodge or against decks that make heavy use of equipment . . . however, the likelihood of decks that do not have these methods of combat avoidance (or that do have a lot of equipment) is very low, hence the mechanic/strategy is unplayable to me. And why haven't you built decks around cards with First Strike? I'd love to hear your reason and it very well may be as simple as "I don't have cards with First Strike". However - if you do have a lot of cards with First Strike, why don't you build decks around them? My argument is because that the mechanic is unplayable. If it were playable, you could build a deck around it or splash it as a strong "helping" strategy. Can you build a defensive combat deck around S:CE and Dodge? Very easily! You can build a vote deck or a bleed deck that uses combat avoidance. You can even build an intercepting deck that does the same. I don't want to argue semantics - I want to discuss the playability of a game mechanic, so let's try to get on the same level of semantics and discuss the issue. Myron Mychal

Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> wrote: > Okay - perhaps we need to figure out what we all mean by "unplayable." Can't be played (with). > To me, the term means that certainly I can legally play a card > because it is in the realm of the rules, but there are so many > better cards to use that I wouldn't consider serious use of this > "unplayable" card in my deck. Now you're talking about unplayable cards. You were talking about unplayable mechanics. > And why haven't you built decks around cards with First Strike? I'd > love to hear your reason and it very well may be as simple as "I > don't have cards with First Strike". However - if you do have a lot > of cards with First Strike, why don't you build decks around them? I don't play combat decks often enough to have tried all the subtypes of it. :-) > My argument is because that > the mechanic is unplayable. Oops, now you're back to the mechanic instead of the cards. > I don't want to argue semantics Then you've got to watch your terms. > I want to discuss the playability of a game mechanic, Actually, you want to discuss the impact of a game mechanic on the playability of certain cards. > so let's try to get on the same level of semantics and discuss the > issue. Okay. [ quoted text not captured ]

>If you want a bad clan symbol, pick on the Lasombra and the Tzimisce. fear that L :)

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980930012559.24364C-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: >On 30 Sep 1998, Jasper Phillips wrote: > >> And I've always thought the historical link was far from obscure, >> all it takes is the slightest smidge of Middle Eastern History; >> where do you think the word assasin comes from? > >Hashishin (because the Old Man's followers were reputedly addicted to >Hashish). It's no more or less obscure than many historical events that >are reinterpreted in WoD annals. But it's nothing to base an entire clan >of vampires on. *shrug* I guess I'd say that about most of the Vampire Clans, probably all of them actually. I don't think the Assamites are any cheesier in concept than the Settites, Ravnos, Salubri, Tzimice, or Malkavians (in my mind they're less cheesy, actually), and all the other main clans aren't far behind. I don't particularly have a problem with this, since I kind of expect Vampire to be a little cheesy and over the top (in the same kind of way that _every_ event of historical note is due to vampire society in their background). [ quoted text not captured ]

J. Hunter Johnson wrote: > > Okay - perhaps we need to figure out what we all mean by "unplayable." > > Can't be played (with). Well - my definition was very different than yours. > > To me, the term means that certainly I can legally play a card > > because it is in the realm of the rules, but there are so many > > better cards to use that I wouldn't consider serious use of this > > "unplayable" card in my deck. > > Now you're talking about unplayable cards. You were talking about > unplayable mechanics. Okay . . . now this is becoming a little bit too ridiculous . . . like Clinton's definitions of "sexual relations." The First Strike mechanic is by my definiton "unplayable" and all cards other than Muddled Vampire Hunter are also "unplayable" by my definition of the term as stated above in article blah blah section blah blah. THe MVH is playable because of the abilities it has IN ADDITION to First Strike. > I don't play combat decks often enough to have tried all the subtypes > of it. :-) Okay - then what type of decks do you play? Do you play with any combat cards? > > My argument is because that > > the mechanic is unplayable. > > Oops, now you're back to the mechanic instead of the cards. And now you are focusing on definitions instead of the point. > > I don't want to argue semantics > > Then you've got to watch your terms. Okay - I have defined mine and you still haven't given me something to work with. > > I want to discuss the playability of a game mechanic, > > Actually, you want to discuss the impact of a game mechanic on the > playability of certain cards. Ahh . . . semantics again . . . > > so let's try to get on the same level of semantics and discuss the > > issue. > > Okay. Hmmm . . . so what do you mean by "Okay" . . . is it "Fair to midland" or "acceptable" . . . you've got to define your terms for me. Myron Mychal

