For JOL Question

I am bum rushing someone tap, and they are trying to play the second tradition to untap and block, but I am adding no stealth. Can they do this? My though is no, because you can't pump the intercept. If the answer in yes, then you could use spirits touch to react and get a manuever, and many other reactions. TigersClaw

In article <357779DB...@netdirect.net>, Larry Pickett <lpic...@netdirect.net> wrote: > > I am bum rushing someone tap, and they are trying to play the second > tradition to untap and block, but I am adding no stealth. > > Can they do this? My though is no, because you can't pump the > intercept. Correct, they cannot. You cannot add intercept unless you need intercept. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

> > > > I am bum rushing someone tap, and they are trying to play the second > > tradition to untap and block, but I am adding no stealth. > > > > Can they do this? My though is no, because you can't pump the > > intercept. > > Correct, they cannot. You cannot add intercept unless you need intercept. > In my opinion, this is an utterly ridiculous ruling. I know that it's standard, but it's ridiculous. If you can only play stealth/intercept if you need it, then you shouldn't be able to play a +2 stealth action if your prey/predator don't have any minions with permanent intercept bonuses. In fact, if your predator and prey have no minions, you shouldn't even be able to play +1 stealth actions. Since you can obviously play such an action, you should be able to use the Second Tradition. Second Tradition is a reaction that allows a tapped vampire to block an action. This block just happens to be at +2 intercept, just as Movement of the Slowed Body happens to be at +2 stealth. Explain to me how the two are different. (Note: I am not contesting the "only if needed" rule. You shouldn't be able to play Precognition or Faceless Night or whatever if stealth/intercept is not needed. I contend that Second Tradition (just like +N stealth actions) is a special case. Just as the particular action must play the card to be attempted, Second Tradition must be played for a block to be possible. The stealth/intercept are additional affects. ) -Chris -Chris

In article <35786C9F...@cco.caltech.edu>, Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> writes >Just as the particular action must play the card to be attempted, >Second Tradition must be played for a block to be possible. The >stealth/intercept are additional affects. ) The problem being where do you draw the line? Spirit's Touch gives me an optional maneuver in combat. Can i play that before combat to get a maneuver and just happen to get some intercept as well? What about Precognition? And with Faceless Night, I'm tapping them as well as getting stealth. Who decides which is the major function of the card? The hard and fast rule (rather than the case by case rule) eliminates that. And it gives Prince decks something to think about. What do they value more? The ability to block at stealth actions only (2nd Tradition) or the ability to block anyway (Wake)? You cannot ADD stealth to an action - but starting an action with inherent stealth is not adding to that stealth anyway, btw. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

> The problem being where do you draw the line? > > Spirit's Touch gives me an optional maneuver in combat. Can i play that > before combat to get a maneuver and just happen to get some intercept as > well? What about Precognition? And with Faceless Night, I'm tapping > them as well as getting stealth. Who decides which is the major > function of the card? The hard and fast rule (rather than the case by > case rule) eliminates that. And it gives Prince decks something to > think about. What do they value more? The ability to block at stealth > actions only (2nd Tradition) or the ability to block anyway (Wake)? > But that point is, when you cannot block, there is no measure of whether or not you "need" intercept. The whole term has no meaning. So, when you are blocking or at least, *can* block, you can't use cards that give you intercept unless you need it. If you can't currently block, then the point is moot. > You cannot ADD stealth to an action - but starting an action with > inherent stealth is not adding to that stealth anyway, btw. > But what about starting a block with inherent intercept? -Chris

In article <357B1514...@cco.caltech.edu>, Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> writes >But that point is, when you cannot block, there is no measure of whether or >not you "need" intercept. The whole term has no meaning. So, when you are >blocking or at least, *can* block, you can't use cards that give you >intercept unless you need it. If you can't currently block, then the point >is moot. > I see the point that you are not currently blocking so why not let them play 2nd Tradition for the intercept. What I disagreed with was your rationale that it untapped you and just happened to give you intercept, since this could then be expanded and abused, possibly to the extent that the Stealth and Intercept Dumping rules would only apply to using the cards at levels where they ONLY give you stealth/intercept. >> You cannot ADD stealth to an action - but starting an action with >> inherent stealth is not adding to that stealth anyway, btw. >> > >But what about starting a block with inherent intercept? > This happens all the time - if I have Mr Winthrop on me, say, or Guardian Angel. Since equipment is always optional, a Sport Bike wouldn't necessarily count but it could. The thing is, these come from permanents, not from your playing cards. Personally, from a story point of view, I can't see the problem with allowing 2nd Tradition to be used to allow blocks against stealthless actions. However, from a rules point of view, I can see LSJ being backed into a corner and being "forced" to "interpret" that ruling into something far more hideous, especially if, as hoped, he is given more liberal powers as a result of the Inactive Brands Meeting. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > I am bum rushing someone tap, and they are trying to play the second > > > tradition to untap and block, but I am adding no stealth. > > > > > > Can they do this? My though is no, because you can't pump the > > > intercept. > > > > Correct, they cannot. You cannot add intercept unless you need intercept. > > > > In my opinion, this is an utterly ridiculous ruling. I know that it's standard, > but it's ridiculous. If you can only play stealth/intercept if you need it, then > you shouldn't be able to play a +2 stealth action if your prey/predator don't > have any minions with permanent intercept bonuses. In fact, if your predator and > prey have no minions, you shouldn't even be able to play +1 stealth actions. > Since you can obviously play such an action, you should be able to use the Second > Tradition. Second Tradition is a reaction that allows a tapped vampire to block > an action. This block just happens to be at +2 intercept, just as Movement of > the Slowed Body happens to be at +2 stealth. Explain to me how the two are > different. > > (Note: I am not contesting the "only if needed" rule. You shouldn't be able to > play Precognition or Faceless Night or whatever if stealth/intercept is not > needed. I contend that Second Tradition (just like +N stealth actions) is a > special case. Just as the particular action must play the card to be attempted, > Second Tradition must be played for a block to be possible. The > stealth/intercept are additional affects. ) > > -Chris > > -Chris I have to agree. If not because of the letter of the law, how about the spirit The rule is there to prevent stealth and intercept dumping. That is hardly the case in this situation. For the same reason I hate the fact that you can not play superior Bonding unless you need the stealth.

Quicksilver wrote: > [snip: angry that you have to need the intercept to use 2nd tradition] > > I have to agree. If not because of the letter of the law, how about the > spirit. The rule is there to prevent stealth and intercept dumping. That is > hardly the case in this situation. The rule is to prevent the use of stealth and intercept cards when the stealth and intercept is not needed. Why should there be an exception in this case? > For the same reason I hate the fact that you can not play > superior Bonding unless you need the stealth. If you don't need the stealth, why would you want to play superior Bonding? If you're worried that the other player will play intercept after you play Bonding, wait until they decline to block, then play it. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

In article <357C4D79...@lmco.com>, Quicksilver <michael...@lmco.com> writes >For the same reason I hate the fact that you can not play >superior >Bonding unless you need the stealth. Point? What would be the point of playing Bonding at superior unless you needed the stealth? It's not like it's +1 bleed/+2 bleed and +1 stealth. If it was, I could understand not wanting the ruling, but why not? I mean, if you REALLY want, don't throw the card down. If someone blocks, play Bonding at superior for the stealth. If everyone declares no blocks, then just play it at inferior. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > Quicksilver wrote: > > > [snip: angry that you have to need the intercept to use 2nd tradition] > > > > I have to agree. If not because of the letter of the law, how about the > > spirit. The rule is there to prevent stealth and intercept dumping. That is > > hardly the case in this situation. > > The rule is to prevent the use of stealth and intercept cards when the > stealth and intercept is not needed. Why should there be an exception > in this case? I don't want an exception, I want the rules to match the spirit. The rule is toprevent you from dumping a CARD. Since you need the boncing card to boost the bleed, there should be no reason you can't use the superior. You are not dumping stealth. > > For the same reason I hate the fact that you can not play > > superior Bonding unless you need the stealth. > > If you don't need the stealth, why would you want to play superior > Bonding? If you're worried that the other player will play intercept > after you play Bonding, wait until they decline to block, then play it. > For the same reason I will play superior Lost in Crowds when all I needis +1 stealth at the moment. To me, being prevented from playing superior Bonding when the extra stealth is not needed is the same as being prevented from playing superior Lost in Crowds when the extra stealth is not needed. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In article <357C4D79...@lmco.com>, Quicksilver > <michael...@lmco.com> writes > >For the same reason I hate the fact that you can not play > >superior > >Bonding unless you need the stealth. > > Point? > > What would be the point of playing Bonding at superior unless you needed > the stealth? It's not like it's +1 bleed/+2 bleed and +1 stealth. If > it was, I could understand not wanting the ruling, but why not? I mean, > if you REALLY want, don't throw the card down. If someone blocks, play > Bonding at superior for the stealth. If everyone declares no blocks, > then just play it at inferior. > Since you MIGHT need the stealth. Things happen, such as bleed bouncing, that may cause you to wish you had that +1 stealth. [ quoted text not captured ]

Quicksilver wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > The rule is to prevent the use of stealth and intercept cards when the > > stealth and intercept is not needed. Why should there be an exception > > in this case? > > I don't want an exception, I want the rules to match the spirit. The spirit of what? The rule says "you can't play intercept/stealth unless you need it". If you want Second Tradition or Bonding or whatever not to follow this rule, then you want an exception to the rule. Plain and simple. > The rule is > to prevent you from dumping a CARD. Since you need the bon[d]ing card to boost > the bleed, there should be no reason you can't use the superior. You are not > dumping stealth. The rule is to prevent you from playing unnecessary stealth/intercept. I personally think that the rule makes Bonding a very interesting card. It's one of the few cards which you do not automatically play the superior of. It requires a small amount of finesse. You would prefer taking the small amount of thought there is in playing this card and toss it out the window. And if you're acting and you don't need the stealth, playing more stealth (whether from Lost in Crowds or sup. Bonding) IS dumping stealth, by very definition. > > If you don't need the stealth, why would you want to play superior > > Bonding? If you're worried that the other player will play intercept > > after you play Bonding, wait until they decline to block, then play it. > > For the same reason I will play superior Lost in Crowds when all I needis +1 > stealth at the moment. To me, being prevented from playing superior > Bonding when the extra stealth is not needed is the same as being prevented > from playing superior Lost in Crowds when the extra stealth is not needed. OK, here's the difference. If you're allowed to play Lost in Crowds _at all_, then you need some stealth. In that case, it makes sense to allow the superior to be played, since you need some stealth, and this card gives you +2. But if you didn't need the stealth, you couldn't even play inferior Lost in Crowds. Same deal with Bonding. If you don't need stealth, you can't play a card which gives you stealth, and superior Bonding falls into that category. It seems to me that you understand the rule and why it applies to these cases, you just don't like it. Well, too bad. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu I guess I'm in a bad mood or something tonight...

In article <357DAFBC...@lmco.com>, Quicksilver <michael...@lmco.com> writes >> What would be the point of playing Bonding at superior unless you needed >> the stealth? It's not like it's +1 bleed/+2 bleed and +1 stealth. If >> it was, I could understand not wanting the ruling, but why not? I mean, >> if you REALLY want, don't throw the card down. If someone blocks, play >> Bonding at superior for the stealth. If everyone declares no blocks, >> then just play it at inferior. >> > >Since you MIGHT need the stealth. Things happen, such as bleed bouncing, >that may cause you to wish you had that +1 stealth. Then that's your own look out and discourages you from playing lots of Bondings in a deck, surely? This has to be a good thing since a focussed S&B deck is hard to beat (but definitely not impossible). If this rule makes it harder for you to survive with a Dominate S&B deck, so much the better. It just means you have to plan harder, tap out their vampires, make them run out of bounces, whatever..... it means you have to put a bit more skill and thought into the creation of the deck. For that reason, if nothing else, I would fight a repeal of the ruling (or, rather, the application of the Stealth Dumping rule) on Bonding every step of the way. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <357DAF1C...@lmco.com>, Quicksilver <michael...@lmco.com> writes >> The rule is to prevent the use of stealth and intercept cards when the >> stealth and intercept is not needed. Why should there be an exception >> in this case? > >I don't want an exception, I want the rules to match the spirit. The rule is >toprevent you from dumping a CARD. Since you need the boncing card to boost >the bleed, there should be no reason you can't use the superior. But since you are using the Bonding card for simply a bleed, you can play it at inferior. If you're worried about bouncing etc., well, that's your own look-out. >You are not >dumping stealth. > As I've said before, though, what happens when you start letting things like this through? EVERY card which performs two separate functions would then have people arguing for it being allowed to do the same. Why not let people intercept dump Spirit's Touch, since they can argue that they wanted it for the maneuver? Why not let people just take the maneuvers from Maneuver-Strike cards and not be forced to strike with the card? Why not let people tap out a vampire by playing a Faceless Night at superior, even though it has already increased its stealth by a sufficient amount to evade the vampire? And this could apply to EVERY card. >> > For the same reason I hate the fact that you can not play >> > superior Bonding unless you need the stealth. >> >> If you don't need the stealth, why would you want to play superior >> Bonding? If you're worried that the other player will play intercept >> after you play Bonding, wait until they decline to block, then play it. >> > >For the same reason I will play superior Lost in Crowds when all I needis +1 >stealth at the moment. To me, being prevented from playing superior >Bonding when the extra stealth is not needed is the same as being prevented >from playing superior Lost in Crowds when the extra stealth is not needed. You need to check the rules more thoroughly. The stealth and intercept dumping rules work like this. A vampire cannot play a stealth modifier unless the vampire attempting to block has and equal or greater amount of intercept. However, he can play any source of stealth at any level (within the limits of his abilities, card text etc.) A similar situation exists with intercept, except for the fact that the stealth has to be greater than your intercept before you can play an intercept card. However, you can use any source of intercept at any level (again, card texts and abilities permitting). And, of course, in all circumstances, pay attention to any errata etc. So, let's just take a silly example. Agripina declares a bleed against you, using Computer Hacking. Now, if it had been one bleed, you might have been tempted to let her through, but being as its two, you decide to have an attempt to block her. Perusing your hoard of minions, you find the only untapped vampire you have with any Auspex is Aleph. A quick appraisal of your hand shows you that you only an Enhanced Senses to hand, which might come in useful if Agrippina puts up any resistance - you weren't expecting to use much intercept, but the little bit you have has come in handy. Aleph attempts to throw up a little bit of resistance at The Incognito Swiss Bank, to prevent Agrippina wiping out your assets there, declaring a block. Agrippina, though, has a few tricks up her sleeve. Since your intercept (0) matches her stealth (0) she can play a stealth card at any level. Her hand has been a bit jammed recently, so she only has one stealth card to hand - a copy of Swallowed by the Night. She throws that down, cloaking the whereabouts of her link from Aleph's view. Aleph grins happily. He knew that training in being a human radar would help :) Summoning up all of his concentration, he throws down an Enhanced Senses. Since he's got less intercept than you have stealth, you can play any source of intercept until you have a greater or equal amount of intercept. Aleph expects Agrippina to have a few more tricks up her sleeve, so he screws up all his ability into one burst, managing to use Enhanced Senses at superior, for +2 intercept. Agrippina, though, thinks that she will have to show this little upstart just what a master of deception she can be. Luckily, as a replacement for her Swallowed by the Night, she was fortunate enough to pick up a Cloak the Gathering. Well, she can only play it at inferior (and none of her fellow minions have it at superior anyway), so she throws that down. She knows it might be futile, she might have exhausted her powers of deception but it gets another trick out of her way so that she can progress further and further into far more devious and manipulative things. So, the score currently stands at Agrippina wih +2 stealth, and Aleph with +2 intercept. Aleph can't play any more intercept, since Agrippina has to play some more stealth before he can. Anyway, you didn't pick up another intercept card from your replace anyway. Agrippina's controller goes to replace his Cloak the Gathering. His eyes light up! A Lost in Crowds...... Agrippina picks up her laptop and flees. Aleph still has her in his sights and starts to close on her. He didn't bank on Agrippina managing to lose him, though, by slipping into the hoards of people demonstrating in the streets. Evades him she does, and evades him completely... gone beyond all hope of finding her...... well, there goes any chance of a couple of weeks someone nice, dark, dank and cold this year... Aleph consoles himself, though, comfortable in the knowledge that Agrippina won't be able to keep up that standard of ability for long.... or so he hopes. Since the Lost in Crowds is, again, only one source of stealth, Agrippina can throw it down at either level. Working on the principle that she *needs* to get this bleed done, she doesn't want any surprises from you drawing another intercept card. So, as in many, many cases, she decides to throw it down at superior (I suppose that if you had thrown down excess intercept (eg You'd gone to +2, I only had +1 and only had a Lost in Crowds in hand) I might have chosen to throw it down at only the inferior level if I wanted to get into combat with you). So, the final tally stands at +4 stealth, +2 intercept, with Agrippina running off happily into the night, pleased with a job well done. Now, where do I apply for that Noble Prize for Literature then? :) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > Quicksilver wrote: > > > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > The rule is to prevent the use of stealth and intercept cards when the > > > stealth and intercept is not needed. Why should there be an exception > > > in this case? > > > > I don't want an exception, I want the rules to match the spirit. > > The spirit of what? The rule says "you can't play intercept/stealth > unless you need it". If you want Second Tradition or Bonding or > whatever not to follow this rule, then you want an exception to the > rule. Plain and simple. > Are you being deliberately obtuse? I am not trying to convince you to changethe rules. I realise that the interpretation of the rules is fine. Do you understand concept "The spirit of the rule"? The idea behind the concept is that sometimes a rule can be manipulated or interpreted that does not match the original intention of the rule. The reason for the rule (or the spiriit) was to prevent card dumping. In other words, a deck could not just play all its stealth cards whenever it performs an action. Niether Bonding nor Second Tradition fit these abuses. Thus the rule went father than the original intention. > > The rule is > > to prevent you from dumping a CARD. Since you need the bon[d]ing card to boost > > the bleed, there should be no reason you can't use the superior. You are not > > dumping stealth. > > The rule is to prevent you from playing unnecessary stealth/intercept. > I personally think that the rule makes Bonding a very interesting card. > It's one of the few cards which you do not automatically play the > superior of. It requires a small amount of finesse. You would prefer > taking the small amount of thought there is in playing this card and > toss it out the window. > Why bother. There is plenty of thought in this game without worrying aboutadding a little complexity with Bonding. It adds nothing to the game to prohibit the play of superior Bonding unless stealth is needed. > And if you're acting and you don't need the stealth, playing more > stealth (whether from Lost in Crowds or sup. Bonding) IS dumping > stealth, by very definition. > Huh? Playing superior Lost in Crowds when you only need 1 morepoint of stealth is dumping? How? You will use the card in either case. In fact if you play inferior LiC you have a better chance of being able to dump an additional stealth card. Dumping requires the expenditure of an extra card which is not the case in these situations. > > > If you don't need the stealth, why would you want to play superior > > > Bonding? If you're worried that the other player will play intercept > > > after you play Bonding, wait until they decline to block, then play it. > > > > For the same reason I will play superior Lost in Crowds when all I needis +1 > > stealth at the moment. To me, being prevented from playing superior > > Bonding when the extra stealth is not needed is the same as being prevented > > from playing superior Lost in Crowds when the extra stealth is not needed. > > OK, here's the difference. If you're allowed to play Lost in Crowds _at > all_, then you need some stealth. In that case, it makes sense to allow > the superior to be played, since you need some stealth, and this card > gives you +2. But if you didn't need the stealth, you couldn't even > play inferior Lost in Crowds. Same deal with Bonding. If you don't > need stealth, you can't play a card which gives you stealth, and > superior Bonding falls into that category. > That is the RULE. Not the spirit!! > It seems to me that you understand the rule and why it applies to these > cases, you just don't like it. Well, too bad. > Finally, I think you are getting my point. I am not arguing with the interpretationof the rule. I don't LIKE the way it is interpreted/written. I believe it SHOULD be written/interpreted to allow the use of 2nd Tradition and superior Bonding in the absence of the need for the additonal stealth/intercept. Heck, considering the way they interpreted Rotz, they could have twisted the interpretation any way they liked without changing the rule at all. If you want to argue with me you should be arguing the case that the current interpretation is better than the version I suggest or that the spirit of the rule was always to prevent the cases I cite, not to try to convince me what the current rule interpretation is. I understand the interpretation, I play the interpretation, but I dislike the interpretation and feel that it could have been interpreted differently. Heck, with Rotz they totally ignored the text and basically ruled that it works the way they felt it should. Like everyone, I like some interpretations and dislike others. Another interpretation I dislike is the one where a bleed action card with a (D) on it allows the acting minion to bleed someone other than its prey. But what can you do except bitch about it? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <357ECC63...@lmco.com>, Quicksilver <michael...@lmco.com> writes >> And if you're acting and you don't need the stealth, playing more >> stealth (whether from Lost in Crowds or sup. Bonding) IS dumping >> stealth, by very definition. >> > >Huh? Playing superior Lost in Crowds when you only need 1 morepoint of stealth >is >dumping? How? You will use the card in either case. >In fact if you play inferior LiC you have a better chance of being able to >dump an additional stealth card. Dumping requires the expenditure of an >extra card which is not the case in these situations. If you don't need stealth - ie the action is already stealthy enough - playing stealth from Lost in Crowds would be considered dumping it. Since Bonding at superior also provides stealth, playing that would be considered dumping it. Now, you don't want to break the rule that says you can't play a card for only part of its effect do you? Or are you advocating another exception/rules change? [ quoted text not captured ]

Quicksilver wrote: > > > The reason for the rule (or the spiriit) was to prevent > card dumping. In other words, a deck could not just play all its stealth cards > whenever it performs an action. Niether Bonding nor Second Tradition fit > these abuses. Thus the rule went father than the original intention. All right, you explain to me, in plain language, the "spirit of the rule", and explain why Bonding and 2nd Tradition don't fit. > Why bother. There is plenty of thought in this game without worrying about > adding a > little complexity with Bonding. It adds nothing to the game to > prohibit the play of superior Bonding unless stealth is needed. But the rule itself adds a lot to the game. From what you're saying, it seems to me that you don't disagree that the rule is a good one (except the effect it has on Bonding, 2nd Tradition, etc.). It adds nothing to the game to modify the rule by adding exceptions for cards you wish worked differently than they do. First Bonding and 2nd Tradition, then what? Spirit's Touch, as James Coupe mentioned? > > And if you're acting and you don't need the stealth, playing more > > stealth (whether from Lost in Crowds or sup. Bonding) IS dumping > > stealth, by very definition. > > Huh? Playing superior Lost in Crowds when you only need 1 morepoint of stealth is > dumping? How? You will use the card in either case. No, you misunderstand. I claim that the definition of "dumping", a word you used seven times in your post but failed to define, is: playing stealth/intercept when it is not needed. Whether that stealth comes from an obscufate card or superior Bonding, the effect is the same. > > If you don't > > need stealth, you can't play a card which gives you stealth, and > > superior Bonding falls into that category. > > That is the RULE. Not the spirit!! Once again, I ask you to clearly define what the "spirit" is, and why you think it's better to add errata or new rules to the game to uphold it. > > It seems to me that you understand the rule and why it applies to these > > cases, you just don't like it. Well, too bad. > > Finally, I think you are getting my point. I am not arguing with the > interpretation of the rule. I don't LIKE the way it is interpreted/written. Pardon me for being harsh, but: too bad. > I believe it SHOULD > be written/interpreted to allow the use of 2nd Tradition and superior Bonding > in the absence of the need for the additonal stealth/intercept. Why? The rule prohibits someone playing three different +1 stealth cards from their hand when they don't need the stealth. You would seem to agree with that sentence. But what happens when superior Bonding is one of those cards? Why should this situation be treated differently? > If you want to argue with me you should be arguing the case _You're_ telling _me_ how to argue with you? Why don't you try address the points I'm raising, instead of telling me which points I should be raising instead? > that the current > interpretation is better than the version I suggest or that the spirit of the rule > was > always to prevent the cases I cite, not to try to convince me what the current > rule interpretation is. I understand the interpretation, I play the interpretation, > but I dislike the interpretation and feel that it could have been interpreted > differently. OK, the problem is that the rule applying to Bonding and 2nd Tradition (and others, I'm sure) is not a rule interpretation. The rule cannot be interpreted in another way without changing the rule. Maybe you don't accept that, but that's the way it is. I also don't think the "spirit" of the rule has anything to do with anything. Sure, sometime years ago, Richard Garfield was sitting around designing the game, and came up with this rule to prevent certain kinds of abuses. But that does _not_ mean that the rule should only apply to abuses. That would require a very sketchy definition of what we mean by "abuses". > Heck, with Rotz they totally ignored the text and basically ruled > that it works the way they felt it should. Like everyone, I like some > interpretations and dislike others. In that case, the card itself was not clear, and a ruling was made. Many people disagree with the ruling, but at least a ruling was necessary. What you want is a rules _change_. When someone posts to this newsgroup asking LSJ whether you can use sup. Bonding when you don't need the stealth, he doesn't need the rules team to tell him the answer. The rule CLEARLY applies to this case; you may not like it, but it does. > Another interpretation I dislike is the one > where a bleed action card with a (D) on it allows the acting minion to bleed > someone other than its prey. But what can you do except bitch about it? Again, that is not an interpretation. The original rules were not clear about the directability of (D) actions, and a NEW RULE was introduced. You'll notice if you go to LSJ's web page, under Rules Team Rulings, he has three categories: errata, rulings, and clarifications. Errata is when a new rule is introduced, contradicting the natural consequences of the rules and card text. A clarification is when LSJ explains the natural consequences of the rules and card text when it's not clear. A ruling is sort of in the middle; the rules team decides what the most natural rule should be, even when it's not explicit from the rules and card text. Again, when someone asks about using sup. Bonding when the stealth is not needed, LSJ issues a "clarification". Not errata, and not a ruling. What you refer to as an "interpretation" seems to be a "ruling" under these definitions, and it is not. From LSJ's "Clarifications" page: :> Bonding - Action Modifier (dom) :> :> The superior form of Bonding cannot be used if you do not need the stealth at the :> time you play Bonding. [TOM 951109] [ quoted text not captured ]

If I'm not mistaken, the original post dealt more with 2nd Trad. than Bonding. I think the point trying to be made is whether on not the addition of +2 intercept can be considered an incidental thing compared to the "Untap this vampire." effect. I understand it from the Dump Rules point of view, and that making an exception puts a nasty foot in the door, but I can see how you could pull for the exception to the rule. Scott Harris kub...@imsa.edu [ quoted text not captured ]

kub...@imsa.edu wrote: > > If I'm not mistaken, the original post dealt more with 2nd Trad. > than Bonding. I understand that; however the way the rule applies to both of these cards is very similar. > I think the point trying to be made is whether on not the > addition of +2 intercept can be considered an incidental > thing compared to the "Untap this vampire." effect. The card does two things. Untaps a vampire and gives +2 intercept. If you don't need intercept, you can't play a card which gives you intercept. This card gives you intercept, therefore you can't play this card when you need intercept. I understand the _desire_ to have this card work differently. > I understand it from the Dump Rules point of view, and > that making an exception puts a nasty foot in the door, > but I can see how you could pull for the exception to > the rule. This is what I don't understand. It's one thing to say "dang, I wish second tradition worked the way I want it to" and quite another to say "we should change the rules to make the card work the way I want it to". [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > The rule is to prevent the use of stealth and intercept cards when the > > > stealth and intercept is not needed. Why should there be an exception > > > in this case? > > > > I don't want an exception, I want the rules to match the spirit. > > The spirit of what? The rule says "you can't play intercept/stealth > unless you need it". If you want Second Tradition or Bonding or > whatever not to follow this rule, then you want an exception to the > rule. Plain and simple. > Well, maybe he wants an exception, but *I* want some consistency. The rules regarding "needing" stealth/intercept don't make sense for 2nd Tradition. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they simply don't apply. 2nd Tradition is played at a time when it isn't possible to "need" intercept. A minion who can not block does not need intercept. Okay, a question. If the answer is yes, then I'll relent, but request that a wording change be made to the "need" stealth/intercept rule... Assume that Bianca is bleeding me with Cat Burglary. Dollface attempts to block and plays Enhanced Senses for +1 intercept. Now, say I have Gilbert Duane untapped. Can he also play Enhanced Senses? Even if he doesn't attempt to block? If the answer is yes, then I think the rule should be reworded to: "A minion may only gain intercept as an action, or when an acting minion controlled by another methuselah has higher total stealth than your minion's total intercept." "A minion may only gain stealth with an action card, or when he is being blocked and the blocking minion has intercept equal to or greater than your minion's stealth." (Note: the "action" part above for intercept is for Sport Bike, Tasha Morgan, and Psychic Projection, which all give intercept as an action. The "action" part for stealth may be unnecessary, but the other way may prevent Psychic Veil.) If the answer to the above question is no, then we are left with the assumption that a minion can only "need" intercept if it is currently blocking, and thus Second Tradition can *never* be played, just as Enhanced Senses couldn't be played if you don't block. Unless, of course, you interpreted Second Tradition in such a way that it *could* be played. And then it becoms obvious that it can be played regardless of stealth totals.

