Final Nights welcome

Final Nights will officially be released tomorrow (making the set legal for use in V:EKN constructed events on July 11). Some of you have gotten to see some of the set at this weekend's pre-release events around the world. What follows are a few notes to bring everyone up to speed with what's been changed. Changes to the rulebook: A few sections have been slightly clarified: [1.1], [6.2.2], and [6.4.6]. You cannot contest cards with yourself [4.1]. If, via the ending of some temporary-control effect or via some other effect, you end up contestinging with yourself, simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card. If you were previously contesting the card, you continue contesting until your untap phase. If you had uncontested control of the card, then you retain uncontested control of the card [DTR]. Note: your vampires can still contest titles with each other. Assamites cannot commit diablerie by the rules [6.5.5] and have reminder text "(Blood Cursed)" on them instead of the "cannot commit diablerie" text. This rule also affects those Assamites created in play who lack the "(Blood Cursed)" reminder text (such as a vampire created by an Assamite via The Embrace action). Explicit card text is needed to allow an Assamite to overcome this restriction. Acquired Ventrue Assets costs no pool and is only activated on your own master phase. Heidelburg Castle's name is corrected to "Heidelberg Castle". Both spellings represent the same unique location. Thetmes's title of Calif is corrected to "Caliph". Both spellings of the card name represent the same unique vampire. Alamut can give only vampires (not allies) votes. Banishment cannot choose a vampire the same age or older than the acting vampire. Blood Tears can prevent damage only in combat (the gain blood effect can still be used at any time). Fata Morgana can be used for just +1 bleed at superior (if the stealth is not needed, for instance). Kali's Fang does strength+1 damage instead of a flat 2 damage (and the damage is still aggravated). Powerbase: Rome costs no pool. Purity of the Beast: costs no blood and doesn't reduce the acting vampire's capacity. Ravnos Cache costs no pool. Ruins of the Villars Abbey costs no blood Summon the Serpent puts a blood from the blood bank on the retrieved vampire. Typos and Corrections for Final Nights: Catacombs: should cost 1 blood; but was mis-printed as costing two blood (errata). Deny: the inferior should be "+1 stealth" not "+1 stealth action." Free States Rant: the word "vampire" on the third line should be plural. Mark of Damnation: uses the art from Mark of the Damned. Mirror Image: the inferior should be "+1 stealth" not "+1 stealth action." Powerbase: Rome: "form" should be "from" in the first sentence. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Does these changes also take place on July 11th, or instantly? (As I host a tournament on June 16th) /Henke LSJ skrev i meddelandet <3B239A21...@white-wolf.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

Henke wrote: > > Does these changes also take place on July 11th, or instantly? (As I host a > tournament on June 16th) > > /Henke > > LSJ skrev i meddelandet <3B239A21...@white-wolf.com>... > >Final Nights will officially be released tomorrow (making the set legal for > use in > >V:EKN constructed events on July 11). Some of you have gotten to see some > of the set > >at this weekend's pre-release events around the world. On July 11th. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > You cannot contest cards with yourself [4.1]. If, via the ending of some > temporary-control effect or via some other effect, you end up contestinging > with yourself, simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card. If you were > previously contesting the card, you continue contesting until your untap phase. > If you had uncontested control of the card, then you retain uncontested > control of the card [DTR]. Note: your vampires can still contest titles with > each other. Does this mean that I cannot play a card from my hand if it will contest a copy of that card I control? And if so, can I also not influence out a vampire if it would contest another I control? Finally, if these impressions are false, do I choose which copy of the duplicate cards I keep, or do I have to burn the most recent? - Jason Bell