Myron Mychal <mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com> wrote: > J. Hunter Johnson wrote: >>> Okay - perhaps we need to figure out what we all mean by "unplayable." >> Can't be played (with). > Well - my definition was very different than yours. And Webster's. >>> To me, the term means that certainly I can legally play a card >>> because it is in the realm of the rules, but there are so many >>> better cards to use that I wouldn't consider serious use of this >>> "unplayable" card in my deck. >> Now you're talking about unplayable cards. You were talking about >> unplayable mechanics. > Okay . . . now this is becoming a little bit too ridiculous > . . . like Clinton's definitions of "sexual relations." Okay, I'm done here. If you want to claim that "unplayable mechanics" and "unplayable cards" are synonymous, and drag the whole media/politics/sex morass into it while you're at it, there's no point in continuing. [ quoted text not captured ]

J. Hunter Johnson wrote: > And Webster's. Okay - is there a word/phrase I could use in its place to satisfy you? Perhaps "Not Tourney Worthy"? > Okay, I'm done here. If you want to claim that "unplayable mechanics" > and "unplayable cards" are synonymous, and drag the whole > media/politics/sex morass into it while you're at it, there's no point > in continuing. Well - I was trying to get over the stumbling block of semantics but you seem to keep throwing semantics back into it. I even said that MVH is a "playable card" and the others were not and all the other cards are "First Strike" cards, and the Hunter is playable not ONLy because of "First Strike" hence with all the cards bearing "First Strike" available to me in the card pool, and most of them being unplayable by my definition of "unplayable" implies that to me the mechanic is also "unplayable." I really don't see whatthe problem with my definitons here are. Please tell me so rather than to go in circles of "oh now you are saying this and now this." You haven't even told me WHY the "semantics" are so important to your understanding of the argument.

On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Although this is obviously a dispute about taste [which therefore has no > future] i do think that the above points need to be qualified: if the > research could have been done WELL, it would have been good. However, i have > to say that i think White Wolf are VERY BAD at making up stories about > non-American cultures. Their stuff about Britain and Russia [countries which > i know reasonably well] is embarrassingly awful and stereotypical, and > Kindred of the East is ..... well, on the principle that if you can't say > anything nice about something you ought to keep stumm, it is a large red book > with yellow writing on the cover. Sad. The subject has potential. > I wouldn't dispute that the assamites are > one-dimensional and don't fairly represent arab culture, but i do maintain > that the basic assamite is a Noble figure, and far from an insult to anyone. Well, right. They took the stereotypes, and tried to put a positive spin on them. It is still deadly obvious that the stereotypes were all they had to go on. The resulting creation is one that is hard to identify with, however noble (and I expect this is as true for Moslems/Arabs as it is for Westerners). It is far easier to identity with a Tzimisce, sick and perverted as they typically are, because they are flexible enough as characters that one can more easily identify with the motives that drive their crimes. I'm sure WoD writes alot of bad stereotypical stuff, like you said. However the Assamites seem imprisoned by their stereotypes to a degree that is true for no other clan. They are defined by them. > You are both, of course, quite right about the suckiness of Quietus. > Fortunately quite a few of the two-dimensional assamites have thaumaturgy. If > only it weren't for *%^&ing S:CE they might actually be quite fun to play > with ..... Yes. Discarding the Quietus discipline instantly makes the Assamites seem more flexible -- allowing one to imagine a range of characters with a range of motivations and interests. > Actually, the people who did a good job on real non-european folklore > concering vampirism were Steve Jackson Games. Check out GURPS Bloodtypes for > some REALLY nice [or nasty] tales of the African, Malay, Chinese and Arabian > Night Terrors ...... Thanks for the tip. Sounds interesting. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, James Coupe wrote: > Hell, no. The Assamite clan symbol is k3wl. ;) No, I do honestly > really like it, because it's intricate and decorative and seems to suit > them. > > If you want a bad clan symbol, pick on the Lasombra and the Tzimisce. Most of the clans have decent symbols. They are distinctive, and one can easily devise simple handwritten variations of them than remain distinctive. The same is true for most of the discipline symbols. The problem with the Lasombra, Giovanni, and Tzimisce it that their symbols are not distinctive enough. The Lasombra symbol is the worst. It is simply the letter "L", which could mean anything. The Giovanni symbol is a capitol "G" within a square. The Tzimisce symbol is simply a stylized letter "t". If you devise a simple handwritten variation, you will have nothing but "L", "G", and "T", which is not distinctive at all. The Assamite symbol does not have the above problem. It is specific and distinctive enough, but it is not really a "symbol". Instead, we are given (apparently) the entire word "Assamite" spelled out in excessively fancified (arabic?) lettering. The best way to make a hand-written approximation of this symbol is to write the entire word "Assamite". That's a different sort of lame, but I still think it's lame, and yet another indication that the imaginations at White Wolf have run dry. [ quoted text not captured ]