Chris Berger wrote: > > > The spirit of what? The rule says "you can't play intercept/stealth > > unless you need it". If you want Second Tradition or Bonding or > > whatever not to follow this rule, then you want an exception to the > > rule. Plain and simple. > > Well, maybe he wants an exception, but *I* want some consistency. The rules > regarding "needing" stealth/intercept don't make sense for 2nd Tradition. In fact, > I'd go so far as to say that they simply don't apply. 2nd Tradition is played at a > time when it isn't possible to "need" intercept. A minion who can not block does > not need intercept. But a minion who cannot block (for some other reason) can still acquire intercept. > Okay, a question. If the answer is yes, then I'll relent, but request that a > wording change be made to the "need" stealth/intercept rule... Assume that Bianca > is bleeding me with Cat Burglary. Dollface attempts to block and plays Enhanced > Senses for +1 intercept. Now, say I have Gilbert Duane untapped. Can he also play > Enhanced Senses? Even if he doesn't attempt to block? The answer is yes. Here's an even better example. Let's say Bianca has Blood Bonded Gilbert, so that Gilbert _can't_ block. Gilbert can still acquire intercept, even though he can't use it. > If the answer is yes, then I think the rule should be reworded to: "A minion may > only gain intercept as an action, or when an acting minion controlled by another > methuselah has higher total stealth than your minion's total intercept." Why? Equipping a Sport Bike or recruiting Mr. Wintrop are not "gaining intercept". They are equip and recruit actions. There's no need to change the rule to not cover these cases, since it already doesn't. Just as a superior Govern the Unaligned provides +1 stealth even though that may not be needed, Mr. Wintrop provides intercept to the bearer, whether it is needed or not. The rule covers gaining intercept during an action, so covers things like 2nd tradition, but also KRCG News Radio. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: > > Well, maybe he wants an exception, but *I* want some consistency. The rules > > regarding "needing" stealth/intercept don't make sense for 2nd Tradition. In fact, > > I'd go so far as to say that they simply don't apply. 2nd Tradition is played at a > > time when it isn't possible to "need" intercept. A minion who can not block does > > not need intercept. > > But a minion who cannot block (for some other reason) can still acquire > intercept. He cannot increase his intercept unless he needs intercept. > > Okay, a question. If the answer is yes, then I'll relent, but request that a > > wording change be made to the "need" stealth/intercept rule... Assume that Bianca > > is bleeding me with Cat Burglary. Dollface attempts to block and plays Enhanced > > Senses for +1 intercept. Now, say I have Gilbert Duane untapped. Can he also play > > Enhanced Senses? Even if he doesn't attempt to block? > > The answer is yes. Here's an even better example. Let's say Bianca has > Blood Bonded Gilbert, so that Gilbert _can't_ block. Gilbert can still > acquire intercept, even though he can't use it. The answer is no. A minion cannot increase his intercept unless he needs intercept, and a minion who isn't attempting to block clearly doesn't need intercept. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > Well, maybe he wants an exception, but *I* want some consistency. The rules > regarding "needing" stealth/intercept don't make sense for 2nd Tradition. In fact, > I'd go so far as to say that they simply don't apply. 2nd Tradition is played at a > time when it isn't possible to "need" intercept. A minion who can not block does > not need intercept. The rules do apply. They say "not when you don't need it", and, as you point out, a minion who can not block doesn't need it. > Okay, a question. If the answer is yes, then I'll relent, but request that a > wording change be made to the "need" stealth/intercept rule... Assume that Bianca > is bleeding me with Cat Burglary. Dollface attempts to block and plays Enhanced > Senses for +1 intercept. Now, say I have Gilbert Duane untapped. Can he also play > Enhanced Senses? Even if he doesn't attempt to block? No. You cannot add intercept unless you need intercept, and you only need intercpet when you're attempting to block and the acting minion has more stealth than you have intercept. > If the answer is yes, then I think the rule should be reworded to: "A minion may > only gain intercept as an action, or when an acting minion controlled by another > methuselah has higher total stealth than your minion's total intercept." "A minion > may only gain stealth with an action card, or when he is being blocked and the > blocking minion has intercept equal to or greater than your minion's stealth." > (Note: the "action" part above for intercept is for Sport Bike, Tasha Morgan, and > Psychic Projection, which all give intercept as an action. The "action" part for > stealth may be unnecessary, but the other way may prevent Psychic Veil.) The "action" part is not necessary, since all of those examples simply occur as the result of a legal action. > If the answer to the above question is no, then we are left with the assumption that > a minion can only "need" intercept if it is currently blocking, and thus Second > Tradition can *never* be played, just as Enhanced Senses couldn't be played if you > don't block. Unless, of course, you interpreted Second Tradition in such a way that > it *could* be played. And then it becoms obvious that it can be played regardless > of stealth totals. Good argument. The new text is unweildy. Use the Jyhad text (with the word "only" errata's in). [ quoted text not captured ]

> > If the answer to the above question is no, then we are left with the assumption that > > a minion can only "need" intercept if it is currently blocking, and thus Second > > Tradition can *never* be played, just as Enhanced Senses couldn't be played if you > > don't block. Unless, of course, you interpreted Second Tradition in such a way that > > it *could* be played. And then it becoms obvious that it can be played regardless > > of stealth totals. > > Good argument. The new text is unweildy. Use the Jyhad text (with the > word "only" errata's in). > Jyhad text (from spoiler list): +2 intercept. Usable {only} by a tapped minion that untaps and attempts to block.Well, that still seems to leave us with the statement that Second Tradition can never be played. I know there are a lot of wallpaper cards in Jyhad, but isn't that taking it a bit too far? Well, actually, now that I think of it, Second Tradition (with the Jyhad text) can be used by a minion who has played Rat's Warning or Guard Dogs to untap. So, we have a card that can be used only by a Prince or Justicar with Animalism, and only against bleeds, and only when used in conjunction with one of 2 cards in the card set. -Chris

Chris Berger wrote: > > Good argument. The new text is unweildy. Use the Jyhad text (with the > > word "only" errata's in). > > > > Jyhad text (from spoiler list): +2 intercept. Usable {only} by a tapped minion that > untaps and attempts to block.Well, that still seems to leave us with the statement that > Second Tradition can never be played. I know there are a lot of wallpaper cards in Jyhad, > but isn't that taking it a bit too far? No, it can be played, and (as a bonus) it plays as is obviously intended (with the exception of the "only" errata). It untaps the tapped P/J who attempts to block with +2 intercept. Now (as may or may not have been intended) in the case when the P/J's current intercept is equal to or exceeds the acting minion's current stealth, the card cannot be played, due to the rule against adding unneeded intercept. > Well, actually, now that I think of it, Second Tradition (with the Jyhad text) can be used > by a minion who has played Rat's Warning or Guard Dogs to untap. No, since such a P/J would then be untapped, and thus incapable of playing 2ndT by the "only" errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > > But a minion who cannot block (for some other reason) can still acquire > > intercept. > > He cannot increase his intercept unless he needs intercept. Ack. <wiping egg off of face> Sorry about that. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > The spirit of what? The rule says "you can't play intercept/stealth > > > unless you need it". If you want Second Tradition or Bonding or > > > whatever not to follow this rule, then you want an exception to the > > > rule. Plain and simple. > > > > Well, maybe he wants an exception, but *I* want some consistency. The rules > > regarding "needing" stealth/intercept don't make sense for 2nd Tradition. In fact, > > I'd go so far as to say that they simply don't apply. 2nd Tradition is played at a > > time when it isn't possible to "need" intercept. A minion who can not block does > > not need intercept. > > But a minion who cannot block (for some other reason) can still acquire > intercept. > > Ah ha! But he can't (as per LSJ's answer to the following question). And so, IMO, your line of argument on the card falls flat. > > Okay, a question. If the answer is yes, then I'll relent, but request that a > > wording change be made to the "need" stealth/intercept rule... Assume that Bianca > > is bleeding me with Cat Burglary. Dollface attempts to block and plays Enhanced > > Senses for +1 intercept. Now, say I have Gilbert Duane untapped. Can he also play > > Enhanced Senses? Even if he doesn't attempt to block? > > The answer is yes. Here's an even better example. Let's say Bianca has > Blood Bonded Gilbert, so that Gilbert _can't_ block. Gilbert can still > acquire intercept, even though he can't use it. > But according to LSJ, you are wrong on both counts. (Sorry, don't mean to be harping on it...) > > If the answer is yes, then I think the rule should be reworded to: "A minion may > > only gain intercept as an action, or when an acting minion controlled by another > > methuselah has higher total stealth than your minion's total intercept." > > Why? Equipping a Sport Bike or recruiting Mr. Wintrop are not "gaining > intercept". > They are equip and recruit actions. There's no need to change the rule > to not cover these cases, since it already doesn't. Just as a superior > Govern the Unaligned provides +1 stealth even though that may not be > needed, Mr. Wintrop provides intercept to the bearer, whether it is > needed or not. The rule covers gaining intercept during an action, so > covers things like 2nd tradition, but also KRCG News Radio. > I don't see how it's different. You're still "gaining" intercept. I think making the rule explicit is better. As it is, the ruling currently stands, it says "a minion may not gain stealth/intercept unless he needs it." This rule explains nothing and says nothing about circumstances, situations, or timing. Obviously recruiting a Raptor shouldn't be prevented because you don't "need" intercept. That's ridiculous. I just think that if the ruling is going to be reworded (which I really think it should), it should be completely clear and explicit. -Chris

> > > Good argument. The new text is unweildy. Use the Jyhad text (with the > > > word "only" errata's in). > > > > > > > Jyhad text (from spoiler list): +2 intercept. Usable {only} by a tapped minion that > > untaps and attempts to block.Well, that still seems to leave us with the statement that > > Second Tradition can never be played. I know there are a lot of wallpaper cards in Jyhad, > > but isn't that taking it a bit too far? > > No, it can be played, and (as a bonus) it plays as is obviously intended > (with the exception of the "only" errata). > > It untaps the tapped P/J who attempts to block with +2 intercept. > > Now (as may or may not have been intended) in the case when the > P/J's current intercept is equal to or exceeds the acting minion's > current stealth, the card cannot be played, due to the rule against > adding unneeded intercept. > I still don't understand this. Why should stealth be compared to intercept *before* a block. The problem stems from the fact that intercept is added before a block is attempted. Thus, this is the point at which you need to worry about whether intercept is needed. Since there is no block occuring, stealth is not being compared to intercept. Stealth should be completely irrelevant as to whether or not the minion can play this card, because no block attempt is happening yet. > > Well, actually, now that I think of it, Second Tradition (with the Jyhad text) can be used > > by a minion who has played Rat's Warning or Guard Dogs to untap. > > No, since such a P/J would then be untapped, and thus incapable of playing > 2ndT by the "only" errata. > Well, I was trying to read the wording in such a way that the card *could* actually be used. It could be interpreted that the vamp who plays Guard Dogs is currently untapping and attempting to block. So it is indeed being used by a tapped vampire who untaps and attempts to block. (i.e. because of the odd wording on the card, "who untaps and attempts to block" makes as much (actually more) sense as a condition as it does as a direction - at least, it makes more sense in English... not in game terms) -Chris

Chris Berger wrote: > > Ah ha! [snip victory dance] OK, OK. I was wrong on the ruling. But that doesn't mean that 2nd Tradition works any different than we've already stated. [+1 intercept equipment/retainers] > I don't see how it's different. You're still "gaining" intercept. No, as LSJ said, "The 'action' part is not necessary, since all of those examples simply occur as the result of a legal action." The card text of the retainer or equipment doesn't come into play until after the action is successful, and then the intercept is simply a result of that action. If you want, you can read Mr. Winthrop as saying "+1 intercept when blocking", which is really what he does. > I just think that if the ruling > is going to be reworded (which I really think it should), it should be > completely clear and explicit. Are you saying it should be reworded to make 2nd Tradition work differently, or it should be reworded to make the effects of the rule clearer? If the former, then I have addressed this in previous posts. If the latter, well, that's what LSJ's rules clarifications are for. If, on some distant planet, on some distant day, there is ever a new rulebook printed, there might be cause to put such a clarification by this rule, but until then, I don't see what you want to be done. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu if LSJ corrects me again, I'll go hide in my corner and be quiet :)

Chris Berger wrote: > > [2ndTrad] untaps the tapped P/J who attempts to block with +2 intercept. > > > > Now (as may or may not have been intended) in the case when the > > P/J's current intercept is equal to or exceeds the acting minion's > > current stealth, the card cannot be played, due to the rule against > > adding unneeded intercept. > > I still don't understand this. Why should stealth be compared to intercept *before* a block. To see if you need intercept. > The problem stems from the fact that intercept is added before a block is attempted. Thus, this > is the point at which you need to worry about whether intercept is needed. Since there is no > block occuring, stealth is not being compared to intercept. Stealth should be completely > irrelevant as to whether or not the minion can play this card, because no block attempt is > happening yet. Again, if you're not blocking, you don't need intercept. 2nd Tradition can be played by a tapped Prince who "untaps and attempts to block", giving the Prince +2 intercept on the block attempt. It cannot be played if that intercept is not needed during the block, due to the rule against adding unneeded intercept. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

The whole reason I think there's such a hullabaloo about Second Tradition (as opposed to other kinds of "intercept dumping") is that the prohibition against 2nd Trad. makes the vamp unable to block at all (barring other card play). This is unique. In other kinds of intercept dumping the action is already blocked. Since the whole purpose of intercept is to be able to block, to be unable to block _because_ you're gaining intercept turns the whole concept on its head. I don't dispute that the way the current "intercept dumping" rule is stated prevents a vampire from using 2nd Trad. to block an action for which the vamp doesn't need 2nd Trad's intercept. Nonetheless, I think people would find it more natural if the intercept-dumping rule were instead: "You may not gain unneeded intercept, unless the minion would otherwise be unable to block the action unassisted." Perhaps the wording would need further tweaking, but I think this rule would allow 2nd Trad. against actions where intercept is not needed, without allowing other kinds of intercept dumping. And of course the current rulings on 2nd Tradition make the card incredibly weak. Except possibly for 6th Tradition, it is now the weakest of the traditions. I don't think the card was designed to be this weak. To use 2nd Tradition, you have to make sure to tap your princes, leave someone else untapped to block actions (or include wakes) to force opponents to stealth actions, make sure your untapped minions don't get Misdirected, rushed or tapped blocking early actions, make sure both your princes and other untapped minions are capable of handling combat from blocks -- _then_ you can use 2nd Tradition. I really hate explaining how 2nd Tradition "really works" to non-Net-aware Methuselahs...because it's wonky! --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > I don't dispute that the way the current "intercept dumping" rule is stated > prevents a vampire from using 2nd Trad. to block an action for which the > vamp doesn't need 2nd Trad's intercept. Nonetheless, I think people would > find it more natural if the intercept-dumping rule were instead: Except that this would change the way 2nd Tradition (and possibly Bonding and others, depending on how the rule was changed) works. I'm honestly sorry if you can't reconcile yourself with the fact that 2nd Tradition works the way it does. Maybe other people out there wish cards worked differently, but they don't go around saying "hey, let's change the rules to make me happy". > And of course the current rulings on 2nd Tradition make the card incredibly > weak. I disagree. I believe that you think of this card as an untap with a "bonus" +2 intercept. But if you think of it as a +2 intercept card with a "bonus" untap, you'll see that the card works exactly as it should. > Except possibly for 6th Tradition, it is now the weakest of the > traditions. I don't think the card was designed to be this weak. Oh, so since you have some psychic insight into the intentions of the design team, it's up to you to dictate which rules are good and which should be changed. Sure. > To use > 2nd Tradition, you have to make sure to tap your princes, leave someone > else untapped to block actions (or include wakes) to force opponents to > stealth actions, Oh, yeah, I forgot; there are _no_ innate +1 stealth actions. And "remembering" to tap a vampire is such a chore. > I really hate explaining how 2nd Tradition "really works" to non-Net-aware > Methuselahs...because it's wonky! Yeah, I really hate explaining the rules to people. Sorry to be so acerbic, but I don't understand the attitude "I wish this card worked differently, so we should change it". I _do_ understand that the card's effect is easily misconstrued. I _do_ understand that if the card worked differently, it would be more useful. What's the difference between what you're saying and me saying "I don't think the rules team meant Immortal Grapple to rule out strikes from Brass Knuckles. We should change the rules so that I can use this combo." Both are equally absurd. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > Well, I don't understand the attitude "The rules don't make sense, but > > I'm going to read stuff into them so that they work the way I want, and > > screw you if you feel differently." > > Take that issue up with LSJ. _He's_ the one who makes the rules > clarifications. Second Tradition has always worked this way, and if you > don't understand why, let LSJ explain the nitty-gritty. > Actually, I was taking *this* particular point up with you. You're the one who is being overly dismissive about this, saying that my entire purpose is to change the rules to fix a card I like. (Note, I'm not actually taking offense, but I if you start getting snippy, I feel obligated to join in.) So, while the explanation of why 2nd Tradition works this way still makes utterly no sense to me, I guess I'll drop it. In a parallel post, LSJ said that he had answered my question and then went on to not answer it again. Perhaps I can't possibly communicate the part that is confusing and why it seems impossible for it to work the way it does. Oh well, c'est la mort. Anyway, I almost never even use the damned card. I've used it in one deck total. >8) As far as me using it, I'll just assume it can never be used, and whenever other people play it, I'll take it as being the correct time. -Chris

James Hamblin wrote: > > Eric Pettersen wrote: > > > > > Except that this would change the way 2nd Tradition (and possibly > > > Bonding and others, depending on how the rule was changed) works. > > > > Duh. That's the point. > > Sorry, I thought you were being rational. From your message, it seemed > that you wanted to change the rules to make 2nd Tradition work the way > it already does. > Personally, I wouldn't mind that either. I'd like to either change the rules so that it is obvious that 2nd Tradition works the way it currently does, or else change 2nd Tradition so that it works in an intuitive way. > > And it wouldn't change the others AFAIK (particularly > > Bonding, since it only changes the intercept "half" of the rule). > > Oh, and why not change the stealth half? Because you're only unhappy > with the way 2nd Tradition works. If you wanted Bonding to work > differently, I'm sure you would want to change the rule for that, too. > Bonding is an entirely separate issure. Without Bonding, the action is still possible. IMO, 2nd Tradition can better be compared to Night Moves (or any other +n stealth action). There are actions that begin with inherent stealth. These don't require intercept on the table. Why then does 2nd Tradition require stealth? > > > I'm honestly sorry if you can't reconcile yourself with the fact that > > > 2nd Tradition works the way it does. Maybe other people out there wish > > > cards worked differently, but they don't go around saying "hey, let's > > > change the rules to make me happy". > > > > No, instead they say "let's play a different card game -- the rules to > > this one suck." > > If you want to stop playing this game because you don't like how one > card works, go for it. > There are other stupid rules (need I remind of you of the Form of Misted Bum's Rush? - and if Form of Mist requires you to need stealth... boy that just screws everything up. If there is any rule change to deal with 2nd Tradition, it should deal with Form of Mist as well). Stupid rules combined with poor deck balance (there really aren't that many deck types that are tournament viable) and lack of new cards is just about enough to cause *me* to switch games. In fact, it's probably the reason that I now play more L5R than Jyhad. So, is there really a problem with preferring Jyhad to be more fun, or, at least, more clear? > > > Oh yeah, 2nd Tradition works exactly as it "should". And you critique me > > for having "psychic insight into the intentions of the design team". > > 2nd Tradition works the way the rules say it works. That's how I define > "should". > Actually, the rules are exceedingly unclear on how 2nd Tradition should work. The rules for needing intercept/stealth are this: "You cannot add stealth or intercept unless it is needed." (How does that define "needed"?) And the only ruling/errata/clarification on 2nd Tradition says this: "Only usable by a tapped Prince or Justicar. This vampire untaps and attempts to block at +2 intercept." How in the hell does this prove you correct?!? If anything, the errata on 2nd Tradition seems to imply that my way of reading the card is correct. If it actually works counter to intuition, then why are you so against adding a *ruling* to that effect? > > Maybe if you'd justify _why_ this change is good, I'd listen. And, to > preempt more foolishness, "to make the card better" is not a valid > reason. > He has justified it, and I have as well. His argument is that it is obviously against the spirit of the card. My argument is that it is unclear from the rules, and that the current way it is played is incorrect. Sorry... I know I said I would drop it, but I had to respond to this message. -Chris

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: > > There are other stupid rules (need I remind of you of the Form of Misted > > Bum's Rush? > > The reason there are goofy rulings on Form of Mist is because it's a > card with an (almost) unique effect. As much as possible it is > desirable to explain how cards work within the existing rules. Rules > which apply only to one card belong on the card text. There are no goofy rulings/errata on Form of Mist (any more). Form of Mist cannot continue an unblocked Bum's Rush into another combat because the action has already reached resolution phase and continuing from that point is pointless (not to mentio the fact that you cannot play Form of Mist to continue an unblocked action since you don't need the stealth). [RTR 970630] -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > In a parallel post, > LSJ said that he had answered my question and then went on to not answer > it again. Perhaps I can't possibly communicate the part that is > confusing and why it seems impossible for it to work the way it does. This is the most complete answer I can come up with. I am at the end of my ability to explain this, so if this answer still doesn't make it click for you, treat the clarification as card-specific errata to Second Tradition. Your post containing the "my point is this" includes four points: (from <35861DB1...@cco.caltech.edu>): > a) A minion can only play intercept if it needs it. > b) A minion who cannot block does not need intercept. > c) 2nd Tradition can only be played by a minion who cannot block. > d) 2nd Tradition gives intercept. a) is correct (explicit rules). d) is correct (card text). b) is properly stated as "a minion only needs intercept when he is attempting to block a minion whose stealth is greater than his intercept". Since a minion who cannot block will obviously not be attempting to block, your statement is true, but not germaine to the Second Tradition argument. c) is not true. A Prince who "cannot block" the current action (because of Blood Bond or Incriminating Videotape or whatever) cannot use Second Tradition. You are trying to use "cannot block" to mean "is tapped". Being tapped implies "cannot block" only as much as not having enough intercept implies "cannot block". If either is true, then you cannot block, but a minion in either of these situations can block by untapping or gaining sufficient intercept, as appropriate. So they "can block" the current action in the strict sense (unlike the Blood Bond or Incriminating Videotape cases, where the minion really "cannot block"). Your argument would mean that a minion cannot ever block an action that has more stealth than he has inherent intercept, since "A minion who cannot block" (by your usage) includes not only tapped minions but also minions who don't have enough intercept to block. and "b) A minion who cannot block does not need intercept." In sum (to repeat): 1) Playing Second Tradition will untap you and make you attempt to block with +2 intercept. (This is the sum, complete, instantaneous effect of playing Second Tradition - the effect does not resolve in stages). 2) Since the card will make you block and add intercept, you cannot play it unless you need intercept for that block. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wow, a rules fight with no Legbitery input to fan the flames??? Can this be legal??? 2nd trad as played in legbiterland works like this. Case 1: Normal the horrid Malkavian computer hacks. Dierdrie the Expendable [pre 1/1], Progeny of Anson, blocks. Normal plays Lost in Crowds for +1 stealth. But Anson, who has been, erm, resting after embracing Dierdrie, now plays the Second Tradition to awake and block. Case 2: Democritus calls a vote of Die Right Now You Statue-Hugging Bastards. But Anson, who has been resting after beating the shit out of Normal, now plays the Second Tradition to awake and block. Case 3: Brazil the guy who thinks he's a football team equips with a Laptop. But Anson, who has been resting after exchanging cultivated insults with the ventrue justicar, now plays the Second Tradition to awake and block. I think all these are legal and don't violate the card text .... right LSJ? .... and in legbiterland, this card is NOT wallpaper at all! Legbiter the Slayer of Fish, Archon of Wessex and Fanner of the Rules-fight Flame.