Jason Bell wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > > You cannot contest cards with yourself [4.1]. If, via the ending of some > > temporary-control effect or via some other effect, you end up > contestinging > > with yourself, simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card. If you > were > > previously contesting the card, you continue contesting until your untap > phase. > > If you had uncontested control of the card, then you retain uncontested > > control of the card [DTR]. Note: your vampires can still contest titles > with > > each other. > > Does this mean that I cannot play a card from my hand if it will > contest a copy of that card I control? And if so, can I also not Playing a unique card from your hand that you already control would mean contesting it with yourself. Contesting with yourself, as stated above, is not allowed. Therefore, you cannot play the card from your hand. > influence out a vampire if it would contest another I control? A vampire in your uncontrolled region with sufficient blood counters on it moves to the ready region automatically at the end of your influence phase [7]. If it would contest a vampire you already control, then it (and the blood on it) are burned immediately (and the copy you already controlled remains in your control). > Finally, if these impressions are false, do I choose which copy > of the duplicate cards I keep, or do I have to burn the most > recent? The section you quote answers that question directly and unabiguously. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3B239A21...@white-wolf.com... > Thetmes's title of Calif is corrected to "Caliph". Both spellings of the card name represent the same unique vampire. The most pointless "correction" ever. Any cards with the word "grey" or "sulphur" in them due to be changed? > Typos and Corrections for Final Nights: Okay, I know you're just the messenger, but I'll shoot anyway. How are all us casual players going to decide if the shiny new reprinted card we've just picked up is a correction to the existing card or a typo? You can't tell when it's only the blood/pool symbol which is different. There're twenty odd cards you've just listed, and I can imagine the arguments round the table now as six players remember six different lists. Please don't do it again. Thanks. Hugh

Hugh Williams wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3B239A21...@white-wolf.com... > > Thetmes's title of Calif is corrected to "Caliph". Both spellings of the > card name represent the same unique vampire. > > The most pointless "correction" ever. Any cards with the word "grey" or > "sulphur" in them due to be changed? Then don't think of it as a correction. It was merely listed to stave off the "so they don't contest, huh?" questions like the ones we got when spellings were (in that case indavertently) changed from the limited based set (Jyhad) to the unlimited set (V:TES). You'll forgive me from learning from the past. > > Typos and Corrections for Final Nights: > > Okay, I know you're just the messenger, but I'll shoot anyway. How are all > us casual players going to decide if the shiny new reprinted card we've just > picked up is a correction to the existing card or a typo? You can't > tell when it's only the blood/pool symbol which is different. There're > twenty odd cards you've just listed, and I can imagine the arguments round > the table now as six players remember six different lists. Please don't do > it again. Thanks. New cards always take precedence. Only 1 has functional errata to make it otherwise (Catacombs). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9g1355$h0k$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Hugh Williams <hu...@grugach.freeserve.co.uk> writes >Okay, I know you're just the messenger, but I'll shoot anyway. How are all >us casual players going to decide if the shiny new reprinted card we've just >picked up is a correction to the existing card or a typo? There are a few typos in Final Nights - the bottom half dozen lines. All the other changes listed are *correct* on the cards in Final Nights, representing errata (effectively) to previous versions. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >You cannot contest cards with yourself [4.1]. If, via the ending of some temporary-control effect or via some other effect, you end up contestinging with yourself, simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card. Does this change have any effect for Jimmy Dunn? ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >You cannot contest cards with yourself [4.1]. If, via the ending of some temporary-control effect or via some other effect, you end up contestinging with yourself, simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card. > > Does this change have any effect for Jimmy Dunn? No. Jimmy Dunn does not contest, by explicit card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

> You cannot contest cards with yourself [4.1]. Please, oh please explain *why* this rule was necessary. I've been thinking about it for some time and I cannot think of any _valid_ reason (I can think of a few but don't feel they are valid; and if one of the reasons is actually the case, I'm going to be more than just a little annoyed as it could have been handled differently) why this rule exists. Not only is it (and always has been) a good strategy in getting rid of effects that are very difficult (and only in special circum- stances <such as Contract>) or impossible (such as Blood Hunt, War Party) to get rid of, but it also has a *cost* - you have to pay for the card again and/or it's out of play for 1 or 2 turns. Please enlighten us... Sorrow --- I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me. They ask me if I feel remose and I answer, "Why of course! There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!" So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy

Sorrow wrote: > > > You cannot contest cards with yourself [4.1]. > > Please, oh please explain *why* this rule was necessary. > I've been thinking about it for some time and I cannot think of > any _valid_ reason (I can think of a few but don't feel they are > valid; and if one of the reasons is actually the case, I'm going to > be more than just a little annoyed as it could have been handled > differently) why this rule exists. > > Not only is it (and always has been) a good strategy in getting > rid of effects that are very difficult (and only in special circum- > stances <such as Contract>) or impossible (such as Blood Hunt, > War Party) to get rid of, but it also has a *cost* - you have to > pay for the card again and/or it's out of play for 1 or 2 turns. > > Please enlighten us... Difficult to grasp; corner-case-only utility; unwieldy mechanics; counter to backstory; oddity with, e.g., Coven; etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:40:28 GMT, Sorrow wrote: >> You cannot contest cards with yourself [4.1]. > >Please, oh please explain *why* this rule was necessary. This is similar to what happened during the Shadowfist rules rewrite. Players are now forbidden to play a Unique card which they already have in play. I think the main point against it was that it's cheesy but you can also argue that it encourages the use of multiple copies of the same Unique which undermines the point of the restriction and is rather boring to boot. An especial issue when you have some characters which "break the power curve". Some games like Doomtown and METW have even stronger uniqueness rules. Once a unique character has been played then no-one else is allowed to play it again, even it is killed. Andrew