Myron Mychal wrote: > THe MVH is playable because of the > abilities it has IN ADDITION to First Strike. > Well, sort of. But the fact is, a Muddled Vampire Hunter without First Strike is garbage, as he gets one attack, regardless of anything else. A Muddled Vampire with First Strike either a) slowly gets rid of defense cards or b) smacks vampires.. hard. Sure, he only works against small vamps, but what do you want for 2 pool? And it's *possible* that the First Strike Muddles only gets one attack and then dies, but not assured. -Chris

> > One other point... there are in fact Clans that hold a great affinity with > the Fae, as well as one that holds even mroe strongly with the Garou than > Gangrel. If I had my source books in front of me I'd even give you there > names. But saying a clan has no basis in the game because you find it > weak... well then, don't play them. > Well, the Malkavians have some affinity with the Fae and some high level auspex/obfuscate powers in the Malk clan book allow them to travel in the Fae realm (Walk Through Arcadia) and talk to faeries. There is also a clan which is more related to changelings, but I can't remember what they're called. I think they are actually of mixed fae/vampire descent or something freakin' weird like that. As for a clan with more affinity to Garou... I don't think that exists... The Gangrel fill a niche in the game world, as being wilderness vampires. As a sort of variation of the Nosferatu (one of the most widely represented types of vampires in folklore and movies) with the shapeshifting attributes often given to vampires, they make perfect sense. You may be thinking of Abominations, which are werewolves that have been embraced. So, the clans that seem to mimic faeries or werewolves are actually mixes, rather than trying to import some legend and cram it into the vampire game where it obviously doesn't belong. And if there is some *other* clan that's even more like werewolves, then they probably shouldn't have been made. White Wolf has gone a little overboard in making clans and bloodlines, and also disciplines that are just plain dumb. Assamites are simply the worst of it, in my mind. Oh... and I don't discount them because they are weak. Actually, an Assamite can be way too powerful, especially when made by power gamers (who, as I have said, are almost the only people who choose them). -Chris

In article <6ustro$sq6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >concering vampirism were Steve Jackson Games. Check out GURPS Bloodtypes for >some REALLY nice [or nasty] tales of the African, Malay, Chinese and Arabian >Night Terrors ...... > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- This is getting way off topic for a card gaming newsgroup, but I've always thought that Steve Jackson does the best source books, in general. -Jasper, whos happy they finally decided to reprint Arabian Nights. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree that the first-strike capability is the most important thing about Muddles. His +3 hand damage is minimally important in comparison. Even without this, Muddles is deadly with an Ivory Bow, and he does not need to limit himself to small vampires. [ quoted text not captured ]