Karl and Sam wrote: > Firstly, I would request that you use 80-column width on your postings, not 250-column width. > Well as far as our group is concerned we have simply adopted a > house rule that allows 2nd Tradition to be used to untap and/or for +2 > intercept. ie. you could untap and block, untap and block with +2 > intercept, or simply block with +2 intercept. I have no problem with this, as long as it is clear that this is a house rule and not official. What I have a problem with is the desire to change the official rules for no reason at all. > We found the card > balanced as it still requires a Justicar or Prince. Now at lease the > card isn't wallpaper and those decks using larger capacity vampires > have an alternative to Wakes with a little bonus intercept. Even the way the card is officially, it is not wallpaper. See today's post from Legbiter for common situations when 2nd Tradition is quite useful. > Please no scathing retorts to how this is stupid, broken, not the > original intention etc. we have been using these rules within our > own playgroup and are quite happy with how they work. If you > don't like them then that's ok, don't use them. This is the purpose of house rules, and I will not scathe someone who decides that they want to play with them. But on the same token, don't come to a tournament and expect everyone to be playing by your rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35871D11...@cco.caltech.edu>, Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> writes >Actually, the rules are exceedingly unclear on how 2nd Tradition should >work. The rules for needing intercept/stealth are this: "You cannot add >stealth or intercept unless it is needed." (How does that define >"needed"?) Night Moves does not ADD stealth in the same way that Faceless Night does. The stealth is just there. Thus arguments about requiring permanent intercept on the table are invalid. 2nd Tradition does add intercept, in the same way that any reaction based intercept adding card does. It does not begin a block with inherent intercept. Permanents like Mr Winthrop *do* begin a block with "inherent" intercept. That does not mean that you have to be blocking a stealthed action eg Night Moves, because you are not adding intercept, it is just there. Playing 2nd Tradition, regardless of any analogies you wish to draw, does not begin a block with inherent intercept. You are playing intercept and adding to it. Thus without stealth, you cannot play 2nd Tradition. In the same way, without stealth, you cannot play the Spirit's Touch without stealth. The argument here is not whether or not you are adding intercept or it is inherent. The argument here is whether or not you can be considering to be blocking when tapped (ie when the 2nd Tradition card is played). [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > Eric Pettersen wrote: > > > Oh, and why not change the stealth half? Because you're only unhappy > with the way 2nd Tradition works. If you wanted Bonding to work > differently, I'm sure you would want to change the rule for that, too. Um, because gaining intercept should make it easier to block, not harder? Can I explain it more simply? Should I use smaller words? > > No, instead they say "let's play a different card game -- the rules to > > this one suck." > > If you want to stop playing this game because you don't like how one > card works, go for it. That's a good attitude for expanding the popularity of Jyhad. Look, I'm trying to make it easier for new people to play, not harder. It has always been my experience that new players need it explained to them that 2nd Tradition cannot be used to block 0 stealth actions. Your experience has been different I take it? From another message in the thread, James says: >For the same reason that any other intercept card requires the acting >minion to be at stealth. 2nd Tradition is an intercept card! It has to >conform to the rules which govern them. No, I think you're wrong. 2nd Tradition is a blocking card with the side effect of granting +2 intercept. There is no prohibition against gaining intercept as an integral part of declaring a block; the prohibition only kicks in after a block is declared. To rule otherwise requires errata. Consider LSJ's rules outline: E. An attempt to block is resolved as follows: (18.2) [13.3] 1. Pick (untapped) blocking Minion. (18.2.1) 2. Stealth and Intercept. [13.3.2] a. Blocking Minion can play a Reaction card to increase Intercept only if the Acting Minion has Stealth greater than the Blocking Minion's Intercept. (:18.2.3) Any cost of the the Reaction is paid. b. Acting Minion can play an Action Modifier card to increase Stealth only if the Blocking Minion has at least as much Intercept as the Acting Minion's Stealth. (:18.2.2) Increased stealth lasts until the action is finished. [13.3.2] c. Repeat a,b above until neither Minion wishes to play a card. All intercept cards I can think of besides 2nd Trad. have to be played in step 2a. 2nd Tradition _cannot_ be played in step 2a because 2a occurs after a block declaration, and 2nd Tradition declares a block. 2nd Tradition must be played in step 1, to pick a blocking minion. There is no prohibition against gaining intercept in step 1; to rule so requires errata. Referring back to the original VTES rules book, there is no explicit prohibition against gaining intercept as a block is declared; the prohibition is again only after block declaration. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > In sum (to repeat): > 1) Playing Second Tradition will untap you and make you attempt to > block with +2 intercept. (This is the sum, complete, instantaneous > effect of playing Second Tradition - the effect does not resolve > in stages). > 2) Since the card will make you block and add intercept, you cannot > play it unless you need intercept for that block. Is 2) errata? There is no prohibition in the VTES rulebook against gaining intercept _as a block is declared_; the prohibition only exists after block [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > 2nd Tradition does add intercept, in the same way that any reaction > based intercept adding card does. It does not begin a block with > inherent intercept. Permanents like Mr Winthrop *do* begin a block with > "inherent" intercept. I don't know on what basis you assert that 2nd Tradition doesn't begin a block with inherent intercept. LSJ has ruled that the untap/block and gain intercept parts of 2nd Trad. are inseparable. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: > > So, is there really a > > problem with preferring Jyhad to be more fun, or, at least, more clear? > > There is no problem in wanting the game to be clear. That is why we > have a netrep; so that we have an official source to clear up questions > and misconceptions. If you disagree with LSJ, talk to LSJ. LSJ did not make that ruling, just like he did not make the Rotz ruling. When possible he uses prior rulings and common sense to clarify things. But in many cases, as this was, he passes the question on to the rules team which as often as not screws things up. I firmly believe that if LSJ had been able to rule on Rotz, it would not have been interpreted the way it was. As for his opinion on the ruling for 2nd Tradition and Bonding, only he knows. As far as I know he has never expressed an opinion, keeping a neutral position and rolling with the punches (i.e. official rulings). Care to comment Scott? Do you have an opinion on how you would have ruled and whether you think 2nd Tradition does what it was intended to do under the current ruling?

Quicksilver wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Hmmm. I just read through some other posts and noticed that Scott does have an opinion. Had he the choice, 2nd Tradtion would have been ruled to work the way Chris and I wished it would. He, like us, must bow to the whims of the rules team. He is just less whiney about it.

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > Um, because gaining intercept should make it easier to block, not harder? > Can I explain it more simply? Should I use smaller words? What you're saying doesn't _mean_ anything! It's not like 2nd Tradition hurts you if you play it when you don't need the intercept, you just can't play it then. There's a restriction on when the card can be played. That doesn't mean the rule or the way it applies to this card are wrong. > > If you want to stop playing this game because you don't like how one > > card works, go for it. > > That's a good attitude for expanding the popularity of Jyhad. Look, I'm > trying to make it easier for new people to play, not harder. Oh, yeah. More eratta or new rules makes the game easier to play. Sure. > It has always > been my experience that new players need it explained to them that 2nd > Tradition cannot be used to block 0 stealth actions. Your experience has > been different I take it? Yes, you explain it to them, and that's that. In my experience, this has not been a problem. There are lots of cards (especially those with lots of text) which need to be explained to newbies. That's what makes them "newbies". > From another message in the thread, James says: > >For the same reason that any other intercept card requires the acting > >minion to be at stealth. 2nd Tradition is an intercept card! It has to > >conform to the rules which govern them. > > No, I think you're wrong. 2nd Tradition is a blocking card with the side > effect of granting +2 intercept. No. Since the card gives you intercept, it is an intercept card, and it has to conform to the rules which govern those cards. > There is no prohibition against gaining > intercept as an integral part of declaring a block; the prohibition only > kicks in after a block is declared. To rule otherwise requires errata. As both I and LSJ have said, if it makes you feel better, pretend that his clarification is eratta. By the way, if you teach people how to play the game using that rules outline, it's no wonder you have a hard time attracting new players to the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Petterson wrote: "That's a good attitude for expanding the popularity of Jyhad. Look, I'm trying to make it easier for new people to play, not harder. It has always been my experience that new players need it explained to them that 2nd Tradition cannot be used to block 0 stealth actions. Your experience has been different I take it?" You have to explain alot of things to new players. It strikes me as probably easier to explain "You can't use a card that gives you intercept unless you are trying to block someone who has stealth" than to explain "You can't use a card that gives you intercept unless you are trying to block someone who has stealth, unless it is 2nd Tradition, which works completely opposite of the aforementioned rule, but for no good reason." "No, I think you're wrong. 2nd Tradition is a blocking card with the side effect of granting +2 intercept." 2nd Tradition has no side effect whatsoever. It untaps you to block and gives you +2 intercept. If you don't need the intercept, as the action you want to block has no stealth, you can't use it. Save it to block some other stealthy action. "There is no prohibition against gaining intercept as an integral part of declaring a block; the prohibition only kicks in after a block is declared. To rule otherwise requires errata." No, it does not. Having inherrent intercept (Mr. Winthrop, Ravens, Sports Bikes, whatever) means that when you start a block, you already have some intercept. This, however, is not going against the rules, as you are not playing a card to increase your intercept when you don't need it. You already have intercept. You are not playing a card that gives you intercept when you don't need it, as prohibited by the rules. Using 2nd Tradition to block a zero stealth action is playing a card that gives you intercept when you don't need it. That is the rule. If you have a minion with a Raven Spy who is tapped, and you wan't to block a +1 stealth action, you can't use 2nd Tradition either. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "You put in my hands a loaded gun and then told me not to fire it." -Liz Phair

Eric Petterson wrote: "The whole reason I think there's such a hullabaloo about Second Tradition (as opposed to other kinds of "intercept dumping") is that the prohibition against 2nd Trad. makes the vamp unable to block at all (barring other card play). This is unique. In other kinds of intercept dumping the action is already blocked. Since the whole purpose of intercept is to be able to block, to be unable to block _because_ you're gaining intercept turns the whole concept on its head." No, 2nd Tradition works just fine. It is perfectly useable to block any action that is inherrently at stealth (Voting, Hunting, Equiping, Torpor Encounters, Recruiting, most other card specific actions like Restoration, hatching kids, lord knows what else), and when another of your minions attempts to block say, a bleed, which gets stealthed up. If you are really concerned about blocking a bleed, and have a 2nd Tradition in your hand, send Rake to go do something, leaving him tapped, and then let Lupo stand around to try and block. If they have stealth to get past Lupo, than Rake can utilize 2nd Tradition. I fail to see (having followed this whole thread) where the problem lies. 2nd Trad is an intercept card, so you can't use it unless you need the intercept. That is all. Very simple. It fits within the confines of the rules. Ok, it is kind of a bust that you can't use it to block zero stealth actions. You also can't use Deflection to bounce a bleed at the guy who is bleeding you, and you can't use Bonding to get stealth on a non bleeding action. That is just the way it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Chris Berger wrote: > > In a parallel post, > > LSJ said that he had answered my question and then went on to not answer > > it again. Perhaps I can't possibly communicate the part that is > > confusing and why it seems impossible for it to work the way it does. > > This is the most complete answer I can come up with. I am at the > end of my ability to explain this, so if this answer still doesn't > make it click for you, treat the clarification as card-specific > errata to Second Tradition. > > Your post containing the "my point is this" includes four points: > (from <35861DB1...@cco.caltech.edu>): > > a) A minion can only play intercept if it needs it. > > b) A minion who cannot block does not need intercept. > > c) 2nd Tradition can only be played by a minion who cannot block. > > d) 2nd Tradition gives intercept. > > a) is correct (explicit rules). > d) is correct (card text). > > b) is properly stated as "a minion only needs intercept when he is > attempting to block a minion whose stealth is greater than his > intercept". > > Since a minion who cannot block will obviously not be attempting > to block, your statement is true, but not germaine to the Second > Tradition argument. > Okay, change b) to: "A minion who is not currently attempting to block does not need intercept." > c) is not true. > > A Prince who "cannot block" the current action (because of Blood > Bond or Incriminating Videotape or whatever) cannot use Second > Tradition. > Okay change c) to: "A minion who is tapped is never currently attempting to block (discounting Wakes)." Change d) to e), and add "d) 2nd Tradition may only be used by a tapped vampire." So now: a) A minion can only play intercept if it needs it. b) A minion who is not currently attempting to block cannot need intercept. c) A minion who is tapped is never currently attempting to block. d) 2nd Tradition can only be played by a minion who is tapped. e) 2nd Tradition gives intercept. Without the hole I left in my original statement, I believe that this proves that by interpretation of current rules (actually, the thing about only blocking vamps needing intercept isn't to be found anywhere in rulings or whatever either), the only way to play 2nd Tradition would be to assume that the +2 intercept occurs after the block and so is irrelevant to playing the card. If it doesn't work this way (and I've been told often enough that it doesn't), then I again request some documentation of this in the currently available references. Searching the newsgroup for information isn't nearly as easy as simply printing out a list of rulings and errata. And the current errata on Blocking and on 2nd Tradition might as well be thrown out for all the good they do at explaining the way things work. > > In sum (to repeat): > 1) Playing Second Tradition will untap you and make you attempt to > block with +2 intercept. (This is the sum, complete, instantaneous > effect of playing Second Tradition - the effect does not resolve > in stages). > 2) Since the card will make you block and add intercept, you cannot > play it unless you need intercept for that block. > Is there any reason why this can't be added to errata or at least clarifications? Also, is there any reason why rules for needing intercept can't be added to these same places? My main problem is that the errata/rulings/clarifications that pertain to this situation consist of: "You may not add stealth/intercept unless you need it." and a rewrite of 2nd Tradition that clears nothing up. How does the first statement define any sort of rule at all? I can argue that I *need* intercept just because I'm blocking and he might play a Lost in Crowds. I wouldn't argue that, but the current errata on it doesn't say anything about what "need" means in this context. I guess my position can be best stated as: if there is going to be a list of rulings, clarifications, and errata on the net, it would be helpful if this list were complete rather than requiring an additional set of data from "LSJ's rulings." Even more important, if there are going to be errata in these lists that describe Blocking and Second Tradition (and there currently are), it would be helpful if these errata cleared something (anything) up. I would *like* it if 2nd Tradition worked the way I wanted it to, but that's secondary. -Chris

Eric Pettersen wrote: > It has always > been my experience that new players need it explained to them that 2nd > Tradition cannot be used to block 0 stealth actions. Your experience has > been different I take it? Players need (D) directability, First Strike vs. Dodge, Flesh of Marble, and many other things explained to them, as well. That's part of the game. > There is no prohibition against gaining > intercept as an integral part of declaring a block; the prohibition only > kicks in after a block is declared. The prohibition exists at all times, and is very simple: "You cannot add intercept unless you need intercept." No mention is made of a time when this doesn't apply, or that it applies only at certain times. Your method would require *more* explanation, not less. [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > In sum (to repeat): > > 1) Playing Second Tradition will untap you and make you attempt to > > block with +2 intercept. (This is the sum, complete, instantaneous > > effect of playing Second Tradition - the effect does not resolve > > in stages). > > 2) Since the card will make you block and add intercept, you cannot > > play it unless you need intercept for that block. > > Is 2) errata? There is no prohibition in the VTES rulebook against gaining > intercept _as a block is declared_; the prohibition only exists after block > declaration. TTBOMK: The entire prohibition on unneeded stealth and intercept is errata. (From a VTES rulebook perspective). The printed VTES rulebook has no prohibition at all (it was omitted by mistake). That omission was corrected (with errata) by Tom Wylie on 28 Sep 1995: Section 17 Stealth and Intercept You may not increase a minion's stealth unless another minion is attempting to block, and you need to overcome that minion's intercept. Similarly, you may not increase a minion's intercept unless it is trying to block a minion whose stealth is higher. [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > 2nd Tradition does add intercept, in the same way that any reaction > > based intercept adding card does. It does not begin a block with > > inherent intercept. Permanents like Mr Winthrop *do* begin a block with > > "inherent" intercept. > > I don't know on what basis you assert that 2nd Tradition doesn't begin a > block with inherent intercept. LSJ has ruled that the untap/block and > gain intercept parts of 2nd Trad. are inseparable. And as such, if it is illegal to gain intercept (as it is when you don't need intercept), then you cannot use the other (inseparable) parts of the card, either. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > a) A minion can only play intercept if it needs it. > b) A minion who is not currently attempting to block cannot need > intercept. > c) A minion who is tapped is never currently attempting to block. > d) 2nd Tradition can only be played by a minion who is tapped. > e) 2nd Tradition gives intercept. > Without the hole I left in my original statement, I believe that this > proves that by interpretation of current rules (actually, the thing > about only blocking vamps needing intercept isn't to be found anywhere > in rulings or whatever either), the only way to play 2nd Tradition would > be to assume that the +2 intercept occurs after the block and so is > irrelevant to playing the card. a) is properly stated as "A minion can only add intercept if he needs it" (same thing depending on your perspective, but obviously your perspective is tying this to the "play" of a card, which is not the same). Sorry for not tidying up that minutia before, I didn't think it was necessary. For the nth time: 2nd Tradition untaps the vampire and makes him block with +2 intercept. IF the acting minion's stealth is greater than the prince's intercept (before the +2 from 2nd Tradition), then he obviously needs intercept for that block, so everthing is OK - the added intercept is needed and the rules are satisfied. IF the acting minion's stealth is not greater than the prince's intercept, then he obviously doesn't need the intercept and cannot play the Second Tradition, since the interpcet is part of the card and is prohibited by the rules. > If it doesn't work this way (and I've > been told often enough that it doesn't), then I again request some > documentation of this in the currently available references. The only reference one needs for this is the prohibition against adding unneeded intercept and card text. > Searching > the newsgroup for information isn't nearly as easy as simply printing > out a list of rulings and errata. Or simply asking the question on the NG and getting an answer. Three or four times. > And the current errata on Blocking > and on 2nd Tradition might as well be thrown out for all the good they > do at explaining the way things work. There is no erratum for "blocking and Second Tradition". This case is covered completely by the rule (errata) against adding unneeded intercept. > > In sum (to repeat): > > 1) Playing Second Tradition will untap you and make you attempt to > > block with +2 intercept. (This is the sum, complete, instantaneous > > effect of playing Second Tradition - the effect does not resolve > > in stages). > > 2) Since the card will make you block and add intercept, you cannot > > play it unless you need intercept for that block. > > > Is there any reason why this can't be added to errata or at least > clarifications? 1) is available in the "card text" list. 2) is part of the errata lists (errata to the VTES rules). > Also, is there any reason why rules for needing > intercept can't be added to these same places? To every card that adds intercept? - not in my lists. In general - sure. It's already in there (search for "need intercept" from the power search page. Tricky, huh?) > My main problem is that the errata/rulings/clarifications that pertain > to this situation consist of: "You may not add stealth/intercept unless > you need it." and a rewrite of 2nd Tradition that clears nothing up. Those two cover the problem completely. > How does the first statement define any sort of rule at all? I can > argue that I *need* intercept just because I'm blocking and he might > play a Lost in Crowds. One can argue many things. Not all of the things one can argue are sensible, and the rebuttal to all such things would be unweildy at best, unusable or confusing at worst. > I wouldn't argue that, but the current errata on > it doesn't say anything about what "need" means in this context. It doesn't say anything about what "add" or "unless" or "you" mean in this context, either. So we use the standard meaning. > I guess my position can be best stated as: if there is going to be a > list of rulings, clarifications, and errata on the net, it would be > helpful if this list were complete rather than requiring an additional > set of data from "LSJ's rulings." Well, I'm not removing my lists from the net just for you. :-) If you want a "complete" reference, then make such a reference. If I put every question that anybody ever had and an explanation for every answer that one person couldn't get a grasp on, the references would not be usable. I was compiling errata sheets long before I became NetRep, and I do not have a patent on the idea. > Even more important, if there are > going to be errata in these lists that describe Blocking and Second > Tradition (and there currently are), it would be helpful if these errata > cleared something (anything) up. I would *like* it if 2nd Tradition > worked the way I wanted it to, but that's secondary. The erratum describes adding intercept. It can be applied to blocking with Second Tradition, as well as many other things, and clear these things up nicely. [ quoted text not captured ]

not.av...@your.security.clearance (Legbiter) wrote: > 2nd trad as played in legbiterland works like this. > > Case 1: Normal the horrid Malkavian computer hacks. Dierdrie the > Expendable [pre 1/1], Progeny of Anson, blocks. Normal plays Lost in > Crowds for +1 stealth. But Anson, who has been, erm, resting after > embracing Dierdrie, now plays the Second Tradition to awake and block. > > Case 2: Democritus calls a vote of Die Right Now You Statue-Hugging > Bastards. But Anson, who has been resting after beating the shit out of > Normal, now plays the Second Tradition to awake and block. > > Case 3: Brazil the guy who thinks he's a football team equips with a > Laptop. But Anson, who has been resting after exchanging cultivated > insults with the ventrue justicar, now plays the Second Tradition to awake > and block. > > I think all these are legal and don't violate the card text .... right > LSJ? .... and in legbiterland, this card is NOT wallpaper at all! Yes, they are all legal. Anson is tapped in each case (as required by card text) and needs intercept for the block provided/required by Second Tradition (that need being required by the rules since 2ndT adds intercept). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

Quicksilver <michael...@lmco.com> writes: > Hmmm. I just read through some other posts and noticed that Scott >does have an opinion. Had he the choice, 2nd Tradtion would have been >ruled to work the way Chris and I wished it would. He, like us, must >bow to the whims of the rules team. He is just less whiney about it. Thanks for reading LSJ's posts so thoroughly, Michael. It's refreshing. :-) Anyone wondering about my personal views on the game can get a fairly accurate impression from the House Rules I proposed and/or backed (see the last list compiled: <5d4ua2$4...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>) Since some find searching deja news difficult, here's a convenient URL: http://search.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=214137161 I don't hold to all of these any more (I can be persuaded by well-reasoned arguments after all), but they served me well at the time. -- As for not whining - that's merely a side effect of LSJ's NetRep position (He had to hand in his license to whine when he got the "WotC Rep" badge :-). For my own, sometimes overly antagonistic, "discussions" with Tom about Second Tradition prior to that event, see the following threads: http://search.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?search=thread&recnum=%3c3s93m7$s...@crl.crl.com%3e&svcclass=dnserver http://search.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?search=thread&recnum=%3c3t1jcj$6...@crl.crl.com%3e&svcclass=dnserver -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Please return the flight http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | attendants to their original Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | upright positions

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > Eric Pettersen wrote: > > > > Um, because gaining intercept should make it easier to block, not harder? > > Can I explain it more simply? Should I use smaller words? > > What you're saying doesn't _mean_ anything! It's not like 2nd Tradition > hurts you if you play it when you don't need the intercept, you just > can't play it then. There's a restriction on when the card can be > played. That doesn't mean the rule or the way it applies to this card > are wrong. If the result is counter-intuitive, the implication is that the rule could be improved. Being unable to block 0 stealth actions with 2nd Tradition (but not +1 stealth or better actions) I find counter-intuitive. YMMV. No other intercept-granting card has this paradoxical outcome. > No. Since the card gives you intercept, it is an intercept card, and it > has to conform to the rules which govern those cards. I'll discuss this in the thread with LSJ. > By the way, if you teach people how to play the game using that rules > outline, it's no wonder you have a hard time attracting new players to > the game. Thanks for the gratuitous insult. We were having a rules discussion, were we not? I thought it might be helpful to actually refer to the rules themselves. Sorry to burden you with it. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > Eric Pettersen wrote: > > There is no prohibition against gaining > > intercept as an integral part of declaring a block; the prohibition only > > kicks in after a block is declared. > > The prohibition exists at all times, and is very simple: > "You cannot add intercept unless you need intercept." > > No mention is made of a time when this doesn't apply, or that > it applies only at certain times. Clearly, this prohibition only applies either _as_ a block is declared or after a block is declared, depending on the exact wording of the rule. Otherwise Psychic Projection is illegal. --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu

[ quoted text not captured ] I can already tell you how this will be responded to (because I have travelled forward in time and read LSJ's response... 8) ). The intercept for Psychic Projection is the result of a legal action and so is not "added." Don't ask me where that's stated in the rules, but apparently it is. It seems that the statement "you may not add intercept unless you need it," says many things that someone who learned "normal" English could never possibly figure out. All of the things that this statement supposedly says: a) The "you" actually represents one of your minions. As a methuselah you cannot need intercept. b) A minion must be attempting to block to need intercept. c) The acting minion's stealth must be higher than the blocking minion's intercept in order for the blocking minion to need intercept. d) Even if a minion is not currently blocking, it may not use a card which will give it intercept unless it will need that intercept once it blocks. e) The rules for adding intercept apply to everything except actions. A minion may take an action which adds intercept as long as that action is otherwise legal. (Anything else I missed in this magical statement?) -Chris

LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > TTBOMK: The entire prohibition on unneeded stealth and intercept is > errata. (From a VTES rulebook perspective). > > The printed VTES rulebook has no prohibition at all (it was omitted > by mistake). That omission was corrected (with errata) by Tom Wylie > on 28 Sep 1995: Well, the VTES rulebook prohibits you from adding intercept if the acting minion hasn't added stealth, but you're right; that whole section of the rules is very poorly written and requires errata. > > Section 17 Stealth and Intercept > You may not increase a minion's stealth unless another minion is > attempting to block, and you need to overcome that minion's intercept. > Similarly, you may not increase a minion's intercept unless it is trying to > block a minion whose stealth is higher. I don't find this on your web site (where can I find it?). As is, it would seem to prohibit Psychic Projection and Mr. Winthrop. What I do find on your site is "You cannot add stealth or intercept unless it is needed" which refers to an RTR. The pertinent text of the RTR is: "10) You may play cards and abilities that provide stealth only if any minions have attempted to block the current action, but not if the acting minion's stealth exceeds all of those minions' intercept. You may play cards and abilities that provide intercept only if the minion you want to play them on has attempted to block the current action, but not if your minion's intercept exceeds the acting minion's stealth." Is the above "full text" what gets approved by the RT, or is this text just a paraphrase of a decision? If it's not a paraphrase, it has some problems. It seems to prohibit Psychic Projection and Mr. Winthrop. Assuming that this inadvertent prohibition is just an oversight of some kind, let's ignore it for now. The above text would also either seem to prohibit 2nd Tradition outright, or allow it in all cases, depending on how you read the second sentence. Since intercept can only be played by a minion that "has attempted to block", which is past tense, it would seem to be impossible to play intercept simultaneously with block declaration. Alternatively, since 2nd Tradition is clearly played at block declaration, and the second sentence doesn't cover cards played at that time (or before that time, e.g. Psychic Projection), the prohibition against gaining intercept doesn't apply to 2nd Tradition. --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu

> > is LSJ > is Eric Pettersen > > The prohibition exists at all times, and is very simple: > > "You cannot add intercept unless you need intercept." > > > > No mention is made of a time when this doesn't apply, or that > > it applies only at certain times. > > Clearly, this prohibition only applies either _as_ a block is declared or > after a block is declared, depending on the exact wording of the rule. > Otherwise Psychic Projection is illegal. Did you read that second sentence? The prohibition against adding intercept when you don't need it is always in place. You can never add intercept when you don't need it. By your interpretation (Otherwise Psychic Projection is illegal), Sport Bike, Raven Spy, Raptor, et al would not be playable at all. However, you are misinterpeting. Look at it this way, when a minion is equipping a Sport Bike, they are equipping, not gaining intercept. When a minion is getting a Raven Spy, they are employing a retainer, not gaining intercept. When a minion is doing a Psychic Projection, they are doing an action, not gaining intercept. I think LSJ has already explained sufficiently how 2nd Tradition works. It has a requirement and two (or three, depending on how you look at it) effects. The requirement is a ready, tapped Prince. The effects are untapping, gaining +2 intercept, and being forced to attempt to block (card text). All of these effects are immediate and simultaneous. You are prohibited from adding intercept when you don't need it, therefore you can't play 2nd Tradition against a 0 stealth action. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP mboh...@NOSPAMpdnt.com Internet Strategy and Development Consultant

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > If the result is counter-intuitive, the implication is that the rule could > be improved. Being unable to block 0 stealth actions with 2nd Tradition > (but not +1 stealth or better actions) I find counter-intuitive. YMMV. > No other intercept-granting card has this paradoxical outcome. I'm sorry that you feel that way. What's paradoxical about it? You can't play _any_ intercept gaining card against a 0-stealth action. Why should 2nd Tradition be different? > > By the way, if you teach people how to play the game using that rules > > outline, it's no wonder you have a hard time attracting new players to > > the game. > > Thanks for the gratuitous insult. We were having a rules discussion, were > we not? I thought it might be helpful to actually refer to the rules > themselves. Sorry to burden you with it. I wasn't referring to the rules, I was referring to the rules outline, which is, as I said in the message you quote above, not a good way to teach people the rules. It's useful as a rules reference, but using it to teach the game is like using a dictionary to teach someone English. My intention was not to insult you, and in light of that, I hardly think there is any "gratuitous" insult which can be perceived from my statement. Now I quote from another message: > "10) You may play cards and abilities that provide stealth only if any > minions have attempted to block the current action, but not if the acting > minion's stealth exceeds all of those minions' intercept. You may play > cards and abilities that provide intercept only if the minion you want to > play them on has attempted to block the current action, but not if your > minion's intercept exceeds the acting minion's stealth." The key words are "play cards ... that provide intercept ...". Playing Enhanced Senses is playing a card which provides intercept. Playing Mr. Winthrop is playing a card which recruits a retainer, and hence Mr. Winthrop does not fall under this rule. > It seems to prohibit Psychic Projection and Mr. Winthrop. > Assuming that this inadvertent prohibition is just an oversight of some > kind, let's ignore it for now. It is not an oversight. > it would seem to be impossible to play > intercept simultaneously with block declaration. Except that the card text of 2nd Tradition allows it, thus it happens. > Alternatively, since > 2nd Tradition is clearly played at block declaration, and the second > sentence doesn't cover cards played at that time Like LSJ said, "No mention is made of a time when this doesn't apply, or that it applies only at certain times". You responded to this by saying: > Clearly, this prohibition only applies either _as_ a block is declared or > after a block is declared, depending on the exact wording of the rule. > Otherwise Psychic Projection is illegal. What did LSJ just say?! There is no time when this rule does not apply. Psychic Projection is completely irrelevant because it is an action, not a card played to gain intercept. Psychic Projection's text says Action Discipline: Auspex +1 stealth A minion you control gets +2 intercept until your next untap phase. (S) All minions you control gets +1 intercept until your next untap phase. What's confusing you is that, technically, the card should say "... +2 intercept _when blocking_ until ...", since otherwise it makes no sense anyway. Just like Mr. Winthrop and Sport Bike and all that, these cards do not provide intercept in response (or in reaction to) a particular action. They modify minions' base intercept, which is not the same thing as "gaining intercept". [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > > Eric Pettersen wrote: > > > Now I quote from another message: > > > "10) You may play cards and abilities that provide stealth only if any > > minions have attempted to block the current action, but not if the acting > > minion's stealth exceeds all of those minions' intercept. You may play > > cards and abilities that provide intercept only if the minion you want to > > play them on has attempted to block the current action, but not if your > > minion's intercept exceeds the acting minion's stealth." > > The key words are "play cards ... that provide intercept ...". Playing > Enhanced Senses is playing a card which provides intercept. Playing Mr. > Winthrop is playing a card which recruits a retainer, and hence Mr. > Winthrop does not fall under this rule. > What?!? By that logic, I say that 2nd Tradition is playing a card that allows a tapped minion to block and not playing a card that provides intercept. Thus, it does not fall under this rule. Psychic Projection, Raven Spy, etc. (not including Sport Bike, because the effects of equipment are always optional) are playing cards which allow actions whose final effect is to provide intercept. Therefore, if 2nd Tradition is not playable when intercept is not needed, neither are these cards. At least, not by any application of current rules. Sure, by common sense, it's stupid for Raven Spy to be prohibited when intercept is not needed, but we've already established that common sense is not an operative factor here. By common sense, 2nd Tradition could be played regardless of stealth totals. > Psychic Projection is completely irrelevant because it is an action, not > a card played to gain intercept. Psychic Projection's text says > {snip text} > > What's confusing you is that, technically, the card should say "... +2 > intercept _when blocking_ until ...", since otherwise it makes no sense > anyway. Just like Mr. Winthrop and Sport Bike and all that, these cards > do not provide intercept in response (or in reaction to) a particular > action. They modify minions' base intercept, which is not the same > thing as "gaining intercept". > This is semantic bullshit. Psychic Projection modifies intercept, it does not add intercept? What the hell?!? Psychic Projection is both an action *and* a card played to gain intercept. I cannot believe that you would refuse to see this for any other reason than to be difficult and to give yourself greater opportunity to flame others on the newsgroup. -Chris

Chris Berger wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > The key words are "play cards ... that provide intercept ...". Playing > > Enhanced Senses is playing a card which provides intercept. Playing Mr. > > Winthrop is playing a card which recruits a retainer, and hence Mr. > > Winthrop does not fall under this rule. > > What?!? By that logic, I say that 2nd Tradition is playing a card that > allows a tapped minion to block and not playing a card that provides > intercept. Thus, it does not fall under this rule. Psychic Projection, > Raven Spy, etc. (not including Sport Bike, because the effects of > equipment are always optional) are playing cards which allow actions > whose final effect is to provide intercept. There really is a difference here. Mr. Wintrop says "+1 intercept" on him, but what that really means is "this minion gets +1 intercept when blocking". Enhanced Senses says "+2 intercept", and that means "gain +2 intercept _now_". > This is semantic bullshit. That's your opinion. IMHO, it's the only way it makes sense to me. > Psychic Projection modifies intercept, it > does not add intercept? What the hell?!? I'll say it again, to (hopefully) make what I'm saying clear. Psychic Projection's effect is to modify a minions intercept _later_. There is no current action to be blocked, no current stealth total to compare, so how can the "you can't play intercept unless you need it" rule apply? Mr. Winthrop's effect is to add to the minion's intercept when that minion is blocking. When that minion is equipping with Mr. Winthrop, they are not gaining intercept, since the minion is not blocking. Later on, when that minion tries to block, they automatically get +1 intercept, whether they need it or not. This also doesn't violate the rule because his ability is not "played", it is simply "activated" by the attempt to block. > Psychic Projection is both an > action *and* a card played to gain intercept. The effect of the card is to give intercept to future blocking minions later in the game. You're calling that "gaining intercept", but I don't think that's what is being referred to in the statement of the rule. > I cannot believe that you > would refuse to see this for any other reason than to be difficult and > to give yourself greater opportunity to flame others on the newsgroup. Despite your personal opinions of me, I am not, nor ever have been intentionally difficult. I have not, nor ever have I flamed anyone on this newsgroup or any other newsgroup. You think that because I disagree with you and defend against the attacks you've made on my arguments that I am "flaming" or "being difficult"? I am sorry you feel that way. I will not continue with this discussion if the best justification you have for your arguments is "this is obvious" and "I can't believe you would refuse to see this". I and LSJ have tried to explain this to you. If you want to play with a rule interpretation that makes practically every card which provides intercept impossible to play, fine. If you want to whine and complain that the rules make no sense, fine. If you want to ignore what I'm trying to say and instead insult me, fine. Leave me out of it. If you want to discuss something, I'll be waiting. Let me know. [ quoted text not captured ]

(I might have posted this twice, but I tried to delete the first posting. I screwed something up the first time.) > > This is semantic bullshit. > > That's your opinion. IMHO, it's the only way it makes sense to me. > Note that each of these is an opinion. While LSJ *is* the WotC network representative, AFAIK he doesn't have the authority to make rulings. Therefore, him saying all of these things doesn't change the rules which do not differentiate. > > > I cannot believe that you > > would refuse to see this for any other reason than to be difficult and > > to give yourself greater opportunity to flame others on the newsgroup. > > Despite your personal opinions of me, I am not, nor ever have been > intentionally difficult. I have not, nor ever have I flamed anyone on > this newsgroup or any other newsgroup. You think that because I > disagree with you and defend against the attacks you've made on my > arguments that I am "flaming" or "being difficult"? I am sorry you feel > that way. > > I will not continue with this discussion if the best justification you > have for your arguments is "this is obvious" and "I can't believe you > would refuse to see this". I and LSJ have tried to explain this to > you. If you want to play with a rule interpretation that makes > practically every card which provides intercept impossible to play, > fine. If you want to whine and complain that the rules make no sense, > fine. If you want to ignore what I'm trying to say and instead insult > me, fine. Leave me out of it. > All right, maybe I was in a bitchy mood. I was just set off by your earlier dismissals of my (and others') arguments. You have to admit that you were being just as insulting earlier as I was in that last message (if not more). Besides, my arguments revolve much less around "this is obvious" than yours do. I have tried to refer only to the actual wordings of rules, rulings, and errata, whereas you (and also, IMO, LSJ) have relied on other sources (such as how things have always been played, or whatever) that are not official rules sources. -Chris

Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: > Note that each of these is an opinion. While LSJ *is* the WotC network > representative, AFAIK he doesn't have the authority to make rulings. I do. > Therefore, him saying all of these things doesn't change the rules which > do not differentiate. I can expound on the rules, so long as I do not contradict the rules. You wouldn't like the state the game would be in if this had not been the case over this past year and a half (or, rather, you would like it less). > "this is obvious" than yours do. I have tried to refer only to the > actual wordings of rules, rulings, and errata, whereas you (and also, > IMO, LSJ) have relied on other sources (such as how things have always > been played, or whatever) that are not official rules sources. The "actual" rulings (by your meaning) are only the staight text of the (sometimes hard-to-read and sometimes misleading) RTR posts themselves. My personal summaries of Errata/Rulings/Clarifications are just that - my attempt to distill the RTR texts down to a usable format. Those lists carry the same weight as anything else I say - since they are all my attempts to apply RT texts (and the actual rules/card texts/etc.) to the game. I proved to WotC that I could perform this function adequately enough to be appointed Net.Rep. (so that I could perform the function in an official capacity). [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > Section 17 Stealth and Intercept > > You may not increase a minion's stealth unless another minion is > > attempting to block, and you need to overcome that minion's intercept. > > Similarly, you may not increase a minion's intercept unless it is trying to > > block a minion whose stealth is higher. > > I don't find this on your web site (where can I find it?). My website. Rules -> VTES Rulebook. > As is, it > would seem to prohibit Psychic Projection and Mr. Winthrop. Possibly. If so, those "break the rules" by implicit meaning (like Rampage), since you can never need intercept at the time those are adding intercept. > "10) You may play cards and abilities that provide stealth only if any > minions have attempted to block the current action, but not if the acting > minion's stealth exceeds all of those minions' intercept. You may play > cards and abilities that provide intercept only if the minion you want to > play them on has attempted to block the current action, but not if your > minion's intercept exceeds the acting minion's stealth." > > Is the above "full text" what gets approved by the RT, or is this text > just a paraphrase of a decision? Unknown - so "Full Text" would be the obvious assumption. > If it's not a paraphrase, it has some > problems. It seems to prohibit Psychic Projection and Mr. Winthrop. > Assuming that this inadvertent prohibition is just an oversight of some > kind, let's ignore it for now. > > The above text would also either seem to prohibit 2nd Tradition outright, > or allow it in all cases, depending on how you read the second sentence. > Since intercept can only be played by a minion that "has attempted to > block", which is past tense, it would seem to be impossible to play > intercept simultaneously with block declaration. Alternatively, since > 2nd Tradition is clearly played at block declaration, and the second > sentence doesn't cover cards played at that time (or before that time, > e.g. Psychic Projection), the prohibition against gaining intercept doesn't > apply to 2nd Tradition. Right. So, by the RTR text, you can only add intercept if you have previously attempted, even if you are not currently attempting, to block (the current action). One can imagine that this is not correct, and instead should have said "A minion may only use cards and abilities that provide intercept only when attempting to block an acting minion whose stealth exceeds this minion's current intercept." I'll send it back to the RT for correction. Incidentally, it also incorrectly treats all previous would-be blockers as current blockers. For instance: Aggripinna bleeds. Maskia blocks. Aggripina plays Cloak for +1 stealth. Masika plays Enhanced Senses for +2 intercept. Aggripina plays Elder Impersonation to render Masika incapable of blocking. Rake attempts to block. At this point, Aggripina can dump stealth (say, Lost in Crowds), since Masika's intercept is sufficient to allow her to do so. If she does so, by the RT text, Masika can play Spirit's Touch (since he "has attempted to block" and Ag's stealth exceeds his intercept), even though he can't actually block. Again, the RT text is short-sighted. I'd recommend playing it the right way, since RT replies are widely spaced in time. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > > Note that each of these is an opinion. While LSJ *is* the WotC network > representative, AFAIK he doesn't have the authority to make rulings. > Therefore, him saying all of these things doesn't change the rules which > do not differentiate. He has posted this in his own message, but to sum up: he is, he does, it does, and they do. > All right, maybe I was in a bitchy mood. I was just set off by your > earlier dismissals of my (and others') arguments. I am trying to explain how you are wrong, and what misunderstandings are leading you to be wrong. It seems to me that you are the one being dismissive of my arguments. > Besides, my arguments revolve much less around > "this is obvious" than yours do. I have tried to refer only to the > actual wordings of rules, rulings, and errata, ...wordings whose meanings you misunderstand. You have one interpretation of the rules. Since it is not the "official" interpretation, I have been trying very hard to explain to you why that interpretation makes sense. The best interpretation you have been able to provide is that the rule prohibits the play of almost every card which provides intercept. Does this make sense to you? > whereas you (and also, > IMO, LSJ) have relied on other sources (such as how things have always > been played, or whatever) that are not official rules sources. LSJ is himself an official rules source. Who do you think wrote that rules outline you like so much? Let's try this again. Mr. Winthrop, Psychic Projection, etc. are not cards which are "played to gain intercept". From a certain rigid point of view, yes, the card is played, and the card gives intercept. But the phrase "played to gain intercept" has a different meaning. I have tried to explain this, but you seem to dismiss it without comment every time I post it. If you won't listen to me, and you won't listen to LSJ, what purpose could it possibly serve to continue this discussion? [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: >Eric Pettersen wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >> > Eric Pettersen wrote: >> > > There is no prohibition against gaining >> > > intercept as an integral part of declaring a block; the prohibition only >> > > kicks in after a block is declared. >> > >> > The prohibition exists at all times, and is very simple: >> > "You cannot add intercept unless you need intercept." >> > >> > No mention is made of a time when this doesn't apply, or that >> > it applies only at certain times. >> >> Clearly, this prohibition only applies either _as_ a block is declared or >> after a block is declared, depending on the exact wording of the rule. >> Otherwise Psychic Projection is illegal. >> --- >I can already tell you how this will be responded to (because I have >travelled forward in time and read LSJ's response... 8) ). The >intercept for Psychic Projection is the result of a legal action and so >is not "added." Don't ask me where that's stated in the rules, but Oops - looks like you picked one of the "alternate time lines". The actual answer is the same as why you can direct Rampage at a location you control. Card text implies that you can by being useless if you cannot. I didn't make that ruling (Rampage), but it has a clear parallel here, so I have authority to extend that ruling to this case. Plus, you don't really have to remember the ruling, since it is so completely obvious. >apparently it is. It seems that the statement "you may not add >intercept unless you need it," says many things that someone who learned >"normal" English could never possibly figure out. That rule works just like everyone who learned English reads it by default. There's another rule at work here: The Golden Rule for Cards: "When the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence". The Rules Team has interpretted this to extend to "implicit" cases like Rampage, so will apply to Psychic Projection, etc. >All of the things that this statement supposedly says: >a) The "you" actually represents one of your minions. As a methuselah >you cannot need intercept. As is typical usage - obvious from context. >b) A minion must be attempting to block to need intercept. >c) The acting minion's stealth must be higher than the blocking minion's >intercept in order for the blocking minion to need intercept. These two are round-about ways of saying "can't play unneeded intercept". >d) Even if a minion is not currently blocking, it may not use a card >which will give it intercept unless it will need that intercept once it >blocks. This is worded incorrectly (missing a negative), and is not necessary. 2nd tradition supplies both the attempt to block and the intercept in one motion, so covers itself without the need to resort to some convoluted meta-rule. >e) The rules for adding intercept apply to everything except actions. A >minion may take an action which adds intercept as long as that action is >otherwise legal. This is not necessary - covered by the golden rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: > >b) A minion must be attempting to block to need intercept. > >c) The acting minion's stealth must be higher than the blocking minion's > >intercept in order for the blocking minion to need intercept. > > These two are round-about ways of saying "can't play unneeded intercept". Hmph. Sorry about that - lines are starting to run together for me. How's this instead: These two are the simultaneous requirements for needing intercept, more conveniently and properly stated as: "a minion needs intercept only when attempting to block a minion whose stealth exceeds the blocking minion's intercept" Or, for simplicity, "a minion only needs intercept when he needs intercept." [ quoted text not captured ]

Mike Bohlmann <mboh...@pdnt.com> wrote: > > > is LSJ > > is Eric Pettersen > > > > The prohibition exists at all times, and is very simple: > > > "You cannot add intercept unless you need intercept." > > > > > > No mention is made of a time when this doesn't apply, or that > > > it applies only at certain times. > > > > Clearly, this prohibition only applies either _as_ a block is declared > > or after a block is declared, depending on the exact wording of the > > rule. Otherwise Psychic Projection is illegal. > > Did you read that second sentence? The prohibition against adding > intercept when you don't need it is always in place. You can never > add intercept when you don't need it. > > By your interpretation (Otherwise Psychic Projection is illegal), > Sport Bike, Raven Spy, Raptor, et al would not be playable at all. > However, you are misinterpeting. Exactly my point. > > Look at it this way, when a minion is equipping a Sport Bike, they are > equipping, not gaining intercept. When a minion is getting a Raven Spy, > they are employing a retainer, not gaining intercept. When a minion is > doing a Psychic Projection, they are doing an action, not gaining > intercept. Look at it this way: when a minion plays Second Tradition they are declaring a block, not gaining intercept. I fail to see how this "half-truth" is any less valid than your above "half-truths". > > I think LSJ has already explained sufficiently how 2nd Tradition works. > It has a requirement and two (or three, depending on how you look at > it) effects. The requirement is a ready, tapped Prince. The effects > are untapping, gaining +2 intercept, and being forced to attempt to > block (card text). All of these effects are immediate and simultaneous. > You are prohibited from adding intercept when you don't need it, therefore > you can't play 2nd Tradition against a 0 stealth action. > By your own logic above, it would seem that Second Tradition is just as playable as Psychic Projection. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > Eric Pettersen wrote: > > > I'm sorry that you feel that way. What's paradoxical about it? You > can't play _any_ intercept gaining card against a 0-stealth action. Why > should 2nd Tradition be different? I don't know anyone else who's having trouble perceiving the counter-intuitive behavior of Second Tradition that I've described, but here's one last try for you: It's easier to block stealthier actions with Second Tradition than less-stealthy actions. If you can't perceive that as paradoxical, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. > > > > By the way, if you teach people how to play the game using that rules > > > outline, it's no wonder you have a hard time attracting new players to > > > the game. > > > > Thanks for the gratuitous insult. We were having a rules discussion, were > > we not? I thought it might be helpful to actually refer to the rules > > themselves. Sorry to burden you with it. > > I wasn't referring to the rules, I was referring to the rules outline, > which is, as I said in the message you quote above, not a good way to > teach people the rules. It's useful as a rules reference, but using it > to teach the game is like using a dictionary to teach someone English. Where did I ever say that I used the rules outline to teach new players? You made that up out of whole cloth. I introduced the rules outline into a rules discussion. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > Eric Pettersen wrote: > > > Section 17 Stealth and Intercept > > > You may not increase a minion's stealth unless another minion > > > is attempting to block, and you need to overcome that minion's > > > intercept. Similarly, you may not increase a minion's intercept > > > unless it is trying to block a minion whose stealth is higher. > > > > I don't find this on your web site (where can I find it?). > > My website. Rules -> VTES Rulebook. Ah, at the very end under "Corrections". I only saw the "original" section 17, which of course doesn't contain this text. > > As is, it > > would seem to prohibit Psychic Projection and Mr. Winthrop. > > Possibly. If so, those "break the rules" by implicit meaning (like > Rampage), since you can never need intercept at the time those > are adding intercept. and from another thread (still LSJ): >There's another rule at work here: The Golden Rule for Cards: >"When the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence". >The Rules Team has interpretted this to extend to "implicit" cases >like Rampage, so will apply to Psychic Projection, etc. Doesn't this make Second Tradition legal in all cases, too? Designating a blocker is a separate step in both your rules outline and in the VTES rulebook. Intercept cannot normally be played at the designate blocker step, only afterwards. Second Tradition breaks this rule. [RTR text deleted] > > Is the above "full text" what gets approved by the RT, or is this text > > just a paraphrase of a decision? > > Unknown - so "Full Text" would be the obvious assumption. Ah, since you posted that RTR, I thought you'd know. So I'm guessing what happens is that you put a question to the RT, and then get something back [the text of the RTR] which may have been the exact text the RT discussed, or may be a paraphrase. Is that close? What do I win? :-) > > > If it's not a paraphrase, it has some > > problems.... [delineation of some problems deleted] > > Right. So, by the RTR text, you can only add intercept if you have > previously attempted, even if you are not currently attempting, to > block (the current action). > > One can imagine that this is not correct, and instead should have > said "A minion may only use cards and abilities that provide > intercept only when attempting to block an acting minion whose > stealth exceeds this minion's current intercept." > > I'll send it back to the RT for correction. I'm hoping you can persuade the RT to write the RTR in such a way that Second Tradition is legal in all cases. Simply clarifying that stealth/intercept are normally playable only _after_ block designation would be good enough, I think, since then Second Tradition would clearly fall into the same category as Psychic Projection. > > [LSJ delineates further problems with that RTR] > > Again, the RT text is short-sighted. I'd recommend playing it the > right way, since RT replies are widely spaced in time. > Yes, I recognized there were other problems with that RTR text. Here's hoping for a better one! :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > > I'm sorry that you feel that way. What's paradoxical about it? You > > can't play _any_ intercept gaining card against a 0-stealth action. Why > > should 2nd Tradition be different? > > I don't know anyone else who's having trouble perceiving the counter-intuitive > behavior of Second Tradition that I've described, Well, I think everyone else is ignoring you. > but here's one last try > for you: > > It's easier to block stealthier actions with Second Tradition than > less-stealthy actions. Well, it's not like 2nd Tradition makes it _harder_ for you to block non-stealthed actions. You just can't play it then. > If you can't perceive that as paradoxical, we're just going to have to > agree to disagree here. Where's there a paradox? There's nothing contradictory about the way Second Tradition works. Here's my interpretation of your thinking process: (a) In general, having intercept makes actions easier to block. (b) 2nd Tradition is a card that provides intercept. Therefore, (c) There should not be any actions which 2nd Tradition does not make easier for you to block. I agree with (a) and (b), but (c) seems to come way out of left field. > Where did I ever say that I used the rules outline to teach new players? You didn't. Nor did I say that you did. It simply seemed to me that you were using the rules outline as the definitive source of rules for this game, which seems a little naive. > You made that up out of whole cloth. I introduced the rules outline into > a rules discussion. And yet, you seem to be completely unwilling to accept that the rules outline might be flawed or poorly worded. As LSJ pointed out in his most recent message, play these cards the way that makes sense. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > > I think Eric is saying that having Second Tradition be useless against > actions that are less stealthy than actions it could be used to intercept is > a rather counterintuitive thing. OK, maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but... "Enhanced Senses is useless against actions that are less stealthy than actions it could be used to intercept." All I did was replace "Second Tradition" with "Enhanced Senses". Is this also counterintuitive? > I agree. Maybe that's not enough of a > reason to alter the general ruling but it is a legitimate objection to it. > At least you should give it its due in that sense. I have now, IMO, "give[n] it its due". [ quoted text not captured ]