> > Please, oh please explain *why* this rule was necessary. > > Not only is it (and always has been) a good strategy in getting > > rid of effects that are very difficult (and only in special circum- > > stances <such as Contract>) or impossible (such as Blood Hunt, > > War Party) to get rid of, but it also has a *cost* - you have to > > pay for the card again and/or it's out of play for 1 or 2 turns. > > Please enlighten us... > Difficult to grasp; Elaborate. We only rarely see questions regarding self contesting on the NG (and I've never fielded one anywhere I played) and once it's explained, that it... concept grasped. > corner-case-only utility; Still a good utility. Since you are getting rid of self contesting vampires, how about you errata Blood Hunt and War Party so that they can be removed. Otherwise, once they are on the vampire, now that you cannot self contest to get a copy w/o it, you may as well leave it in torpor or diablerize it yourself so you can get a clean copy into play. And you want to talk about difficult to grasp or unwieldy mechanics... try to explain how it is that a vampire is burned by diablerie but can pop right back up if influenced... > unwieldy mechanics; Again, elaborate. It works just as regular contesting. If the mechanics are unwieldy then why not just get rid of contesting altogether? > counter to backstory; And diablerizing and influencing the same vampire isn't? And if it's counter to back story, how is 2 seperate meths contesting different than self contesting? > oddity with, e.g., Coven; etc. See, this is the reason I alluded to in my initial post where if this was the case, I'd be really annoyed. And I am, but only partly as it's not the entire reason (or it could be and you are just trying to add other stuff to make it seem otherwise). Firstly, you were the one who designed this card. Was this "oddity" with the Coven not found during playtesting? I read several posts from Noal McDonald that their group was playtesting SW so I know it went through some sort of testing phase? And if so, why wasn't wording put on the card to make it so that it couldn't be contested? And even if it wasn't caught during playtesting, why not just errata Coven (which would not only seem reasonable but also remove the "oddity") so that it couldn't be contested? Changing this rule just isn't right. Especially, as I pointed out in my initial post, since it does have a _cost_. It's not as if it was ever taken all that lightly and/or happend *all* the time. And it's not as if it was really a game winner or automatically gave you a VP (which the Coven - Withdrawal almost always did). There's just no sense in it. Sorrow --- Dear God, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look, and all the people that you made in your image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in...

> >Please, oh please explain *why* this rule was necessary. > have in play. I think the main point against it was that it's cheesy huh? how? > but you can also argue that it encourages the use of multiple copies > of the same Unique which undermines the point of the restriction and > is rather boring to boot. Boring? Hardly. Having multple copies in your deck ensures that you have greater odds at drawing it. And encourages multiple copies? Umm, have you read the rule book? In the same section that it says that self contesting is now illegal, it says that you may want to put more in your deck to increase the odds... > An especial issue when you have some characters which "break the > power curve". Such as? And if they "break the power curve", why were they printed? Sorrow --- If you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth.