Myron Mychal (mmy...@NOSPAMcharlesindustries.com) wrote: > Well . . . in all honesty "same game" is really becoming quite the pain > with Jyhad/V:tES since now I can't honestly just read my cards and > determine how to play them - I need to surf the net to see what I can > do with it. I just found out TODAY that "cross table" bleeds are not > allowed?!?!?!?! Hmmm . . . why even bother : having the "D" action > definition anymore???? The (D) symbol means "directed action". It was never intended to mean anything else. Being a "directed action" has nothing to do with who can be targetted. It only has to do with who can block. If an action is non-directed, then the only players who can block are your predator or your prey. If an action is directed, then the only player who can block is the one who is being targetted by the bleed. > ANd you know what? I even downloaded : some of > the most recent rules changes and this one seems to have completely > slipped by me - can anyone point me to a place where I can see this as > "official" because I : still do not believe it. The reason you may be having trouble finding it is because there is no errata forbidding cross-table bleeds. It is the original rules (supported by both the Jyhad *and* the V:tES rulebooks) that forbid cross-table bleeds. To be more precise, they do not expressly forbid it. They merely define a "bleed" as an directed action that targets your prey and causes him to lose pool. Bleeds can only target your prey. It's in the rules. Look it up. The (D) symbol on bleed cards like "Computer Hacking" tells you that only your target can block. This means that your predator cannot block (unless he becomes the target via bleed bounce). The (D) symbol is slightly redundant on bleed cards, since all bleeds are "directed actions", even if cardless. However, both the Jyhad and V:tES rulebooks make the promise that all directed actions cards will have the (D) symbol, so that one will know, by it's absence, that an action is non-directed. Computer Hacking has the (D) symbol just to be consistent with this promise. There used to be some silly errata which stated that the (D) symbol did not merely mean "directed action", but actually meant "directed action that can target anybody unless a target is specified". This errata has now been eliminated, which is a GOOD THING, as it never made any sense in the first place. The rules now coincide with the rulebook. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips (phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU) wrote: : *shrug* I guess I'd say that about most of the Vampire Clans, probably : all of them actually. I don't think the Assamites are any cheesier in : concept than the Settites, Ravnos, Salubri, Tzimice, or Malkavians : (in my mind they're less cheesy, actually), Well, I guess cheesy is in the eye of the beholder : and all the other main : clans aren't far behind. Well, the big difference between the main clans and the Assamites is... A Gangrel, or Brujah, or Malkavian, or Nosferatu, or Toreador can be a Noble Fanatical Muslim Assassin if you choose. They can also be Fanatical Muslim Assassins who are not Noble, or Noble Muslims who are not Fanatical Assassins. Some of the other clans are less versatile in their scope. One example are the Giovanni, who only embrace members or their own (human) family. However the Giovanni are recent upstarts, according to the history, and not of Ancient Antidiluvian descent. Thus it makes more sense for their lineage to be poorly diversified. Actually, come to think of it, their lineage becomes very diversified once you trace them back to the Antidiluvians, as they include both the Samedi and the Cappodocians. Nor are they pigeonholed into being Assassins. I guess the Ravnos are the most comparible. Descended from an Anti-diluvian, based on a single ethnic group, with a mystical discipline based on stereotypes about that group. Still Chimeristry is not nearly as cheesy a discipine as Quietus, and the Ravnos seem far more flexible as characters. You also mentioned the Settites, but I think that Set/Sutekh is a rather cool inspiration for a vampiric clan. The only problem is that this makes the Settites Evil with a capital E...to the point where their motives become hard to identify with. Why exactly do they want to corrupt everyone anyway? A Tzimisce can be just about anything you choose, but seem to be inspired by ghoulish tales about the cruelties of the slavic aristocracy. I guess that's somewhat of a comparison, and it might be argued that torture is an unfair characterization of Slav culture. Still, vicissitude is a versatile discipline that can be used both to hurt and to heal, as well as to create. If you can't think of a use for Vicissitude, you can be Old-Clan. Tzimisce are not nearly as imprisoned by stereotypes as are the Assamites. I'm not much interested in the Salubri, since they haven't been incorporated into V:tES yet. I'm not sure why you think they're nearly as cheesy as the Assamites. In any case, the Tremere ate them all, so there ain't too many still around. : I don't particularly have a problem with this, : since I kind of expect Vampire to be a little cheesy and over the top : (in the same kind of way that _every_ event of historical note is : due to vampire society in their background). Well, yeah. That part's fine with me. But the Arab world has a long and diversified history...most of which has nothing to do with the history of Arab Terrorism against the West. What White Wolf did was take the western stereotype of the Arab-as-Terrorist, went back a thousand years to find the first recorded example of anti-western Arab terrorism, and ignored all of intervening history as well preceding history. Ignored their rich folklore, ignored the umpteen volumes of the 1001 nights,...everything. [ quoted text not captured ]