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes: >Eric Pettersen wrote: >> >> > I'm sorry that you feel that way. What's paradoxical about it? You >> > can't play _any_ intercept gaining card against a 0-stealth action. Why >> > should 2nd Tradition be different? >> >> I don't know anyone else who's having trouble perceiving the counter- >> intuitive behavior of Second Tradition that I've described, > >Well, I think everyone else is ignoring you. Oh, not _everyone_ else. I've been kind of reading and lurking on this 2nd Tradition thing for a few days. And while I don't have a problem with ruling or think it's a terrible way to play it or anything, I will say I can see why Eric would argue that it's kind of counterintuitive. >> but here's one last try >> for you: >> >> It's easier to block stealthier actions with Second Tradition than >> less-stealthy actions. > >Well, it's not like 2nd Tradition makes it _harder_ for you to block >non-stealthed actions. You just can't play it then. > >> If you can't perceive that as paradoxical, we're just going to have to >> agree to disagree here. > >Where's there a paradox? There's nothing contradictory about the way >Second Tradition works. > >Here's my interpretation of your thinking process: > >(a) In general, having intercept makes actions easier to block. >(b) 2nd Tradition is a card that provides intercept. >Therefore, >(c) There should not be any actions which 2nd Tradition does not make >easier for you to block. > >I agree with (a) and (b), but (c) seems to come way out of left field. (c) is not what Eric said. (If I understand the issue correctly...) I think Eric is saying that having Second Tradition be useless against actions that are less stealthy than actions it could be used to intercept is a rather counterintuitive thing. I agree. Maybe that's not enough of a reason to alter the general ruling but it is a legitimate objection to it. At least you should give it its due in that sense. Fred

LSJ wrote: > > Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: > > Note that each of these is an opinion. While LSJ *is* the WotC network > > representative, AFAIK he doesn't have the authority to make rulings. > > I do. > My apologies then. But anyway, it still seems somehow less official to have a message posted to the newsgroup than to have compiled lists which can be used to generate a hard-copy list that can be referred to during play. > I can expound on the rules, so long as I do not contradict the rules. > Well, it has been my position that your arguments *have* been contradictory to the rules. > You wouldn't like the state the game would be in if this had not been the > case over this past year and a half (or, rather, you would like it less). > Well, my dissatisfaction with the game has less to do with bad rules (which I will admit are pretty few), and more to do with general stagnation. The only real fun I've had with Jyhad recently has been the playtest games, where each game is domniated by a completely new strategy (except for pt11 - stupid Anarch vote deck!). -Chris

James Hamblin wrote: > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > All right, maybe I was in a bitchy mood. I was just set off by your > > earlier dismissals of my (and others') arguments. > > I am trying to explain how you are wrong, and what misunderstandings are > leading you to be wrong. It seems to me that you are the one being > dismissive of my arguments. > I'm not going to get into a match of "he started it!" Just leave it at that I was upset by a few of your responses, and in turn I felt the need to be slightly insulting. Sorry. Whatever. I still think that you began with your preconceived notion and paid no attention to the counter-argument. I am willing to cede that 2nd Tradition works the way it does, I just wish that the rules *said* it worked that way. > > Besides, my arguments revolve much less around > > "this is obvious" than yours do. I have tried to refer only to the > > actual wordings of rules, rulings, and errata, > > ...wordings whose meanings you misunderstand. You have one > interpretation of the rules. Since it is not the "official" > interpretation, I have been trying very hard to explain to you why that > interpretation makes sense. > > The best interpretation you have been able to provide is that the rule > prohibits the play of almost every card which provides intercept. Does > this make sense to you? > It makes as little sense as the current use of 2nd Tradition. If the rules make such little sense (preventing the play of many cards), then they should be changed. It's my belief that the rules *do* prevent the play of these cards. -Chris

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > I think Eric is saying that having Second Tradition be useless against > > actions that are less stealthy than actions it could be used to intercept is > > a rather counterintuitive thing. > > OK, maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but... > > "Enhanced Senses is useless against actions that are less stealthy than > actions it could be used to intercept." > Not the same thing. Stated differently: "I have Second Tradition in my hand. Because of this, I can block stealthy actions, but not unstealthed actions." Having this wonderful untap card in my hand means, if Normal is being *really* quiet, I can grab him and pound him on the head. But if he shouts a lot and bangs pots and pans, I can't do a damned thing. Now, I'm not saying that this sort of thing should rule how cards are interpreted. However, it is obvious that Eric *does* have a point, in that our interpretation of the card is more "in flavour," and I think you should admit that you see it. -Chris

Chris Berger wrote: > > Not the same thing. Stated differently: "I have Second Tradition in my > hand. Because of this, I can block stealthy actions, but not > unstealthed actions." Yes? And...? I understand that this is a bummer. I understand that this is why people think the card should work differently. I wouldn't call it paradoxical, and I wouldn't call it grounds to change the way the card works. What if the card had some sort of RPG background that made it make sense to work this way? For example, in the World of Darkness, Princes get really upset if you're stealthing through their territory while they're asleep, but they don't mind it so much if you're not using stealth. Even if this were an aspect of the RPG, it wouldn't make one whit of difference how the card works in the game. > Now, I'm not saying that this sort of thing should rule how cards are > interpreted. This is the only point I'm trying to make. Thanks. :) > However, it is obvious that Eric *does* have a point, in > that our interpretation of the card is more "in flavour," and I think > you should admit that you see it. No, I don't agree. And please stop telling me what is "obvious" or what I see or don't see. I do see that you want 2nd Tradition to work differently. I knew that two years ago the first time somebody asked "hey, how does 2nd Tradition work when there isn't any stealth?". We told them, they said "bummer", and went on with their life. I also see that you either just don't like or honestly don't understand the interpretation of the rules as they apply to 2nd Tradition. If it's the former, then I'm sorry about that. There's really nothing I can do about it. If it's the latter, then I don't know what more LSJ can do to convince you. Now, in response to a few people's comments that this thread has gotten a little out of control, I want to make it clear that my intention has never been to flame anyone or to insult anyone. I'm really a nice guy. :) If I have inadvertantly offended anyone in the course of this discussion, then I sincerely apologize. However, I do not in any way change my position on this subject. If the discussion continues, I will continue to participate. [ quoted text not captured ]

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes: >Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> I think Eric is saying that having Second Tradition be useless against >> actions that are less stealthy than actions it could be used to intercept is >> a rather counterintuitive thing. > >OK, maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but... > >"Enhanced Senses is useless against actions that are less stealthy than >actions it could be used to intercept." > >All I did was replace "Second Tradition" with "Enhanced Senses". Is >this also counterintuitive? No, because you've subtly changed what I meant by "useless". Yes, I suppose if you don't actually need an intercept-enhancing card to block an action then you can say that it's "useless against actions that are less stealthy than actions it could be used to intercept". But that obviously ignores the point that sometimes you need the untapping effect but not the stealth of Second Tradition. Thus, if you held a card in your hand which could enhance the stealth of the attacker and could play that card, you might be inclinded to do so just so you could untap your minion and attempt to block with it using a Second Tradition. If you don't understand what's counterintuitive about that then I give up. But I think you could see the point if you had a mind to. >> I agree. Maybe that's not enough of a >> reason to alter the general ruling but it is a legitimate objection to it. >> At least you should give it its due in that sense. > >I have now, IMO, "give[n] it its due". No, you have clearly not_ done so. You ignorned the obvious thrust of the point I made and the point that Eric made. It's really frustrating when you're dealing with people who bring up semantic and/or rather technical arguments in order to make themselves look "right". Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > > If you don't understand what's counterintuitive about that then I > give up. But I think you could see the point if you had a mind to. I see that the card doesn't work when the action is unstealthed, even when the Prince is tapped. What I don't see is what is "counter-intutitive" about it. > No, you have clearly not_ done so. You ignorned the obvious thrust > of the point I made and the point that Eric made. Here is what I would like you to do. Fill in the following sentence: Second Tradition should be able to be used to block actions which are unstealthed because _____. I am not being difficult here. So far, the only things that have been offered to fill this blank are: (1) the rules say it works that way. (2) we want it to. (3) otherwise it's counterintuitive. Now, LSJ has explained why (1) is wrong, (2) is irrelevant, and I don't see how (3) is really that much different than (2). I can say that I think it is "counterintuitive" that you can't use Brass Knuckles under Immortal Grapple. But that doesn't mean that the card should be changed or that the rules are wrong. I am not begrudging you your right to feel that this card works in a counterintuitive way. There are certainly other cards in the set (as above, Immortal Grapple, for instance) that I find counterintuitive, so I understand how you feel. I personally don't find the card counterintuitive, but you don't seem to be able to accept that. > It's really frustrating [snip] I'm sick of being provoked. Why can't you accept that I disagree with you without immediately assuming that I'm being intentionally difficult? [ quoted text not captured ]

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes: >Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> If you don't understand what's counterintuitive about that then I >> give up. But I think you could see the point if you had a mind to. > >I see that the card doesn't work when the action is unstealthed, even >when the Prince is tapped. What I don't see is what is "counter-intutitive" >about it. Elsewhere in this thread, another poster gave much better description of what's counterintutive about it with his description of Normal coming in making noise, etc. vs. sneaking in. You seemed to respond to his post ina way that indicated you understood the issue people have with it. Now I'm at a loss for whether it's productive to continue harping about it. Were it not for the can't-use-2ndtrad-when-you-don't-need-the-stealth ruling, people could use it to untap their (potential blockers) all the time. Because of the ruling, you can only use it if the acting vampire is stealthy enough. This is a poster child for the term, "Counterintuitive". >> No, you have clearly not_ done so. You ignorned the obvious thrust >> of the point I made and the point that Eric made. > >Here is what I would like you to do. Fill in the following sentence: > >Second Tradition should be able to be used to block actions which are >unstealthed because _____. > >I am not being difficult here. So far, the only things that have been >offered to fill this blank are: > >(1) the rules say it works that way. >(2) we want it to. >(3) otherwise it's counterintuitive. > >Now, LSJ has explained why (1) is wrong, (2) is irrelevant, and I don't >see how (3) is really that much different than (2). > >I can say that I think it is "counterintuitive" that you can't use Brass >Knuckles under Immortal Grapple. But that doesn't mean that the card >should be changed or that the rules are wrong. I'm not going to debate that point (and please note that I haven't tried to). I will say that "Counterintuitive" differs from "We want it to" in that saying it's counterintuitive expresses a generalized reason for something that would improve the game - whether you happen to agree that it's a good reason or not (or that the reason applies sufficiently in this case). "We want it to" is a rather arbitrary judgement about the specific situation. >I am not begrudging you your right to feel that this card works in a >counterintuitive way. There are certainly other cards in the set (as >above, Immortal Grapple, for instance) that I find counterintuitive, so >I understand how you feel. I personally don't find the card >counterintuitive, but you don't seem to be able to accept that. I don't have a problem accepting that. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. It's just that you didn't seem to understand why anyone _else_ would see it as being counterintuitive. >> It's really frustrating [snip] > >I'm sick of being provoked. Why can't you accept that I disagree with >you without immediately assuming that I'm being intentionally difficult? If you'd expressed your differences with others _that_ way (as in the preceding paragraph) rather than the way you responded to my first post, I don't think anyone would be reacting to your posts in a manner you seem to feel is "provocative". Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: "Elsewhere in this thread, another poster gave much better description of what's counterintutive about it with his description of Normal coming in making noise, etc. vs. sneaking in. You seemed to respond to his post ina way that indicated you understood the issue people have with it. Now I'm at a loss for whether it's productive to continue harping about it." I am still completely at a loss here about this thread. 2nd Tradition works in a certain way, just like all other cards in the game. You can't use cards to do things that they can not do. 2nd Tradition is a card that you play to increase your intercept at a given moment. According to the rules of the game, you may not play a card to increase your intercept at a given moment unless you need to. Thus, you cannot play 2nd Tradition unless you need the intercept to block an action that has higher than zero stealth. Very straight forward. In no way "counterintuitve". If by "counterintuitive", you mean "It goes against real life logic", sure, ok, it does. So do guns making it easier to get far away from your opponent, Immortal Grapple preventing you from using Brass Knuckles, and, well, vampires in general. In the confines of the game, however, things that follow the rules are not counterintuitve. 2nd Tradition follows these rules--you can't use it if you don't need the intercept, just like every other intercept card that you play to increase your intercept at a given moment. Sure, it would be nice if 2nd Tradition worked the way that we all wanted it to (heck, my play group even uses a house rule that makes it work the way we want it to...), but according to the official rules, it does not. There is no point in trying to make the official rules say that 2nd Tradition works the way we would like it to, because they do not. There are plenty of cards that don't work the way I would like them to (Thoughts Betrayed, TRIII, Rampage, etc...), but trying to find something in the rules that makes these card work the way I wish they did is fairly pointless. Saying "Boy, I wish 2nd Trad worked better than it does. Lets eratta it to say 'Untap a tapped Prince and attempt to block. This Prince may gain up to +2 intercept as part of this untap.' or something, because as it is, it is not very useful." is a perfectly viable argument. Trying to find something in the rules to support this, however, when it simply is not there, is not. "Were it not for the can't-use-2ndtrad-when-you-don't-need-the-stealth ruling, people could use it to untap their (potential blockers) all the time." Yes, this would be nice. It would also be nice if you could use Deflection to bounce a bleed back at the guy who is doing the bleeding, or if you could use Bonding to get +1 stealth on a non Bleeding action. Sadly, you can't. "Because of the ruling, you can only use it if the acting vampire is stealthy enough. This is a poster child for the term, "Counterintuitive"." It isn't a ruling that makes 2nd Tradition work like this. It is the rules. 2nd Tradition is a card that increases a minions intercept at a particular moment. Thus, unless you need that intercept at that particular moment, you can't play it. To say that it is "counterintuitive" (again, a phrase I still don't fully understand your use of in this context), is just like saying "Lost in Crowds is counterintuitive because you can't play it until someone tries to block you. Why shouldn't you be able to be lost in a crowd before someone goes looking for you?" or "Spirits Touch is counterintuitive because you can't play it when you don't need the intercept even though you want to use the manuver." Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I am the world's forgotten boy the one who searches and destroys." -Iggy Pop

Note: Peter Bakija expressed my sentiments better than I ever could have, but I want to address some personal points here. Frederick Scott wrote: > > I'm not going to debate that point (and please note that I haven't tried to). > I will say that "Counterintuitive" differs from "We want it to" in that > saying it's counterintuitive expresses a generalized reason for something > that would improve the game - How would this necessarily improve the game? It would improve how you _feel_ about the game; not the same thing. Again with the IG example: maybe it's counterintuitive that you can't use Brass Kanuckles under Immortal Grapple, but it's probably better for the game that way. > whether you happen to agree that it's a good > reason or not (or that the reason applies sufficiently in this case). > "We want it to" is a rather arbitrary judgement about the specific situation. I say that "counterintuitive" is basically equivalent to "we want it to" because another way to say "counterintuitive" is "counter to _my_ intuition". Why should _your_ intuition dictate how the game is played over someone else's? > >I personally don't find the card > >counterintuitive, but you don't seem to be able to accept that. > > I don't have a problem accepting that. You're certainly entitled to your > opinion. It's just that you didn't seem to understand why anyone _else_ > would see it as being counterintuitive. Like I said: I can see why anyone else would see this as a "bummer". Saying the card is counterintuitive isn't really saying anything at all, and it certainly isn't a reason to change the card. It seems to me that you accept that the rules about intercept apply to 2nd Tradition in the way that they do. You also seem to accept that the rule is a good one. Put these two together and 2nd Tradition works the way it does. If that's counter to your intuition about what you think a "real" prince would do in that situation... well, this is fiction! Even more, it's a card game! If the card specifically said "cannot be used if the reacting prince does not need the intercept", would that still be 'counterintuitive'? [ quoted text not captured ]

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes: >Note: Peter Bakija expressed my sentiments better than I ever could >have, but I want to address some personal points here. > >Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> I'm not going to debate that point (and please note that I haven't tried to). >> I will say that "Counterintuitive" differs from "We want it to" in that >> saying it's counterintuitive expresses a generalized reason for something >> that would improve the game - > >How would this necessarily improve the game? Sorry, you've lost me here. Intuitiveness is clearly something that improves a game. I suppose it's reasonable to question its overall value as opposed to the value of other elements that might be deemed "desriable" in a game. But if you're going to pose the question why anyone might want rules to work more intuitively, then I can't debate with you. This is yet another thing that falls under the classification of "obvious" that you seem to dispute. If you phrase the question thus, I guess we're too far apart to even begin to communicate about it. >It would improve how you _feel_ about the game; not the same thing. Not even debatable. The term "improve" is a subjective judgement. Thus, how a person feels about a game is _precisely_ the measure of its quality. Unless you want to advance the notion that a game's quality can be measured _objectively_ - in which case, by all means trot out what you feel are the objective metrics. >Again with the IG example: maybe it's counterintuitive that you can't use >Brass Kanuckles under Immortal Grapple, but it's probably better for the >game that way. Maybe it is. But this only goes to show counterintuitiveness is sometimes unavoidable and/or is sometimes more desirable than other factors against which it might be traded off. (Of course, it also may mean the ruling is wrong, too - depending on your judgement about such things.) >> whether you happen to agree that it's a good >> reason or not (or that the reason applies sufficiently in this case). >> "We want it to" is a rather arbitrary judgement about the specific situation. > >I say that "counterintuitive" is basically equivalent to "we want it to" >because another way to say "counterintuitive" is "counter to _my_ >intuition". Why should _your_ intuition dictate how the game is played >over someone else's? Merely because intuition is judgement-based doesn't imply that a desire to make use of it in making rules can be equated to eogism. You make the same logical mistake a lot of people seem to make in this regard: you confuse the fact that because a given type of judgement must be subjective in nature (in this case, "how intuitive is a ruling"), that it must ergo be an unimportant judgement to make. Not true. If 98% of the players thought this ruling were counterintuitive and liked the game a lot less because of it, it might behoove the rules team to change it merely for that reason alone. Subjective, yes - but still important. >Saying the card is counterintuitive isn't really saying anything at all, I disagree. >and it certainly isn't a reason to change the card. I disagree. >It seems to me that you accept that the rules about intercept apply to 2nd >Tradition in the way that they do. I do. LSJ's application of a general principle is quite understandable. >You also seem to accept that the rule is a good one. I wouldn't say it's good or bad. It's just the way the rules team seems to want to do it, for whatever reasons. I suspect it has to do drawing a line in the sand about when players are and are not allowed to chuck cards when it makes absolutely no sense to in terms of the game. In short, if you drew a bunch of intercept cards because you designed a deck that has too much (or turned out to have too much) intercept and you can't use them in a legitimate fashion, then tough - you're stuck with them until you can replace them the slow way. If so, it might be good rule for most Intercept cards but then, that reasoning doesn't really apply to using Second Tradition to untap a Vampire so it can block an unstealthy Vampire, now does it? Could we make an exception for ST and any other intercept cards that offer other timely bonuses beside the intercept itself? Probably, but that might very much complicate an otherwise simple rule. So it's all a big question of tradeoffs and everbody has their opinion about what's the best. And I hardly see that anyone is more "right" than anyone else, myself. >If the card specifically said "cannot be used if the reacting prince does >not need the intercept", would that still be 'counterintuitive'? It would be better in that it spells out that it's kind of a weird card with text right on the card. But I don't think people are so concerned with how obvious the ruling is from the text on the card as the fact that it's a weird card, period - though both are issues. Fred

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) pd...@aol.com (PDB6) writes: >Frederick Scott wrote: >"Elsewhere in this thread, another poster gave much better description of >what's counterintutive about it with his description of Normal coming in making >noise, etc. vs. sneaking in. You seemed to respond to his post ina way that >indicated you understood the issue people have with it. Now I'm at a loss for >whether it's productive to continue harping about it." > >I am still completely at a loss here about this thread. 2nd Tradition works in >a certain way, just like all other cards in the game. You can't use cards to >do things that they can not do. 2nd Tradition is a card that you play to >increase your intercept at a given moment. According to the rules of the game, >you may not play a card to increase your intercept at a given moment unless you >need to. Thus, you cannot play 2nd Tradition unless you need the intercept to >block an action that has higher than zero stealth. Very straight forward. In >no way "counterintuitve". I think you're confusing the question of what the ruling should be in terms of applying an overall rule to a single card with what folks (including me) are claiming is "counterintutive". I understand the ruling, it's very clear, there's no confusion about it on my part. None the less, the general ruling itself is not that intuitive in that insists on applying the test of "must- need-intercept-to-play-a-card-that-happens-to-augment-intercept" on every card, regardless of whether intercept is only bonus it grants. Why, for instance, shouldn't we have the same rule about needing the vampire to be tapped to play on every card that happens to include untapping a Vampire amongst _its_ bonuses - so you couldn't play 2nd Trad. on an untapped Vampire just it happened to need stealth? The difference _seems_ kind of arbitrary - hence, counterintutive. >If by "counterintuitive", you mean "It goes against real life logic", sure, ok, >it does. I don't. The real life logic is just a symbol used to represent what's really the problem in the game - that one tends to think it's either better or at worst neutral to attack with a stealthier Vampire (not withstanding the tactic of deliberately trying to lull your opponent into a false sense of security about combat between your minions) rather than a less stealthy one. But exactly the reverse is true for purposes of this card if the defender's vampire is tapped. >Sure, it would be nice if 2nd Tradition worked the way that we all wanted it to >(heck, my play group even uses a house rule that makes it work the way we want >it to...), but according to the official rules, it does not. There is no point >in trying to make the official rules say that 2nd Tradition works the way we >would like it to, because they do not. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Like or lump it? I think you forget that this is Usenet. It's nice to have WotC's netrep here to give rulings and I wouldn't advocate bashing him on the head or calling the RT unmentionable so-and-sos when they don't rule things how we like. But stating opinions that they've made a bad choice is certainly a reasonable thing to do - and it may even result in the rule's reversal. >"Because of the ruling, you can only use it if the acting vampire is stealthy >enough. This is a poster child for the term, "Counterintuitive"." > >It isn't a ruling that makes 2nd Tradition work like this. It is the rules. Sorry - distinction noted. None the less, the rules don't have to "work like this". They can work however the rules team sees ftt. Fred

> >You also seem to accept that the rule is a good one. > > I wouldn't say it's good or bad. It's just the way the rules team seems > to want to do it, for whatever reasons. I suspect it has to do drawing a > line in the sand about when players are and are not allowed to chuck cards > when it makes absolutely no sense to in terms of the game. In short, if > you drew a bunch of intercept cards because you designed a deck that has too > much (or turned out to have too much) intercept and you can't use them in > a legitimate fashion, then tough - you're stuck with them until you can > replace them the slow way. If so, it might be good rule for most Intercept > cards but then, that reasoning doesn't really apply to using Second Tradition > to untap a Vampire so it can block an unstealthy Vampire, now does it? Could > we make an exception for ST and any other intercept cards that offer other > timely bonuses beside the intercept itself? Probably, but that might > very much complicate an otherwise simple rule. So it's all a big question of > tradeoffs and everbody has their opinion about what's the best. And I > hardly see that anyone is more "right" than anyone else, myself. > I disagree slightly here. I think the question has a little bit to do with intentions of the rule against chucking intercept, but much more to do with whether or not the rule applies. You say that it is a question of whether or not to complicate the rule in order to follow the spirit. I think, however, that it's important to see which way is more complicated. And simply saying "Second Tradition doesn't work if the acting minion has no stealth," isn't necessarily the least complicated. IMO, this is akin to saying (hypothetically) "Playing Immortal Grapple gives you 1 pool." I would want to know *why* it does so. Simply playing the card such that I gain 1 pool each time I play it is not good enough. Now, if someone were to create some sort of rule or errata to this effect and explain it thoroughly, then it would be acceptable and I wouldn't complain. As it is, however, it's not intuitive that Immortal Grapple should give you 1 pool. Nowhere in the actual rules is there any sort of statement that would cause 2nd Tradition to work the way LSJ says it does. His explanation of the card used many things which, while they may be official because he said them, are not documented anywhere and can't be referenced. If I were to play against a random person without net access, they would likely play 2nd Tradition in the most intuitive way. Then, if I were to correct them, what reason is there for them to believe me? If I can print out the errata that says so, at least it *looks* more official. So, the simplest way of fixing the problem would be to create single-case errata (or even a ruling, since I suppose there is some demented way that one could independently come to the correct conclusion) for 2nd Tradition stating "2nd Tradition may only be played if the acting minion currently has more stealth than this minion has intercept." Or create errata or a ruling with the opposite text. The next simplest way, which would have the benefit of being more general, would be to fix the rules on when intercept and stealth can be added. The most annoying and difficult thing that can happen is to continue arguing back and forth about the intent of the card and about implied rules and action cards and starting a block with inherent intercept (which is different from both adding intercept and creating a block attempt at the same time). But of course, since we are Jyhad players, we've grown accustomed to doing things the difficult way all these years. We have no tap symbol. The way we decide what type of resource to pay is dictated by where the cost is located. Symbols for required traits are almost too small to read with the naked eye. We have the cards with the most text. Magic's Eureka is no match for Blood Brother Ambush and Succubus Club (and others that I'm forgetting now). We don't deal with single 20-sided dice, opting instead for 30 easy-to-lose blood counters, and counting them each time someone asks, "How much pool you got left?" We don't even have uniform card backs. Hell, we're not even sure if we allow mixed card backs and whether or not card sleeves will change our decision. So... I think maybe I've changed my mind about going about this the most rational and simple way. Instead, let's argue until someone gets upset enough to grab a chainsaw and find the others. Onward, Jyhad players. -Chris (I think maybe I should start taking Ritalin...)

Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > Note that each of these is an opinion. While LSJ *is* the WotC network > > > representative, AFAIK he doesn't have the authority to make rulings. > > > > I do. > > > My apologies then. But anyway, it still seems somehow less official to > have a message posted to the newsgroup than to have compiled lists which > can be used to generate a hard-copy list that can be referred to during > play. Then compile such lists. > > I can expound on the rules, so long as I do not contradict the rules. > > > Well, it has been my position that your arguments *have* been > contradictory to the rules. What argument, exactly, of mine contradicts what rule, exactly? (As I suspect the answer to that question, allow me to reiterate): 2ndT untaps a P/J and causes him to block with +2 intercept. Since he needs that intercept to block(*), the rules regarding needing intercept are not contradicted, since he is now attempting to block (card text on 2ndT). 2ndT is not a "get +2 intercept, pause, then attempt to block" (which could not be played) effect nor a "untap and block, pause, then get +2 intercept effect (which could be played even if the intercept wasn't required), but a "untap and block with +2 intercept". It all happens at once, as previously noted. (*) if he does not need the intercept for that block attempt (i.e., the acting minion's stealth does not exceed the P/J's current intercept), then 2ndT cannot be played, because of the rule regarding needing intercept. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

Ok, let me first point out that I see where everyone is coming from who wants to be able to use 2nd Tradition on a 0 stealth action. We can all agree that 2nd Tradition is an intercept card, correct? The intercept it gives is simultaneous with the untapping and blocking effect. As such, it cannot be used as a means to untap and block a 0 stealth action. So why not change it to what some feel is more intuitive (ie makes sense in a game world sense)? Well, let's look at what else that would open up: Intercept - If you can use one intercept card when you don't need it, why not the others? Then an intercept deck can just dump intercept on a block until it gets the combat cards it wants. After all, why does the acting minion have to be really sneaky for the blocking minion to have hightened senses and to read auras? Net Effect - The game loses some of the deck design intracacies as balancing intercept and combat cards isn't _as_ important as it was. Stealth - If the blockers can dump cards, why not the acting guy, too? Afterall, why does the blocker have to be just barely sneaky enough to get passed the blocker? As someone else pointed out, why does someone have to try to find me before I can make myself be lost in a crowd? Net Effect - Same as dumping intercept. In a S&B deck, you don't have to balance your bleed modifiers and your stealth modifiers as much. And not blocking a S&B deck is one way to slow it down. Weapons - Why can't I use a Brass Knuckles while under the effects of an Immortal Grapple? Or Sengir Dagger? Or Bang Nakh? Is a Bastard Sword too big? What about a Saturday Night Special or a .44? All these could be intuitively interpreted to be usable under an IG. The list could go on. Once you change one card to be intuitive to fit with what would make sense in a real World of Darkness, you open a whole new ball of wax. If people want to play their game that way, that's great...for their group. But we have to have a standard for all of us to play in. I find it somewhat annoying that when I play with a new group, I have to learn all their house rules, too. I'd much rather be able to just refer to LSJ's references for any problems. Perhaps this bit is more suited for a different thread, so I'll stop there. Just some thoughts, Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP mboh...@pdnt.com Internet Strategy and Development Consultant

Chris Berger <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: > Nowhere in the actual rules is there any sort of statement that would > cause 2nd Tradition to work the way LSJ says it does. His explanation > of the card used many things which, while they may be official because > he said them, are not documented anywhere and can't be referenced. If I > were to play against a random person without net access, they would > likely play 2nd Tradition in the most intuitive way. Then, if I were to > correct them, what reason is there for them to believe me? If I can > print out the errata that says so, at least it *looks* more official. Your print out of the errata list is no more or less official than your print out of a newsgroup article. If it needs to look more official, then simply edit the errata/ruling list to say so. > So, the simplest way of fixing the problem would be to create > single-case errata (or even a ruling, since I suppose there is some > demented way that one could independently come to the correct > conclusion) for 2nd Tradition stating "2nd Tradition may only be played > if the acting minion currently has more stealth than this minion has > intercept." Or create errata or a ruling with the opposite text. If I included a line-item of every rule as it applied to every card, the list would be unusable, as I've said. I include what I deem necessary in my lists, you are welcome to include what you deem necessary in yours. > The next simplest way, which would have the benefit of being more > general, would be to fix the rules on when intercept and stealth can be > added. Agreed, but this option is not available to me. > we've grown accustomed to doing things the difficult way all these > years. We have no tap symbol. The way we decide what type of resource > to pay is dictated by where the cost is located. Symbols for required > traits are almost too small to read with the naked eye. We have the > cards with the most text. Magic's Eureka is no match for Blood Brother > Ambush and Succubus Club (and others that I'm forgetting now). We don't > deal with single 20-sided dice, opting instead for 30 easy-to-lose blood > counters, and counting them each time someone asks, "How much pool you > got left?" We don't even have uniform card backs. Hell, we're not even > sure if we allow mixed card backs and whether or not card sleeves will > change our decision. So... I think maybe I've changed my mind about > going about this the most rational and simple way. Instead, let's argue > until someone gets upset enough to grab a chainsaw and find the others. > Onward, Jyhad players. :-) Aside: the easy-to-lose counters are preferable to 20-sided dice because of the frequent need to move a counter from here to there, which is inconvenient and prone to cheating/mistaking with dice. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I find it somewhat annoying that when I play with a new group, I have > to learn all their house rules, too. I'd much rather be able to just > refer to LSJ's references for any problems. Perhaps this bit is more > suited for a different thread, so I'll stop there. > > Just some thoughts, > > Mike > I agree with Mike. House rules bad - handicap new players and act as block to world-wide web of mutual slaughter. But I sympathise with the people who want ALL Jyhad cards to tell a story. The story of Second Tradition is De Minimis Non Curat Rex. The prince is not going to get involved in stuff his/her underlings could deal with. It's a matter of DIGNITY. But for the hard stuff, if you want a job doing properly, do it yourself. Side effect of second trads: Praxis seizures are pretty good after all. So they should be - Jyhad is a social game.

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > Eric Pettersen wrote: > > > > > > It's easier to block stealthier actions with Second Tradition than > > less-stealthy actions. > > Well, it's not like 2nd Tradition makes it _harder_ for you to block > non-stealthed actions. You just can't play it then. Now that LSJ _is_ the Rules Team, we can probably stop our imitation of the Monty Python "Argument" sketch, but I'll play along a little more just for old time's sake. :-> Would you have preferred I stated the above as: "It's possible to attempt to block stealthy actions with Second Tradition. It's not possible to attempt to block unstealthy actions with Second Tradition." And you would then call that intuitive? > > If you can't perceive that as paradoxical, we're just going to have to > > agree to disagree here. > > Where's there a paradox? There's nothing contradictory about the way > Second Tradition works. You seem to be melding the concepts of whether a rule is simple, and whether it's intuitive. The intercept rules are simple and consistent. In the case of Second Tradition, the simple rule produces a result that is counter-intuitive. If there was a rule that "a minion may never have exactly +4 or +5 stealth", I could explain that easily to new players and would have no problem applying it in a game. It would make no sense to me, of course. The concepts of simplicity and intuitiveness are distinct. [snipped an "interpretation of my thinking process"] > > > Where did I ever say that I used the rules outline to teach new players? > > You didn't. Nor did I say that you did. In an earlier post James wrote; >By the way, if you teach people how to play the game using that rules >outline, it's no wonder you have a hard time attracting new players to >the game. Your memory seems short. > > I introduced the rules outline into a rules discussion. > > And yet, you seem to be completely unwilling to accept that the rules > outline might be flawed or poorly worded. As LSJ pointed out in his > most recent message, play these cards the way that makes sense. That last sentence overloaded my irony meter! [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > I think Eric is saying that having Second Tradition be useless against > > actions that are less stealthy than actions it could be used to intercept is > > a rather counterintuitive thing. > > OK, maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but... > > "Enhanced Senses is useless against actions that are less stealthy than > actions it could be used to intercept." > > All I did was replace "Second Tradition" with "Enhanced Senses". Is > this also counterintuitive? We're discussing blocking actions here, not merely playing cards out of your hand. In the cases where you can't play Enhanced Senses, you already have the action blocked with sufficient intercept. That's a crucial difference when compared with Second Tradition. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > Not the same thing. Stated differently: "I have Second Tradition in my > > hand. Because of this, I can block stealthy actions, but not > > unstealthed actions." > > Yes? And...? > > I understand that this is a bummer. I understand that this is why > people think the card should work differently. I wouldn't call it > paradoxical, and I wouldn't call it grounds to change the way the card > works. Wait, wait. _Much_ earlier in this thread I stated in a single sentence why I felt 2nd Tradition's interaction with the stealth/intercept rules was counter-intuitive and said that if you disagreed that we'd have to agree to disagree -- yet you went on to argue why it wasn't counter-intuitive. Yet just now you say that you understand why people think the card should work differently. Finally! Okay, progress. You grant that people _can_ find the card play counter-intuitive, but don't agree personally. Fine. We can agree to disagree then. Phwew! > Now, in response to a few people's comments that this thread has gotten > a little out of control, I want to make it clear that my intention has > never been to flame anyone or to insult anyone. I'm really a nice guy. > :) If I have inadvertantly offended anyone in the course of this > discussion, then I sincerely apologize. However, I do not in any way > change my position on this subject. If the discussion continues, I will > continue to participate. Yes, it is very hard to keep a civil tongue in one's mouth when having an impassioned rules "discussion". :-) I know I've been tempted to be even more acidic than I may or may not have been at times. I'll do my best to keep all flames on the "low" burner setting... [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > I am still completely at a loss here about this thread. 2nd Tradition works in > a certain way, just like all other cards in the game. You can't use cards to > do things that they can not do. 2nd Tradition is a card that you play to > increase your intercept at a given moment. According to the rules of the game, > you may not play a card to increase your intercept at a given moment unless you > need to. Thus, you cannot play 2nd Tradition unless you need the intercept to > block an action that has higher than zero stealth. Very straight forward. Yes. > In no way "counterintuitve". This doesn't follow. The effect (being able to block +1 and +2 stealth actions, but not 0 stealth actions) is in fact counter-intuitive. You are asserting that a simple rule produces intuitive effects. That is sometimes the case. Not in this case. The simple, straightforward intercept rules produce a counter-intuitive situation for Second Tradition. [ quoted text not captured ]

Mike Bohlmann <mboh...@pdnt.com> wrote: > Ok, let me first point out that I see where everyone is coming > from who wants to be able to use 2nd Tradition on a 0 stealth > action. At least I have more common ground with you than with James. :-) > > We can all agree that 2nd Tradition is an intercept card, correct? > The intercept it gives is simultaneous with the untapping and blocking > effect. As such, it cannot be used as a means to untap and block > a 0 stealth action. > > So why not change it to what some feel is more intuitive (ie makes > sense in a game world sense)? Well, let's look at what else that > would open up: [list of intercept/stealth dumping deleted] I disagree that it opens these up. 2nd Tradition is played during block declaration. One cannot normally play intercept at block declaration. The action minion has the option of play a variety of action modifiers (e.g. Dawn Operation, superior Elder Impersonation) before the reacting minion can play reaction cards (in particular, intercept cards) after designating a blocker. Second Tradition "breaks the rules" in an exactly analogous manner to Psychic Projection in adding intercept at a step when intercept normally could never be played. Since intercept cannot normally be played simultaneously with block declaration, allowing Second Tradition to "break the rules" here doesn't open the door to intercept dumping. [ quoted text not captured ]

Fredrick Scott wrote: "I think you're confusing the question of what the ruling should be in terms of applying an overall rule to a single card with what folks (including me) are claiming is "counterintutive"." I fully follow the logic presented above. However, this is not the logic that has fueled the bulk of this incredibly huge thread. I agree that 2nd Tradition is kind of dumb as it is. However, there is no point in trying to find something in the rules to support having 2nd Tradition work the way we want it to, as it is not there. The bulk of the arguing points in this thread spent most of their effort in trying to find justification in the rules to have 2nd Trad work the way they wanted it to--i.e. not needing the intercept. Lots and lots of effort and verbiage was spent on trying to find some justification in the rules to make the card work the way we want it to. Sadly, it simply is not there. I agree that the card would make more sense if it worked in some way that allowed it to be used when you don't need the intercept. However, there is a vast difference between trying to change the rules to fit the card (which is pretty much what one entire side of this debate is trying to do) and changing the card to fit the rules (which is a completely different thread to the current one.) "I don't. The real life logic is just a symbol used to represent what's really the problem in the game - that one tends to think it's either better or at worst neutral to attack with a stealthier Vampire (not withstanding the tactic of deliberately trying to lull your opponent into a false sense of security about combat between your minions) rather than a less stealthy one. But exactly the reverse is true for purposes of this card if the defender's vampire is tapped." Correct. That is how the rules work and how the card works. I agree that it is kind of silly, sure, but those are the rules. If you want to advocate changing the _card_ to work in a specific way (so you don't need the Intercept to untap, for instance), I don't think that a single person on this newsgroup would argue with you (or at least not to any extent). Again, however, the slant of this thread has not been "Change the card", but has instead been "Change the rules, or at least make an exception just this once...". "I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Like or lump it? " I think my point is pretty clear. The rules say the card works in a certain way. If you don't like the way the card works, you are much better off trying to change the card, not the rules. Changing the _rules_ to fit a card is incredibly inconsistient and makes the game into more of a mess. Changing the _card_ is a fairly common wish. "Sorry - distinction noted. None the less, the rules don't have to "work like this"." But yes, they do. Changing the rules in an inconsistient way makes the game a huge mess. If you change them for 2nd Trad., why not change them for Bonding, and then Spirits Touch, and then Brass Knuckles, and then Deflection... If the rules were changed to say "You cannot play a card that increases your intercept, unless you need it, _or_ if the card makes more sense that way..." you open a really big and ugly door to loopholes and addenda. However, arguing that "2nd Tradition sucks--lets have the wording on the card erattaed to something that makes it work better" is a perfectly viable standpoint. I have been involved in countless threads advocating that certain cards should be changed in some way (Thoughts Betrayed, Tomb, etc). My stand point was never "Here is why I think the rules make these cards work the way I want them to" (which is what the bulk of the arguments on this thread have been). They were always "I think these cards suck. Here is why and here is how I think the cards should be changed." If this thread had been one of "2nd Tradition sucks. I think it should be changed", it would not have gotten as big and as ugly as it has. [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > Would you have preferred I stated the above as: "It's possible to attempt > to block stealthy actions with Second Tradition. It's not possible to > attempt to block unstealthy actions with Second Tradition." And you would > then call that intuitive? I would call it "the way the card works". I try not to get into what I think the cards do, I worry about what they actually do. For me, the way in which the rules apply to this card is intuitive. Since I could not care less about the world of darkness or the vampire RPG, I don't really have an intuition about how things _should_ work. Let me try something I said previously, but that I don't think you replied to: if the card actually said on it "can't be used if the acting minion has zero stealth" does that change how intuitive the card is? If your answer is "yes", then I'm totally confused. If the answer is "no", then it seems like you should be able to accept 2nd Tradition as just a kooky card which works in a weird way. > > > Where did I ever say that I used the rules outline to teach new > > > players? > > > > You didn't. Nor did I say that you did. > > In an earlier post James wrote; > >By the way, if you teach people how to play the game using that rules > >outline, it's no wonder you have a hard time attracting new players to > >the game. > > Your memory seems short. Your English seems bad [note: tounge placed firmly into cheek]. Note the "if". > > And yet, you seem to be completely unwilling to accept that the rules > > outline might be flawed or poorly worded. As LSJ pointed out in his > > most recent message, play these cards the way that makes sense. > > That last sentence overloaded my irony meter! My point is that there seem to be two positions (other than mine) in this debate. One is that Second Tradition should work a different way. As I have said from the beginning, I totally understand why people would like the card to work differently, but that I feel that this desire should not be the only reason to make it so. The other position (largely defended by you) is that the rules don't apply to Second Tradition in the way that LSJ says they do. Your justification for this is an admittedly poorly worded Rules Team ruling from a rules outline. In response to this, I had two points: (1) You can't teach someone a game by handing them a list of rules and eratta. As a teacher, I know that people just don't learn that way. People learn by doing, not reading. (2) The rules outline is just that, an outline. As LSJ has said, if he were to have a line-by-line, card-by-card rules Compendium, it would be unwieldy and useless. The rule about adding intercept applies, at least in my mind, very clearly to Second Tradition. Responses? [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes: > > >Let me try something I said previously, but that I don't think you > >replied to: if the card actually said on it "can't be used if the > >acting minion has zero stealth" does that change how intuitive the card > >is? If your answer is "yes", then I'm totally confused. > > Why? If you mean why am I totally confused and that your answer is "yes", then I am totally confused because the card might as well have that text on it. It doesn't have that text because it doesn't _need_ that text. The rules already say that the card works that way. So why does printing on a card what the rules already say make a difference in your intuition? > But you still don't > tend to expect cards to reward lack of stealth when stealth is otherwise > treated as completely good for all other purposes. What's wrong with that? Why should there be something wrong with a card that works in a weird way? > >If the answer is "no", then it seems like you should be able to accept 2nd > >Tradition as just a kooky card which works in a weird way. > > That's precisely the point. Perhaps people don't _want_ "a kooky card which > work in (this particular) weird way." It's certainly a reasonable opinion. If everyone got to change every card to the way they wanted it, this game would be unplayable. > >As I have said from the beginning, I totally understand why people would > >like the card to work differently, but that I feel that this desire > >should not be the only reason to make it so. > > And why not? Justify that. Because you want the card to work differently. I don't want the card to work differently. Who wins? I think the best answer is "the rules win". If everyone plays the cards the way they want to instead of the way the rules say the cards work (to as great an extent as possible), then two people from different groups can't even play the same game. Note: I think house rules are a fine idea. The Ithaca group I was until recently a part played with them. But we didn't try to force our house rules onto the whole community. > Of course, > folks can always play "house rules" if it bothers them too much but if > large numbers of people like it better changed, why make the universal > rules reflect this so people can construct decks to play against strangers > and in tournaments with this in mind? Because when someone who isn't on the net comes to a tournament, they will expect the game to be played the way the rules say it is. How do you explain to such a person "well, I know the card says that, but we changed it because we didn't like it"? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > I can expound on the rules, so long as I do not contradict the rules. > > > > > Well, it has been my position that your arguments *have* been > > contradictory to the rules. > > What argument, exactly, of mine contradicts what rule, exactly? > Well, that's what I've been trying to figure out, exactly. If "a minion must be attempting to block to need intercept," well then, an argument that the card can be used at all seems to contradict the rules. At the time the card is played (and this is really all that matters, I think), the minion does not need intercept. In fact, this seems to put the card *exactly* on a par with Psychic Projection (the most clear-cut of non-reaction, non-"fast-effect" cards that gives interecept). Your reaction to Pyschic Projection (the one which came from a parallel timeline) was that it is playable because the card implies it can be played. Or something to that effect. Apply your argument to 2nd Tradition, and I think it's obvious it can be played without regard to stealth totals. I still don't understand why it makes sense to check stealth when no block is going on. At the time the card is played intercept is not needed. The only way that the card is playable is if it ignores "needing" intercept. Therefore, it implies that it may be played at any time. Just like Psychic Projection. Since that all comes from either the rules or your arguments, it is my position that your arguments contradict the rules. I'm not sure exactly where, but that's what I think. I don't mean any insult at by that... You've been patient and open during this argument, so I don't want to have the impression of saying "You're wrong!" but the above is my opinion. > (As I suspect the answer to that question, allow me to reiterate): > > 2ndT untaps a P/J and causes him to block with +2 intercept. > > Since he needs that intercept to block(*), the rules regarding needing > intercept are not contradicted, since he is now attempting to block > (card text on 2ndT). 2ndT is not a "get +2 intercept, pause, then attempt > to block" (which could not be played) effect nor a "untap and block, > pause, then get +2 intercept effect (which could be played even if the > intercept wasn't required), but a "untap and block with +2 intercept". > It all happens at once, as previously noted. > My assertion is that untap and block with intercept (all happening at the same time) works basically the same as get +2 intercept first. Before you play the card, you check a)Is this vampire tapped? b)Is this vampire allowed to block the current action? and c) Does this vampire need intercept. It seems that you need to meet all of these conditions *before* you play the card. Why should c) need to be met sometime in the middle of playing it? Therefore, since you have to be tapped before playing it, you can't need intercept and it can't be played (just as if the +2 intercept *did* happen first). So, by the Psychic Projection decision, 2nd Tradition should be playable regardless of stealth totals. ...I'm sorry I'm continuing this discussion. It's just that there continue to be points at which I want to clarify my position... -Chris

PDB6 wrote: > > Fredrick Scott wrote: > "I think you're confusing the question of what the ruling should be in terms of > applying an overall rule to a single card with what folks (including me) are > claiming is "counterintutive"." > > I fully follow the logic presented above. However, this is not the logic that > has fueled the bulk of this incredibly huge thread. I agree that 2nd Tradition > is kind of dumb as it is. However, there is no point in trying to find > something in the rules to support having 2nd Tradition work the way we want it > to, as it is not there. The bulk of the arguing points in this thread spent > most of their effort in trying to find justification in the rules to have 2nd > Trad work the way they wanted it to--i.e. not needing the intercept. No, you're wrong. I have spent the bulk of my time trying to figure out any point in the rules that would allow 2nd Tradition to work in the "official" way. And the truth is, it just isn't there. There isn't anything that specifically says it works my way, but the rules seem to imply that it does. Therefore, since the rules do not say it works the official way, I have been trying to find exactly what the rules *do* say. I have not been partial in any way. In fact, I resent your implications. > Lots and > lots of effort and verbiage was spent on trying to find some justification in > the rules to make the card work the way we want it to. Sadly, it simply is not > there. I agree that the card would make more sense if it worked in some way > that allowed it to be used when you don't need the intercept. However, there > is a vast difference between trying to change the rules to fit the card (which > is pretty much what one entire side of this debate is trying to do) and > changing the card to fit the rules (which is a completely different thread to > the current one.) > I'm in favour of changing the rules in order to be clear on this card and others. I'd like 2nd Tradition to be playable regardless of stealth, but any change in the rules which holds a clear position on 2nd Tradition would be considered by me to be a victory. > > If the rules were changed to say "You cannot play a card that increases your > intercept, unless you need it, _or_ if the card makes more sense that way..." > you open a really big and ugly door to loopholes and addenda. However, arguing > that "2nd Tradition sucks--lets have the wording on the card erattaed to > something that makes it work better" is a perfectly viable standpoint. I have > been involved in countless threads advocating that certain cards should be > changed in some way (Thoughts Betrayed, Tomb, etc). My stand point was never > "Here is why I think the rules make these cards work the way I want them to" > (which is what the bulk of the arguments on this thread have been). They were > always "I think these cards suck. Here is why and here is how I think the > cards should be changed." > But the rules are not at all ambiguous as far as those big nasty cards go. > If this thread had been one of "2nd Tradition sucks. I think it should be > changed", it would not have gotten as big and as ugly as it has. > The thing is, 2nd Tradition doesn't really suck. It's still a fairly useful card. My point isn't and never was that we should make it better. Making it better was a side effect of my attempting to get the card to abide by the rules (or getting the rules to uphold the card). -Chris

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes: >Let me try something I said previously, but that I don't think you >replied to: if the card actually said on it "can't be used if the >acting minion has zero stealth" does that change how intuitive the card >is? If your answer is "yes", then I'm totally confused. Why? Of _course_ such a card would be very strange and for exactly the same reason 2nd Trad. is strange. Printing the exception on the card makes it's use much clear so the term "intuitive" may not be applicable here. But make no mistake - it's still a weird card. I'm not saying games should never have such cards. Sometimes (for instance), it's necessary for CCGs to print cards like that to play-balance other aspects of the game or sometimes because weird can be good for shaking up play and keeping the players on their toes - sort of like how the otherwise lowly Spy in Stratego works. If you like such things. But you still don't tend to expect cards to reward lack of stealth when stealth is otherwise treated as completely good for all other purposes. >If the answer is "no", then it seems like you should be able to accept 2nd >Tradition as just a kooky card which works in a weird way. That's precisely the point. Perhaps people don't _want_ "a kooky card which work in (this particular) weird way." It's certainly a reasonable opinion. >My point is that there seem to be two positions (other than mine) in >this debate. One is that Second Tradition should work a different way. >As I have said from the beginning, I totally understand why people would >like the card to work differently, but that I feel that this desire >should not be the only reason to make it so. And why not? Justify that. How people have the most fun playing a game seems to me to be a very good reason to change the rules, depending on how many people feel this way and how strong their feelings are. Of course, folks can always play "house rules" if it bothers them too much but if large numbers of people like it better changed, why make the universal rules reflect this so people can construct decks to play against strangers and in tournaments with this in mind? Fred