lor...@mindsprung.com (Derek S. Ray) wrote: >Is he a vital addition? Nah. Is he not bad to have a couple of in >the deck anyway just for the hell of it? Yep. Specially for those >nasty abrasive Potence weenies, since Muddles -is- using a hand >strike. ;) Yeh. Give 'em a Stake... Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver and Prince of Charlotte, NC

Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: >Myron Mychal wrote: >> >> Chris Berger wrote: >> >> > None of those things would break the game. Nevertheless, they are all >> > just as pointless and unfounded as making First Strike happen before >> > dodge and S:CE. >> > >> >> Well, I don't know about you, but I like playing with all of my cards and >> there is a whole box of Muddled Vampire Hunters right here that never see play >> because of S:CE. My proposedchange in "First Strike" is nowhere near as "off >> the wall" as the suggestions YOU seem to make about changing rules. >> >Actually, those suggestions are just as off-the-wall in an a priori >sense. Egads!!! Stand back, he's pulling out the Kant! ;-) Soon we'll hear about an a priori Jyhad rules set somewhere, and lurkers will go looking for it with Yahoo. R. David Zopf, returns to his musings on the transcendental unity of aperception... [ quoted text not captured ]

jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org (John Whelan) wrote: >Bleeds can only target your prey. It's in the rules. Look it up. The >(D) symbol on bleed cards like "Computer Hacking" tells you that only your >target can block. This means that your predator cannot block (unless he >becomes the target via bleed bounce). >The (D) symbol is slightly redundant on bleed cards, since all bleeds are >"directed actions", even if cardless. However, both the Jyhad and V:tES >rulebooks make the promise that all directed actions cards will have the >(D) symbol, so that one will know, by it's absence, that an action is >non-directed. Computer Hacking has the (D) symbol just to be consistent >with this promise. The (D) symbol on bleed actions also provided a means of quick identification separating the card from bleed modifiers. Back when all the Jyhad cards (modifiers and actions) looked the same (except for that dinky symbol in the corner), the (D) was merely reminder text of when you had to play the card. It's easier to pick them out now because of the background changes introduced... [ quoted text not captured ]

mad...@rocketmail.com wrote: > One other point... there are in fact Clans that hold a great affinity with >the Fae, as well as one that holds even mroe strongly with the Garou than >Gangrel. If I had my source books in front of me I'd even give you there >names. You might be thinking of the Sabbat bloodline, the Kiasyd (affinity with the Fae, Mythceria discipline). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6v1scq$r...@enews4.newsguy.com>, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes >I'm not much interested in the Salubri, since they haven't been >incorporated into V:tES yet. I'm not sure why you think they're nearly as >cheesy as the Assamites. In any case, the Tremere ate them all, so there >ain't too many still around. "7," he said, whilst pointing to his e-mail address. [ quoted text not captured ]