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) pd...@aol.com (PDB6) writes: >Fredrick Scott wrote: >"I think you're confusing the question of what the ruling should be in terms of >applying an overall rule to a single card with what folks (including me) are >claiming is "counterintutive"." > >I fully follow the logic presented above. However, this is not the logic that >has fueled the bulk of this incredibly huge thread. I agree that 2nd Tradition >is kind of dumb as it is. However, there is no point in trying to find >something in the rules to support having 2nd Tradition work the way we want it >to, as it is not there. The bulk of the arguing points in this thread spent >most of their effort in trying to find justification in the rules to have 2nd >Trad work the way they wanted it to--i.e. not needing the intercept. Lots and >lots of effort and verbiage was spent on trying to find some justification in >the rules to make the card work the way we want it to. Sadly, it simply is not >there. I agree that the card would make more sense if it worked in some way >that allowed it to be used when you don't need the intercept. However, there >is a vast difference between trying to change the rules to fit the card (which >is pretty much what one entire side of this debate is trying to do) and >changing the card to fit the rules (which is a completely different thread to >the current one.) I do not believe that's true. Of course, I may not have read the whole thread closely enough. But what I have read seem to argue for a change in the rules themselves which would have the effect of fixing this problem with this card - and possibly others. >"I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Like or lump it? " > >I think my point is pretty clear. The rules say the card works in a certain >way. If you don't like the way the card works, you are much better off trying >to change the card, not the rules. Changing the _rules_ to fit a card is >incredibly inconsistient and makes the game into more of a mess. Changing the >_card_ is a fairly common wish. I disagree. Sometimes changing a rule can make a single card or a whole class of cards work "better" (in a given person's opinion, of course). If so, it may well be easier to change the rules than to errata the card. Errata bad. Specific, contrived card-rulings bad. Rule changes better. >"Sorry - distinction noted. None the less, the rules don't have to "work like >this"." > >But yes, they do. Changing the rules in an inconsistient way makes the game a >huge mess. Er, who's talking about "changing the rules in an inconsistent way"? We're just talking about "changing the rules", period. I'm not sure what you're afraid would become inconsistent. You could certainly change the rules in a consistent way and cause this change...depending on what you mean by "consistent". If you mean, "consistent with how it was played in the past", probably not. But who cares? >If you change them for 2nd Trad., why not change them for Bonding, >and then Spirits Touch, and then Brass Knuckles, and then Deflection... Well, why not? It's a question of opinion. One would have to propose the specific rule change before I could state mine. >If the rules were changed to say "You cannot play a card that increases your >intercept, unless you need it, _or_ if the card makes more sense that way..." >you open a really big and ugly door to loopholes and addenda. I agree. So _that_ particular rule change probably wouldn't be a good one. But your imagination is very limited if you that's the only way a rule change could be phrased to make 2nd Tradition more intuitive. Why not, "You cannot play a card that ONLY increases your intercept, unless you need it." Just by adding the word "only", I've proposed a self-consistent, easy- to-understand modification to the rules which solves the problem folks are discussing in this thread. You may find some flaw in it or not like the effect it has on other cards but consistency is not a problem (or at least, point out how the change causes a consistency problem; I don't see one right off). And if you don't like that one, there's probably a zillion other ways you could change the rules that would bypass your objections. It's just a matter of employing sufficient cleverness in proposing the change. And in the end, it's opinion whether or not the game would play better or not given a well-considered proposal. Fred

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes: >Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes: >> >> >Let me try something I said previously, but that I don't think you >> >replied to: if the card actually said on it "can't be used if the >> >acting minion has zero stealth" does that change how intuitive the card >> >is? If your answer is "yes", then I'm totally confused. >> >> Why? > >If you mean why am I totally confused and that your answer is "yes", >then I am totally confused because the card might as well have that text >on it. It doesn't have that text because it doesn't _need_ that text. I'm don't agree. Given the way ST works out, it sure wouldn't hurt to counteract the confusion. >The rules already say that the card works that way. So why does >printing on a card what the rules already say make a difference in your >intuition? Because (as I've stated repeatedly) the rule itself is rather counter- intuitive, particularly when applied to cards like ST which grant other bonuses besides just intercept. >> But you still don't >> tend to expect cards to reward lack of stealth when stealth is otherwise >> treated as completely good for all other purposes. > >What's wrong with that? Why should there be something wrong with a card >that works in a weird way? I addressed that in the text you cut out of my previous post: # I'm not saying games should never have such cards. Sometimes (for instance), # it's necessary for CCGs to print cards like that to play-balance other # aspects of the game or sometimes because weird can be good for shaking up # play and keeping the players on their toes - sort of like how the otherwise # lowly Spy in Stratego works. If you like such things. But you still don't # tend to expect cards to reward lack of stealth when stealth is otherwise # treated as completely good for all other purposes. To further elaborate, if your game is full of such tricks and traps - advantages that suddenly become disadvantages, trick cards that reverse the field and make the bad good and stuff like that - then people can plan to play the game with that in mind and it can be kind of funky. I don't really see V:tES being that sort of a game, though. Do you? Ultimately, though, this boils down to a question of taste. I agree that it's a mistake to overly villify the way ST is officially ruled to work. I just don't think the proposal to change the rules and make it work differently should be villified, either. Debated, certainly. Disputed, perhaps. But not villified. >> >If the answer is "no", then it seems like you should be able to accept 2nd >> >Tradition as just a kooky card which works in a weird way. >> >> That's precisely the point. Perhaps people don't _want_ "a kooky card which >> work in (this particular) weird way." It's certainly a reasonable opinion. > >If everyone got to change every card to the way they wanted it, this >game would be unplayable. It depends on what you mean by this. You mean, should we dole out the card ruling assignments to separate work-at-home-netreps and let them each rule as they please without worrying about overall consistency? That's silly, of course. But if you mean, you can't change the overall rules to have the effect of changing the way a single card works, sure you can. You may feel it's too much trouble to go to to tinker with the general rules just fix one single card but you can certainly do it in a reasonable manner which would not make the game the _least_ bit unplayable if you really wanted to. Mind you, I'm not saying you can really twist a rule one way then the other to produce separate effects for generally like cards because you would simply rather that some cards worked one way and some otherwise identical cards worked a different way. But no one's proposed anything like that. The problem people see with ST can almost certainly fixed with a fairly simple, reasonable rule change. >> >As I have said from the beginning, I totally understand why people would >> >like the card to work differently, but that I feel that this desire >> >should not be the only reason to make it so. >> >> And why not? Justify that. > >Because you want the card to work differently. I don't want the card to >work differently. Who wins? I think the best answer is "the rules >win". Er, you mean the _existing_ rules win. Essentially status quo rules uber alle? Sure, if there's really a division in how people feel, let well enough alone may well be the best means of deciding the issue. (Assuming WotC even cares what we thing about it.) But by itself, its clearly not a reason to argue against changing a rule. First of all, explain _why_ some significant number of people are against change. Just because, "I always did it that way and my daddy always did it that way and my grampy always did it that way and, hell, Hamblins been doin' it that way since the Civil War!!!"? Sounds mighty conservative to me. >If everyone plays the cards the way they want to instead of the >way the rules say the cards work (to as great an extent as possible), >then two people from different groups can't even play the same game. I agree. So this can be done two ways: either folks stop complaining about the existing rule and just lump it or the rule changes and everybody starts doing it the other way. Either one works. >> Of course, >> folks can always play "house rules" if it bothers them too much but if >> large numbers of people like it better changed, why make the universal >> rules reflect this so people can construct decks to play against strangers >> and in tournaments with this in mind? > >Because when someone who isn't on the net comes to a tournament, they >will expect the game to be played the way the rules say it is. How do >you explain to such a person "well, I know the card says that, but we >changed it because we didn't like it"? Er, how did the original rule get to be the way it _is_? I thought it the general can't-use-intercept-unless-you-need-it rule was left out of the printed rulebooks. If so, just fix this the same way. If not, I would say there might be argument there for sticking to a rule because it was printed in the rulebooks. But it seems to me that so much has changed from the original rulebooks anyway that I hardly think this is a real objection. The only question is, is the problem bad enough to make one more change? Fred

In article <6mmm7f$vap$5...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, Eric Pettersen <pe...@cgl.ucsf.ed u.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer> writes >Since intercept cannot normally be played simultaneously with block >declaration, allowing Second Tradition to "break the rules" here doesn't >open the door to intercept dumping. But look at Concealed/Disguised Weapon. They allow you to equip a weapon at a time when you wouldn't normally be able to. You can equip a weapon during combat instead of during an equip action. HOWEVER, even though it is "out of phase" (i.e. not at the time it should happen), you still have to obey the laws of equipping - so a Femur of Toomler has to be disguised in by a Tzimisce etc. Since 2nd Tradition is giving you transient intercept at a different time to normal, why not let it follow the same rules as normal intercept? Surely the extension of rules in ALL cases is intuitive - or are you saying that we should extend the rules for, say, Disguised Weapon but not for 2nd Tradition? -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

Frederick Scott wrote: > > >If you mean why am I totally confused and that your answer is "yes", > >then I am totally confused because the card might as well have that text > >on it. It doesn't have that text because it doesn't _need_ that text. > > I'm don't agree. Given the way ST works out, it sure wouldn't hurt > to counteract the confusion. The point is that even if that text were on the card, it would be in parentheses (to "remind" you that this is how the card works). My point is that if that text were on the card this debate wouldn't exist. > >The rules already say that the card works that way. So why does > >printing on a card what the rules already say make a difference in your > >intuition? > > Because (as I've stated repeatedly) the rule itself is rather counter- > intuitive, particularly when applied to cards like ST which grant other > bonuses besides just intercept. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. :) The rule is perfectly clear: "you can't gain intercept unless you need it". Now, you may find it counterintuitive (whatever that means); why can't Felicia Mostrom see really, _really_ well even if there's no stealth, and so on. But if you take no issue with the rule as it stands, I don't see how you can take issue with how it applies to 2T. Now, if, as Peter has suggested, you want to change the _card_, that's a whole different ball of wax. > # But you still don't > # tend to expect cards to reward lack of stealth when stealth is otherwise > # treated as completely good for all other purposes. So, you don't expect it. So what? That doesn't mean the card needs to be changed. Besides which, I think you're misusing the word "reward" here. Just because the card works differently than other intercept cards doesn't mean it's changing the game dynamic or the general inherent value of stealth. It's just a card! > To further elaborate, if your game is full of such tricks and traps - > advantages that suddenly become disadvantages, trick cards that reverse > the field and make the bad good and stuff like that - then people can plan > to play the game with that in mind and it can be kind of funky. I don't > really see V:tES being that sort of a game, though. Do you? OK, it's a _game_. If it doesn't have checks and balances, or "tricks and traps", and whatnot, the game is much worse. For example, if Immortal Grapple never existed, I think this game would be very different, and a lot less fun. The existence of Immortal Grapple makes S:CE less of an automatic win card. If the existence of Second Tradition makes people think twice before playing that stealth card, that's a good thing! It makes the game more than just a mindless exercise in Rock-Paper-Scissors. > I just > don't think the proposal to change the rules and make it work differently > should be villified, either. Debated, certainly. Disputed, perhaps. But > not villified. The thing I don't understand is: why do you think the rules _should_ be changed, but the card shouldn't? > >> Perhaps people don't _want_ "a kooky card which > >> works in (this particular) weird way." It's certainly a reasonable > >> opinion. "I don't like the way this card works so let's change the rules to make it work differently" is very different from "I don't like the way this card works, so let's discuss how to change it to make it work better" > >Because you want the card to work differently. I don't want the card to > >work differently. Who wins? I think the best answer is "the rules > >win". > > Er, you mean the _existing_ rules win. Essentially status quo rules uber > alle? I'm not saying that I always agree with the rules. But why should you decide which cards should be changed and which not? In light of the DCI announcement, that seems to be up to LSJ, not you and not me. > First of all, explain _why_ some > significant number of people are against change. I will explain why I don't think Second Tradition should be changed: (1) The way Second Tradition works now is perfectly consistent with the simple rule "you can't play intercept unless you need it". (2) Second Tradition, as it is, adds an interesting element to the game. (3) Second Tradition, as it is, is a perfectly fine card (i.e., it isn't wallpaper), nor is it too powerful, so I don't see the need for it to be changed. > I agree. So this can be done two ways: either folks stop complaining about > the existing rule and just lump it or the rule changes and everybody starts > doing it the other way. Either one works. Except that, AFAIK, the only reason I've seen as to why the rule should be changed is "so that Second Tradition will work differently". Why should Second Tradition work differently? The only answer I've seen to that is some sort of nebulous stammering about it making having stealth worse than having no stealth. > >Because when someone who isn't on the net comes to a tournament, they > >will expect the game to be played the way the rules say it is. How do > >you explain to such a person "well, I know the card says that, but we > >changed it because we didn't like it"? > > Er, how did the original rule get to be the way it _is_? I thought it > the general can't-use-intercept-unless-you-need-it rule was left out of the > printed rulebooks. Not the original Jyhad rule book, AFAIK. > If not, I would > say there might be argument there for sticking to a rule because it was > printed in the rulebooks. Ahh... it sounds like you might be coming around. :) > But it seems to me that so much has changed from > the original rulebooks anyway that I hardly think this is a real objection. > The only question is, is the problem bad enough to make one more change? I would be interested to find out (LSJ?) how much of the rules eratta has been really significant, i.e., things which really change cards/rules, as opposed to just clarifying them. The only things that come to mind are Rotschreck and (D)-omnidirectability. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <6mmm7f$vap$5...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, Eric Pettersen <pe...@cgl.ucsf.ed > u.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer> writes > >Since intercept cannot normally be played simultaneously with block > >declaration, allowing Second Tradition to "break the rules" here doesn't > >open the door to intercept dumping. > > But look at Concealed/Disguised Weapon. They allow you to equip a > weapon at a time when you wouldn't normally be able to. You can equip a > weapon during combat instead of during an equip action. HOWEVER, even > though it is "out of phase" (i.e. not at the time it should happen), you > still have to obey the laws of equipping - so a Femur of Toomler has to > be disguised in by a Tzimisce etc. With LSJ's new RTR, the point is moot. However, the idea was that since ST was playable at a time when intercept wasn't normally playable, it was analogous to Psychic Projection (rather than Enhanced Senses) and wasn't bound by the intercept-limiting rule any more than PP was. --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes: >Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> >If you mean why am I totally confused and that your answer is "yes", >> >then I am totally confused because the card might as well have that text >> >on it. It doesn't have that text because it doesn't _need_ that text. >> >> I'm don't agree. Given the way ST works out, it sure wouldn't hurt >> to counteract the confusion. > >The point is that even if that text were on the card, it would be in >parentheses (to "remind" you that this is how the card works). My point >is that if that text were on the card this debate wouldn't exist. Well, sure. Intuitiveness is not an issue on a card where the gory details are spelled out on the card. That doesn't touch on why people object to it, though. You'd have mitigated one part of the problem but not (I believe) the one that people consider important. >> >The rules already say that the card works that way. So why does >> >printing on a card what the rules already say make a difference in your >> >intuition? >> >> Because (as I've stated repeatedly) the rule itself is rather counter- >> intuitive, particularly when applied to cards like ST which grant other >> bonuses besides just intercept. > >You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it >means. :) We do seem to be at odds over its definition. I wouldn't say I'm the one who's usage of it is incorrect. Rather than harp about it, though, I'll try to make myself clear as I go. >The rule is perfectly clear: "you can't gain intercept unless you need >it". The procedure is clearly spelled out. The effect of the rule, however, is counterintuitive (IMO and by my definition, of course), at least when other bonuses that might permit a block that would otherwise not be possible. Hola - we've eliminated almost every card but Second Tradition. Oh, well... >Now, you may find it counterintuitive (whatever that means); It means the effect of this rule produces results one wouldn't tend to expect. In almost every other way (actually, as far as I can think of, _absolutely_ every other way - but then, I haven't considered the issue very rigorously), stealth is always a good thing for a Vampire to have. When this rule is applied to cards like Second Tradition, it isn't. That really doesn't make any sense. >why can't Felicia Mostrom see really, _really_ well even if there's no >stealth, and so on. But if you take no issue with the rule as it >stands, I don't see how you can take issue with how it applies to 2T. Who said I "take no issue with the rule as it stands"? In fact, this may be getting confused by the fact that I _personally_ don't care about the whole issue that much myself. I can play it perfectly well as it stands. I just don't quite understand why you take issue with people like Eric who really don't seem to like it - besides just writing the whole thing off as a difference in judgement. But it works perfectly well either way. Write the rule in a way that allows Second Tradition to be used at any time or keep it as it is. It doesn't really matter. >Now, if, as Peter has suggested, you want to change the _card_, that's a >whole different ball of wax. If something's got to change, I'd prefer to change the rule. Errata bad. >> # But you still don't >> # tend to expect cards to reward lack of stealth when stealth is otherwise >> # treated as completely good for all other purposes. > >So, you don't expect it. So what? So that's bad - or at least, it's a very arguable position that it's bad. Not treating a game mechanic like stealth in a consistent way could certainly be seen as a "bad thing" in game design. It depends on what you like. The above is probably the crux of the whole argument. If you don't accept it, then you're simple not going to understand the rest of my position. I'm not sure why you can't see why people might not like an inconsistent treatment of the concept of stealth in V:tES. >That doesn't mean the card needs to be changed. If you think it's bad, it would certainly be a reason. >Besides which, I think you're misusing the word "reward" here. "Reward" as in, it's better for an attacker *not* to have stealth than to have stealth. I think the meaning is quite clear and the usage very appropriate. >Just because the card works differently than other intercept >cards doesn't mean it's changing the game dynamic or the general >inherent value of stealth. Er, "changing the game dynamic" from what? I didn't say a thing about "changing the game dynamic". I just said the mechanism of stealth is being treated inconsistently from (near as I'm aware) every other game situation. >> To further elaborate, if your game is full of such tricks and traps - >> advantages that suddenly become disadvantages, trick cards that reverse >> the field and make the bad good and stuff like that - then people can plan >> to play the game with that in mind and it can be kind of funky. I don't >> really see V:tES being that sort of a game, though. Do you? > >OK, it's a _game_. If it doesn't have checks and balances, or "tricks >and traps", and whatnot, the game is much worse. In general, I agree that a game should have some sort of balance dynamics of its components so that it's a difficult problem to solve. It shouldn't be very clear whether stealth is worthwhile in general or everyone would either build all their decks for maximum stealth or for no stealth whatsoever. But a person may not like *this* particular type of trick, is my point. If they feel that the value of stealth is perfectly balanced in the game (by how hard it is to make your Vamps stealthy vs. how much reward you get from stealth) without slipping in weird situations where you actually don't _want_ to be stealthy, you wouldn't like the way the rules work now. >> I just don't think the proposal to change the rules and make it work >> differently should be villified, either. Debated, certainly. Disputed, >> perhaps. But not villified. > >The thing I don't understand is: why do you think the rules _should_ be >changed, but the card shouldn't? Errata bad. Rule changes good. That way - in theory - you can figure out how to play all cards from just reading a complete set of the rules. Not having to look up individual cards to see if they're on the "change list". I suppose either way works reasonably well, in the end. I just prefer less errata, myself. >> >> Perhaps people don't _want_ "a kooky card which >> >> works in (this particular) weird way." It's certainly a reasonable >> >> opinion. > >"I don't like the way this card works so let's change the rules to make >it work differently" > >is very different from > >"I don't like the way this card works, so let's discuss how to change it >to make it work better" Not really. Changing the rule has the benefits I spoke of above. Plus, if any other cards fall into this category, you probably won't like how they currently work for the same reason and you should catch them in the rules change. Errataing the card means you have to go out and errata any others that turn up like this. (I'm not sure if there really are any or not. Perhaps it isn't an issue.) >> >Because you want the card to work differently. I don't want the card to >> >work differently. Who wins? I think the best answer is "the rules >> >win". >> >> Er, you mean the _existing_ rules win. Essentially status quo rules uber >> alle? > >I'm not saying that I always agree with the rules. But why should you >decide which cards should be changed and which not? In light of the DCI >announcement, that seems to be up to LSJ, not you and not me. Sure, I agree with that. But this is a different question. First it's appropriate to discuss changing the rules at all. If the benefits of doing that are hotly disputed amongst players in the end, perhaps it is better just to keep things as they are. >> First of all, explain _why_ some significant number of people are against >> change. > >I will explain why I don't think Second Tradition should be changed: > >(1) The way Second Tradition works now is perfectly consistent with the >simple rule "you can't play intercept unless you need it". >(2) Second Tradition, as it is, adds an interesting element to the game. >(3) Second Tradition, as it is, is a perfectly fine card (i.e., it isn't >wallpaper), nor is it too powerful, so I don't see the need for it to be >changed. All right. That's certainly an arguable position. If that's all there is to it and you can't be convinced otherwise, then there's no point to going on. Might as well just agree to disagree. Just accept that others don't necessarily agree that these things are important enough when weighed against the stealth/consistency problem. >> I agree. So this can be done two ways: either folks stop complaining about >> the existing rule and just lump it or the rule changes and everybody starts >> doing it the other way. Either one works. > >Except that, AFAIK, the only reason I've seen as to why the rule should >be changed is "so that Second Tradition will work differently". Why >should Second Tradition work differently? See, this the problem I have with your position. You keep questioning it but when it's explained to you, you simply deny the merits of people wanting to make stealth a good (or at worst neutral) thing _always_ rather than have it be a good (or at worst neutral) thing almost all the time except when this one situation comes up and then it's suddenly a bad thing. Some people don't like stuff like that. It's not to their taste. And their opinion is as reasonable and arguable as yours. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: "I do not believe that's true. Of course, I may not have read the whole thread closely enough. But what I have read seem to argue for a change in the rules themselves which would have the effect of fixing this problem with this card - and possibly others." There are no others, unless you mean to fix the rules in such a way that allow for cards being interperited in whatever way the players feel fit, based on "what makes sense". I agree that 2nd Tradition is kind of weird. This does not mean that it needs to be changed, nor that the rules need to be changed to make it work in a way that "makes sense". "Er, who's talking about "changing the rules in an inconsistent way"? We're just talking about "changing the rules", period. I'm not sure what you're afraid would become inconsistent." How are you going to change the rules in such a way that would allow for using 2nd Tradition without needing the intercept that would not also allow for: -Using Spirits Touch just for the Manuver without needing the intercept. -Using Faceless Night to tap a blocking minion, without needing the stealth. -Using Bonding for +1 stealth on a non bleeding action. "I agree. So _that_ particular rule change probably wouldn't be a good one. But your imagination is very limited if you that's the only way a rule change could be phrased to make 2nd Tradition more intuitive. Why not, "You cannot play a card that ONLY increases your intercept, unless you need it." This opens up the Spirtis Touch/Precognition abuse. Please find another way. "Just by adding the word "only", I've proposed a self-consistent, easy- to-understand modification to the rules which solves the problem folks are discussing in this thread." It is in no way more self consisitent or easy to understand than the current rules on the subject. The only effect is changing how certain cards work, and not necessarily in a better way, but just as arbitrary. "I don't see one right off). And if you don't like that one, there's probably a zillion other ways you could change the rules that would bypass your objections." My objection is that currently, 2nd Tradition works just fine, fits within the confines of the rules, and there is no ambiguity involved. I see no need to adjust the rules so that a single card would "make more sense", when it would doubtlessly casue a great deal of damage to the structure of the game as a whole. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I am the world's forgotten boy the one who searches and destroys." -Iggy Pop

Chris Berger wrote: "No, you're wrong. I have spent the bulk of my time trying to figure out any point in the rules that would allow 2nd Tradition to work in the "official" way. And the truth is, it just isn't there. There isn't anything that specifically says it works my way, but the rules seem to imply that it does. Therefore, since the rules do not say it works the official way, I have been trying to find exactly what the rules *do* say. I have not been partial in any way. In fact, I resent your implications." What implications do you resent? The rules say that you may not play a card that increases your intercept at a given moment unless you need it. 2nd Tradition says gain 2 intercept. Thus, 2nd Tradition is a card you play to gain intercept, so you may not play it unless you need the intercept. I fail to see where the rules are ambiguous here. The rules do, in fact, say that it works in the official way. "I'm in favour of changing the rules in order to be clear on this card and others. I'd like 2nd Tradition to be playable regardless of stealth, but any change in the rules which holds a clear position on 2nd Tradition would be considered by me to be a victory." There is nothing that needs to be cleared up. You cannot play 2nd Tradition when you don't need the intercept becasue you cannot play cards that increase your intercept when you don't need them. Very clear. Yes, this means that 2nd Tradition is kind of wonky, and it means that when facing 2nd Tradition, it is worse to have +1 stealth than zero stealth, but that has nothing to do with how 2nd Tradition interacts with the rules. it just means that 2nd Tradition is kind of wonky. "The thing is, 2nd Tradition doesn't really suck. It's still a fairly useful card. My point isn't and never was that we should make it better. Making it better was a side effect of my attempting to get the card to abide by the rules (or getting the rules to uphold the card). " The rules clearly uphold and the card clearly abides by the rules. 2nd Tradition increases your intercept at a particular time. You may then not play it when you don't need the intercept. Pretty simple. [ quoted text not captured ]

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) pd...@aol.com (PDB6) writes: >Frederick Scott wrote: >"I do not believe that's true. Of course, I may not have read the whole thread >closely enough. But what I have read seem to argue for a change in the rules >themselves which would have the effect of fixing this problem with this card - >and possibly others." > >There are no others, unless you mean to fix the rules in such a way that allow >for cards being interperited in whatever way the players feel fit, based on >"what makes sense". I agree that 2nd Tradition is kind of weird. This does >not mean that it needs to be changed, nor that the rules need to be changed to >make it work in a way that "makes sense". That depends on one's opinion. A person could certainly argue that it does. It depends on what the weirdness is and whether you like that particular weirdness or not. >"Er, who's talking about "changing the rules in an inconsistent way"? We're >just talking about "changing the rules", period. I'm not sure what you're >afraid would become inconsistent." > >How are you going to change the rules in such a way that would allow for using >2nd Tradition without needing the intercept that would not also allow for: > >-Using Spirits Touch just for the Manuver without needing the intercept. > >-Using Faceless Night to tap a blocking minion, without needing the stealth. > >-Using Bonding for +1 stealth on a non bleeding action. Well, some might not see these things as abuse, for one thing. But even if you do, you can phrase the rule to make it only work for Second Tradition. >"I agree. So _that_ particular rule change probably wouldn't be a good one. >But your imagination is very limited if you that's the only way a rule change >could be phrased to make 2nd Tradition more intuitive. Why not, "You cannot >play a card that ONLY increases your intercept, unless you need it." > >This opens up the Spirtis Touch/Precognition abuse. Please find another way. > >"Just by adding the word "only", I've proposed a self-consistent, easy- >to-understand modification to the rules which solves the problem folks are >discussing in this thread." > >It is in no way more self consisitent or easy to understand than the current >rules on the subject. That is clearly just your judgement. It should not be a flat statement but one that starts out, "IMHO". I personally don't care if you feel that way. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. Just accept that others don't and agree to disagree about it - unless you want to actually argue the merits of the issue. (But arguing the merits of the issue doesn't involve making a flat, arbitrary statement that the other guy is just plain wrong...) Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > ["counterintuitive"] > >You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it > >means. :) > > We do seem to be at odds over its definition. I wouldn't say I'm the one > who's usage of it is incorrect. Rather than harp about it, though, I'll > try to make myself clear as I go. Plus, this was a joke. Note the ":)". > >Now, you may find it counterintuitive (whatever that means); > > It means the effect of this rule produces results one wouldn't tend to expect. I would call that "unexpected". I'm not sure _what_ my intuition is about how cards work and whatnot, so I'm not equipped to say what I find counterintuitive or not. I guess that's why I get upset when the word appears in every one of your posts. > In almost every other way (actually, as far as I can think of, _absolutely_ > every other way - but then, I haven't considered the issue very rigorously), > stealth is always a good thing for a Vampire to have. When this rule is > applied to cards like Second Tradition, it isn't. That really doesn't make > any sense. Makes sense to me. 2nd Tradition is just a (to coin a word Peter used) "wonky" card. You seem to be blowing its effect on the game way out of proportion. To take your arguments to a wildly inappropriate extreme, Jyhad is a perfectly fine game, and then (gasp!) Second Tradition comes along, and the universe is rocked to its foundations! The laws of physics are revoked! Night is day! Right is wrong! Left is right! Stealth is bad! Aaaaah! Note: the preceding paragraph does reflect my feeling on this subject, while at the same time is meant to inject some humor into this debate. Please do not take offense, but try to understand the point I'm trying to make. > >But if you take no issue with the rule as it > >stands, I don't see how you can take issue with how it applies to 2T. > > Who said I "take no issue with the rule as it stands"? Maybe it's just the fact that I'm a mathematician that is confusing you here. I said "if" (again). > I can play it perfectly well as it stands. Oh, I don't really care either. I don't think I've ever put the card in a deck. But I do feel strongly about the issue of when to change cards, issue eratta, etc. in general. > I just don't quite understand why you take issue with people like Eric who > really don't seem to like it - besides just writing the whole thing off as > a difference in judgement. I don't care if you like it or not. I just wonder when "I don't like this card" becomes "let's change this card". Alarmingly, you seem to think that this should always happen, whereas I think it should rarely do so. > >Now, if, as Peter has suggested, you want to change the _card_, that's a > >whole different ball of wax. > > If something's got to change, I'd prefer to change the rule. Errata bad. Except that it's easier to say "oops, we screwed this card up, here's what it should have said" or "on second thought, that card really should work _this_ way" than to try to finagle (sp?) the rules into having an effect on a single card without making the whole house of cards fall down. > Not treating a game mechanic like stealth in a consistent way could certainly > be seen as a "bad thing" in game design. It depends on what you like. OK, maybe I'm committing the ultimate Jyhad faux pas here, but let's look at other games. In Magic, Fireballing your opponent is generally a good thing, but playing some Damage Reflect-o card (I'm sure there's something like that) to send the damage back is certainly unexpected. In Shadowfist, playing a big Character is usually a good thing, except when someone steals it with the Steal-a-Character card or clones it with the Clone-a-Character card. Peter, any Xena corollaries? :) That doesn't mean that doing these things is necessarily bad in these games, just that the game is more interesting because not everything is so cut-and-dry. > The above is probably the crux of the whole argument. If you don't accept > it, then you're simple not going to understand the rest of my position. > I'm not sure why you can't see why people might not like an inconsistent > treatment of the concept of stealth in V:tES. I'm not sure why someone would want to play a game where everything was perfectly consistent and there were no suprises or unexpected happenings. You might as well go play Parcheesi. > >Just because the card works differently than other intercept > >cards doesn't mean it's changing the game dynamic or the general > >inherent value of stealth. > > Er, "changing the game dynamic" from what? I didn't say a thing about > "changing the game dynamic". I just said the mechanism of stealth is being > treated inconsistently from (near as I'm aware) every other game situation. Yes, and if 2T didn't exist or worked differently, stealth would be treated in a different (albeit slightly) way than it is now. And certainly revoking the rule about adding intercept/stealth would change the game dynamic (i.e., the fundamental ways in which the game works). > >OK, it's a _game_. If it doesn't have checks and balances, or "tricks > >and traps", and whatnot, the game is much worse. > > In general, I agree that a game should have some sort of balance dynamics of > its components so that it's a difficult problem to solve. Um, I'm talking about the game being _fun_, not a problem to solve. IMHO, the easier a game is to win, the less fun it is. See also Parcheesi. > Errataing the card means you have to go out and errata any others > that turn up like this. (I'm not sure if there really are any or not. > Perhaps it isn't an issue.) If there were, then a rule change would be in order. For example, the ruling allowing omni-directability could not have been issue on a card-by-card basis. But changing one unique card should not require changing existing rules. > >I will explain why I don't think Second Tradition should be changed: > > > >(1) The way Second Tradition works now is perfectly consistent with the > >simple rule "you can't play intercept unless you need it". > >(2) Second Tradition, as it is, adds an interesting element to the game. > >(3) Second Tradition, as it is, is a perfectly fine card (i.e., it isn't > >wallpaper), nor is it too powerful, so I don't see the need for it to be > >changed. > > All right. That's certainly an arguable position. If that's all there is > to it and you can't be convinced otherwise, Do you disagree with any of these points? [ quoted text not captured ]

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes: >Frederick Scott wrote: >> >["counterintuitive"] >> >You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it >> >means. :) >> >> We do seem to be at odds over its definition. I wouldn't say I'm the one >> who's usage of it is incorrect. Rather than harp about it, though, I'll >> try to make myself clear as I go. > >Plus, this was a joke. Note the ":)". I know you meant it as a joke. I didn't. >> >Now, you may find it counterintuitive (whatever that means); >> >> It means the effect of this rule produces results one wouldn't tend to >> expect. > >I would call that "unexpected". Sure. The point is I am trying to explain why I use the word "counter- intutivte". Since it's a tautology to try to define "counterintuitive" as something "not intuitive", I have to use _another_ word, don't I? "Expected" was the choice. It really seems like you're working hard to simply dispute everything I say without giving it due consideration rather to raise a legitimate issue. >I'm not sure _what_ my intuition is about how cards work and whatnot, so >I'm not equipped to say what I find counterintuitive or not. I guess >that's why I get upset when the word appears in every one of your posts. OK, well I suppose if that's how you think about things in a game, that's fine. I'm not telling you what you think should be intuitive or not. I'm telling you that _others_ might tend to find this counterintutive. It's not that hard to imagine if you really try. >> In almost every other way (actually, as far as I can think of, _absolutely_ >> every other way - but then, I haven't considered the issue very rigorously), >> stealth is always a good thing for a Vampire to have. When this rule is >> applied to cards like Second Tradition, it isn't. That really doesn't make >> any sense. > >Makes sense to me. All right. I'm just going to give the same answer here as above so there's no point in going into it. I do suspect you're being feigning a deliberate denseness in order to resist my point. That someone would see it as I've described abover _really_ shouldn't seem very surprising even if you don't. But if this is truly an eye-opener into how others might think, fine. The point isn't that seeing one way or other is correct. The point is that either is understandable. (If you want to understand, that is...) >> I just don't quite understand why you take issue with people like Eric who >> really don't seem to like it - besides just writing the whole thing off as >> a difference in judgement. > >I don't care if you like it or not. I just wonder when "I don't like >this card" becomes "let's change this card". Why _shouldn't_ "I don't like this card" become "let's change this card"? I suppose there's some different issues involved in intellectually not caring for the way a card is ruled (or works under the general rule) and actually calling for a change. But the one sure sounds like justification for the other to me. If everyone (or, for instance, a vast majority of the players) don't like a rule works or a card works, why on earth _wouldn't_ you change it? Mascochism? I'm sure there are some reasons (as you say, possibly because of all those printed rulebooks) but let's actually _argue_ about them and not just assume that their existance puts an automatic and indistputable end to any talk of changing the rules (or issuing errata). >Alarmingly, you seem to think that this should always happen, whereas I >think it should rarely do so. Not "always". Who said anything about being automatic. Quite the reverse, the way you've phrased your objection sounds like you think this should _never_ happen, regardless of the merits of the issue. Maybe it should and maybe it shouldn't. If you agree it's a debatable thing, then we've just miscommunicated. > >> >Now, if, as Peter has suggested, you want to change the _card_, that's a >> >whole different ball of wax. >> >> If something's got to change, I'd prefer to change the rule. Errata bad. > >Except that it's easier to say "oops, we screwed this card up, here's >what it should have said" or "on second thought, that card really should >work _this_ way" than to try to finagle (sp?) the rules into having an >effect on a single card without making the whole house of cards fall >down. Perhaps. My instinct is to change a rule but I agree that sometimes just doing errata would be simpler and better. May well be true in this case, as well. >> Not treating a game mechanic like stealth in a consistent way could certainly >> be seen as a "bad thing" in game design. It depends on what you like. > >OK, maybe I'm committing the ultimate Jyhad faux pas here, but let's >look at other games. In Magic, Fireballing your opponent is generally a >good thing, but playing some Damage Reflect-o card (I'm sure there's >something like that) to send the damage back is certainly unexpected. (I'll just comment on the Magic thing because it's what I know. I don't think we need another example anyway.) I agree. It's a good counterexample, too. Of course, in Magic these things happen to applied packets of damage all the time so it's really a well-known dynamic in the game. In Jyhad, making the largeness of a character's attribute get turned against him is a lot more unusual so it's certainly understandable if some players wanted to say, "Let's get rid of all cases of this happening and make things completely consistent in this respect." The point, again, isn't that is a "correct" view as much as it's a matter of taste. And if lots and lots and LOTS of people, constituting a vast majority, turn out to agree then it makes a good reason to change the rules...or issue errata. >> The above is probably the crux of the whole argument. If you don't accept >> it, then you're simple not going to understand the rest of my position. >> I'm not sure why you can't see why people might not like an inconsistent >> treatment of the concept of stealth in V:tES. > >I'm not sure why someone would want to play a game where everything was >perfectly consistent and there were no suprises or unexpected >happenings. You might as well go play Parcheesi. Some people like Parcheesi. Which is one point. Another one is that no one said EVERYTHING had to be consistent. Just consistency in THIS THING seems to appeal to some people. >> >OK, it's a _game_. If it doesn't have checks and balances, or "tricks >> >and traps", and whatnot, the game is much worse. >> >> In general, I agree that a game should have some sort of balance dynamics of >> its components so that it's a difficult problem to solve. > >Um, I'm talking about the game being _fun_, not a problem to solve. >IMHO, the easier a game is to win, the less fun it is. That's precisely what I said. Don't get caught up in the semantics. A game, fun or otherwise, is a problem to solve. You "solve it" by choosing your strategy and tactics, in this case you build your deck and decide by what means (S&B, bash, vote, etc.) you're going to try to win the game or at least, garner as many victory points as possible. (I have a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, myself, BTW.) >> >I will explain why I don't think Second Tradition should be changed: >> > >> >(1) The way Second Tradition works now is perfectly consistent with the >> >simple rule "you can't play intercept unless you need it". >> >(2) Second Tradition, as it is, adds an interesting element to the game. >> >(3) Second Tradition, as it is, is a perfectly fine card (i.e., it isn't >> >wallpaper), nor is it too powerful, so I don't see the need for it to be >> >changed. >> >> All right. That's certainly an arguable position. If that's all there is >> to it and you can't be convinced otherwise, > >Do you disagree with any of these points? Personally, I don't disagree with any of them. I'm just not sure they're the only points that need to be considered. For instance, ST may add an interesting element to the game as currently played but might it add an even more interesting element to the game as modified? Perhaps so. I'm not sure the part about it being useless for untap purposes when an attacker without sufficient stealth comes along really adds anything worthwhile to the game. Fred

> "No, you're wrong. I have spent the bulk of my time trying to figure out any > point in the rules that would allow 2nd Tradition to work in the "official" > way. And the truth is, it just isn't there. There isn't > anything that specifically says it works my way, but the rules seem to imply > that it does. Therefore, since the rules do not say it works the official way, > I have been trying to find exactly what the rules *do* say. I have not been > partial in any way. In fact, I resent your > implications." > > What implications do you resent? The rules say that you may not play a card > that increases your intercept at a given moment unless you need it. 2nd > Tradition says gain 2 intercept. Thus, 2nd Tradition is a card you play to > gain intercept, so you may not play it unless you need the intercept. I fail > to see where the rules are ambiguous here. The rules do, in fact, say that it > works in the official way. > Okay, the argument is moot now. However, you've been ignoring everything I've been saying. The rules say you may not gain intercept if you don't need it. 2nd Tradition is played at a time when it is not possible to gain intercept. It's as simple as that. And I have stated this many times. So the rules did not say that it worked in the way that used to be official. -Chris

> > > ["counterintuitive"] > > >You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it > > >means. :) > > > > We do seem to be at odds over its definition. I wouldn't say I'm the one > > who's usage of it is incorrect. Rather than harp about it, though, I'll > > try to make myself clear as I go. > > Plus, this was a joke. Note the ":)". > Yeah... Princess Bride. 8) Stupid Bald Guy: Inconceivable! Andre the Giant: You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Yay! -Chris "No more rhymes now, I mean it." "Would anybody like a peanut?"

Frederick Scott wrote: > ...Maybe it's the fact that it's 1 AM, and this will come over much more angrily than I mean it to be, but I really don't know what other tack to take. If the response to this is more of the same, I will not continue to participate. Maybe this thread (or at least the exchanges between you and me) needs to stop now. I don't know what you want me to say or how you want me to say it. Every time I dispute one of your points you seem amazed at how someone could be so stupid as to not see what you're saying. Then you accuse me of being purposefully difficult. I can't win, but I feel that if I just stop participating, you'll feel like your views are widely held and accepted (even by me!). > It really seems like you're working hard to simply dispute everything I > say without giving it due consideration rather to raise a legitimate issue. You keep making the same point over and over again, so I'll rephrase it here, and you can tell me it I understand what you're saying: "In general, stealth makes actions harder to block. But, in a particular set of circumstances involving Second Tradition, an action with less stealth is harder to block than one with more stealth." And this, according to you, is grounds to change the card or the rules or whatever. Am I right? My question to you, which you have not answered to my satisfaction, is _why_ is this grounds to change a rule/card? > I'm telling you that _others_ might tend to find this counterintutive. > It's not that hard to imagine if you really try. I can imagine lots of things. Clearly _you_ find this "counterintuitive", so I can imagine _someone_ feeling this way. I'll be darned if I understand why, though. > >> In almost every other way > >> stealth is always a good thing for a Vampire to have. When this rule is > >> applied to cards like Second Tradition, it isn't. That really doesn't make > >> any sense. > > > >Makes sense to me. > > All right. What do you think? That I'm _lying_ here? It _does_ make sense to me! Ya wanna know why? Because that's what the card _says_. When a card does something wacky, I say "boy, that's wacky". When you see a card do something wacky, you say "let's change the rules so that card isn't so wacky". > I'm just going to give the same answer here as above so there's > no point in going into it. I do suspect you're being feigning a deliberate > denseness in order to resist my point. I do suspect this is unbridled arrogance on your part, that you think your point is so crystal clear that only a complete imbecile would disagree. What about Peter Bakija, who has also disputed your arguments? Are we both on a crusade to frustrate and anger you? > >I don't care if you like it or not. I just wonder when "I don't like > >this card" becomes "let's change this card". > > Why _shouldn't_ "I don't like this card" become "let's change this card"? Because it depends on how strongly you dislike the card, the reasons you don't like the card, and so on. I personally can't stand Skin of Steel. Vile, nasty card. No other card allows you to prevent all damage from all strikes in a round. That goes against my intuition of what Fortitude should be able to do. Let's change the rules so that I don't have to play with/against cards I don't like. You may find the previous paragraph absurd or even insulting, but this is basically the same argument you're giving me. > If everyone (or, for instance, a vast majority of the > players) don't like a rule works or a card works, why on earth _wouldn't_ > you change it? I highly doubt such a rule or such a card exists, i.e., one which is universally despised; the game is too well designed. > Mascochism? I'm sure there are some reasons (as you say, > possibly because of all those printed rulebooks) but let's actually _argue_ > about them and not just assume that their existance puts an automatic and > indistputable end to any talk of changing the rules (or issuing errata). I have never been one to dismiss out of hand arguments to change cards. I was an active participant in a "change Thoughts Betrayed" campaign long ago. But what I am still unconvinced by are your arguments for changing _this_ card. You keep giving me nebulous arguments about counterintuitiveness, but you still haven't given a concrete reason. > >Alarmingly, you seem to think that this should always happen, whereas I > >think it should rarely do so. > > Not "always". Who said anything about being automatic. Very recently, you seemed to, in this post: ]] Why _shouldn't_ "I don't like this card" become "let's change this card"? > Quite the reverse, > the way you've phrased your objection sounds like you think this should > _never_ happen, regardless of the merits of the issue. Since when does "rarely" mean "never"? If you had 2T arguments with _any_ merit, I'd entertain them. > In Jyhad, > making the largeness of a character's attribute get turned against him Oh, come _on_ now. This is exaggerating the situation a great deal. > is > a lot more unusual so it's certainly understandable if some players wanted to > say, "Let's get rid of all cases of this happening and make things completely > consistent in this respect." The point, again, isn't that is a "correct" > view as much as it's a matter of taste. ...a very strange taste, the like of which I have never encountered before, in any game. > >Um, I'm talking about the game being _fun_, not a problem to solve. > >IMHO, the easier a game is to win, the less fun it is. > > That's precisely what I said. Don't get caught up in the semantics. A > game, fun or otherwise, is a problem to solve. You "solve it" by choosing > your strategy and tactics, in this case you build your deck and decide by > what means (S&B, bash, vote, etc.) you're going to try to win the game or > at least, garner as many victory points as possible. And anything that throws a little monkey wrench in your plans (like Second Tradition) must be excised like a malignant tumor? I'm beginning to see what planet you're coming from. [snip] > Perhaps so. I'm > not sure the part about it being useless for untap purposes when an attacker > without sufficient stealth comes along really adds anything worthwhile to > the game. You seem to be militantly supporting the proposition that it detracts greatly from the game. Which is it? [ quoted text not captured ]

PDB6 wrote: > > How are you going to change the rules in such a way that would allow for using > 2nd Tradition without needing the intercept that would not also allow for: > > -Using Spirits Touch just for the Manuver without needing the intercept. > > -Using Faceless Night to tap a blocking minion, without needing the stealth. > > -Using Bonding for +1 stealth on a non bleeding action. Well, one sentence in a rulesbook would be enough: "Trying to block with inherent intercept (as indicated by card text 'Block _with_ +x intercept'), be it due to equipment, retainer, reaction or other, is as valid as attempting an action with inherent stealth." L~R

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: > You keep making the same point over and over again, so I'll rephrase it > here, and you can tell me it I understand what you're saying: > > "In general, stealth makes actions harder to block. But, in a > particular set of circumstances involving Second Tradition, an action > with less stealth is harder to block than one with more stealth." > > And this, according to you, is grounds to change the card or the rules > or whatever. Am I right? > > My question to you, which you have not answered to my satisfaction, is > _why_ is this grounds to change a rule/card? To make the card work as it was intended? ST is an original Jyhad card. The "need intercept" rule is errata to the VTES rulebook. This (newer) rule has the effect of making a pre-existing card work differently than its seeming design intent. Perhaps modifying the new rule to allow ST to work as it was designed is not sufficient grounds for you -- but that is an arguable matter. You may argue that it was not the design intent for ST to be able to block stealthless actions. I would think that if that had been the case then there would at least have been parenthesized reminder text on the card saying so. I find it hard to imagine someone designing a card where the _more_ inherent intercept a minion has, the harder it would be for a minion to block with the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

To Frederick Scott and the rest: I'm not going to try to keep responding point-by-point to every message on this (now reasonably defunct) subject. I guess what it all boils down to is that I try to be very conservative when it comes to the issue of changing cards or rules. Unless there are strong, compelling, and widely accepted reasons to change the card, I think we're better off leaving it alone. Why? Let's take a ficticious card "X". Let's say X is rare, and I've never owned one. When someone else plays it in a game I'm playing in, how will I figure out how the card works? I will read it. And through my thorough knowledge of the game rules (if necessary), I will figure out what the card does. I will not automatically scan the eratta lists and clarifications sheets unless I am totally confused about what the card does, which would rarely happen. I think this is the procedure most would follow on encountering a new or obscure card. The more rules changes and card eratta there is, the less likely this is to work, and hence the more complex the game becomes. [Note: often complexity is good in a game, but this is the bad kind of complexity. Kind of like the combat dice rolling in Age of Rennaisance, for example] Sometimes card eratta is necessary. In the case where the card text contradicts common sense (it's a reaction card that says "+1 stealth", for example), contradicts the rules in a way that is perceived to be bad for the game, or the card is otherwise unusable as is. When there is nothing inherently wrong with the card (ex.: Second Tradition, Immortal Grapple [RRRRR...], and so on), why complicate matters by changing the cards? Granted, if playtesting and/or design had gone more smoothly, this wouldn't be as much of an issue, but alas, here we are. To me, personal distaste with a card or its effects is not sufficient grounds to go throwing a monkey wrench into the works. Here's another example: Thoughts Betrayed. Lots of people really don't like this card. But if you go back (via DejaNews, I guess) to the discussions on this card right after its release, the most cogent arguments to change the card were not "I hate this card, let's change it". They were "here's how the card breaks the game" or "here's how the card is counter to everything that is Jyhad" or simply "here's how the card is too powerful". Second Tradition does not do any of these things. Re: "counterintuitive" vs. "unexpected". I wasn't trying to be snippy. I simply tried to comment that "unexpected" is hardly ever a bad thing, while "counterintuitive" might be, if we could figure out what you mean when you use that word. And please, don't hash through this again. I support card changes if I feel they are beneficial to the game as a whole, but I am reluctant to if the only effect they would have is to change some people's perceptions of the game. And finally, I will never begrudge anyone the right to discuss anything. Heck, I've still got a bone or two to pick with LSJ over that supremely wack Immortal Grapple ruling. Actually, I've got a whole graveyard of bones to pick. I am not arguing against arguing. And if I attempt to reason logically, chalk that up to my being a Math PhD student. It's just the way I am. See, I can be civil, too! :) [ quoted text not captured ]

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes: >Frederick Scott wrote: >> > >...Maybe it's the fact that it's 1 AM, and this will come over much more >angrily than I mean it to be, but I really don't know what other tack to >take. If the response to this is more of the same, I will not continue >to participate. All right. Let's quit. Some of your points of merit. Some, I don't think have so much merit. But we're only just annoying each other, which was not my intent when I first posted. Fred

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes: (A response to a post I canceled). Sorry, apparently the post got out too far before I canceled it. I didn't mean to sound like I was burying the hatchet only _after_ I had the last word. I first wrote the intial point-by-point response, then canceled it, and wrote the more recent one. Fred

> > Sometimes card eratta is necessary. In the case where the card text > contradicts common sense (it's a reaction card that says "+1 stealth", > for example), contradicts the rules in a way that is perceived to be bad > for the game, or the card is otherwise unusable as is. When there is > nothing inherently wrong with the card (ex.: Second Tradition, Immortal > Grapple [RRRRR...], and so on), why complicate matters by changing the > cards? Granted, if playtesting and/or design had gone more smoothly, > this wouldn't be as much of an issue, but alas, here we are. > 2nd Tradition and Immortal Grapple are very bad examples for what you want to prove. 2nd Tradition is unplayable as is. Immortal Grapple was simply errated to match the original wording. Since Jyhad IG's are far more common than the erroneous V:TES and Sabbat ones, it hurts less to change the rule back than to have to explain the wording of the Jyhad version. > > And finally, I will never begrudge anyone the right to discuss anything. > Heck, I've still got a bone or two to pick with LSJ over that supremely > wack Immortal Grapple ruling. Actually, I've got a whole graveyard of > bones to pick. I am not arguing against arguing. And if I attempt to > reason logically, chalk that up to my being a Math PhD student. It's > just the way I am. > Are you saying that I *don't* reason logically? I still think that my arguments about 2nd Tradition had nothing to do with what I wanted the card to do and everything to do with the way the rules applied to the card. I just hate when out-of-game (or "common sense") mechanics are required to figure out how a card works. i.e. "Well, if I play this card, and then I untap and attempt to block, I can block without using any intercept. Therefore I must not need intercept, so I can't play the card that untaps me." OR "Beast could get Charnas the Imp through 'normal' means, so Heidelburg Castle can move Charnas to him. Since he can't get Raven Spies through 'normal' means, you can't move Ravens to him." (Note: both of these are cleared up by new rulings.) IMO, either of these makes as much sense as me saying: "I'm playing Chimerstry, so it's possible that I will play that card that reduces your stealth to 0. Therefore, even though you currently have +1 stealth, your predator may not play Enhanced Senses until I show you my hand to prove that I don't have any Chimerstry cards, because you wouldn't need intercept." Stuff that isn't applicable *now,* it shouldn't be applicable at all. > See, I can be civil, too! :) > 8) Not me. -Chris