Sorrow wrote: > > Difficult to grasp; > > Elaborate. We only rarely see questions regarding self contesting > on the NG (and I've never fielded one anywhere I played) and > once it's explained, that it... concept grasped. If you say so. My experience has been different. > > corner-case-only utility; > > Still a good utility. Since you are getting rid of self contesting > vampires, > how about you errata Blood Hunt and War Party so that they can be > removed. Otherwise, once they are on the vampire, now that you cannot > self contest to get a copy w/o it, you may as well leave it in torpor or > diablerize it yourself so you can get a clean copy into play. I don't see the problem. > And you want to talk about difficult to grasp or unwieldy mechanics... > try to explain how it is that a vampire is burned by diablerie but can > pop right back up if influenced... That may be a difficult back-story to justify, but the mechanics are clean and simple. > > unwieldy mechanics; > > Again, elaborate. It works just as regular contesting. If the mechanics > are unwieldy then why not just get rid of contesting altogether? It doesn't work just as regular contesting - there's an additional delay that most players miss. > > counter to backstory; > > And diablerizing and influencing the same vampire isn't? And if it's Yes, but that's a difficult problem to fix - it was brought up in 1998. > counter > to back story, how is 2 seperate meths contesting different than self > contesting? Trivially. You fight with another Methuselah for control. Fighting with yourself for control of something is nonsensical. > > oddity with, e.g., Coven; etc. > > See, this is the reason I alluded to in my initial post where if this was > the > case, I'd be really annoyed. And I am, but only partly as it's not the > entire reason (or it could be and you are just trying to add other stuff > to make it seem otherwise). Firstly, you were the one who designed this > card. Was this "oddity" with the Coven not found during playtesting? I > read several posts from Noal McDonald that their group was playtesting > SW so I know it went through some sort of testing phase? And if so, > why wasn't wording put on the card to make it so that it couldn't be > contested? And even if it wasn't caught during playtesting, why not just > errata Coven (which would not only seem reasonable but also remove > the "oddity") so that it couldn't be contested? Because Coven isn't the problem. If my mentioning it annoys you, then just pretend I didn't - the rules would still be the same. > Changing this rule just isn't right. Especially, as I pointed out in my > initial > post, since it does have a _cost_. It's not as if it was ever taken all > that > lightly and/or happend *all* the time. And it's not as if it was really a > game winner or automatically gave you a VP (which the Coven - Withdrawal > almost always did). > There's just no sense in it. Likewise from my point of view for the old rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

Don't ask me why you'd want to do this but could you vote a minion a title that another minion of yours already had? This would set up a self-contest and, in this case, seems a reasonable thing to do as a way of handing over the title. Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. See the original message in this thread, which specifically said so. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Sorrow wrote: > > > Difficult to grasp; > > > > Elaborate. We only rarely see questions regarding self contesting > > on the NG (and I've never fielded one anywhere I played) and > > once it's explained, that it... concept grasped. > > If you say so. My experience has been different. I have to agree. Anyone in a game who's never experienced this needs to hear how all the rules about contesting come to play when self- contesting. It's one big annoying mess. (Not that the rules for avoiding self-contesting don't strike me as kind of a mess themselves, but at least that have the other benefits Scott is talking about.) Once you know how it works, they're not that hard to use. But I hate having to go over these things with people who've never done it before. And when I think about a group of players for whom this has never come up before trying to work through the appropriate rules in the rulebook and come up with what really happens without checking on the net, I'd give them about a 1-in-5 or less chance of getting right on the first try. (Unless there's an example of it listed in the rulebook or something.) > > And you want to talk about difficult to grasp or unwieldy mechanics... > > try to explain how it is that a vampire is burned by diablerie but can > > pop right back up if influenced... > > That may be a difficult back-story to justify, but the mechanics are clean > and simple. Another thing: Just because there's already a few backstory problems in the game doesn't justify others if you can avoid them. It just means that there's a precedent, not that you have to follow it or that there's no incentive to avoid them. Fred

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B24D69D...@white-wolf.com>... > Sorrow wrote: > > > Difficult to grasp; > > > > Elaborate. We only rarely see questions regarding self contesting > > on the NG (and I've never fielded one anywhere I played) and > > once it's explained, that it... concept grasped. > > If you say so. My experience has been different. Once something is explained it is usually grasped. Then again, if someone asks a question and only gets direction to the section in the rule book where a change was made, that concept will probably continue to remain foggy. It probably would help if the theory of what the change is trying to do and why it was necessary people might be more receptive, and able to understand. Unless there is no rhyme or reason to your rules(which I highly doubt) The fact that you struggle for influence over something with yourself doesn't make any sense. Which could have helped folks grasp the concept more easily.(uniqueness in general is still awkward at best)

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > oddity with, e.g., Coven; etc. > > See, this is the reason I alluded to in my initial post where > if this was the case, I'd be really annoyed. I don't see how the Coven causes a problem. Control of the card moves with the card per explicit text. Once the card has moved on, you can contest it with someone else same as any other card. It made for an amusing, if not terribly competitive, Malkavian Coven/Thanks for the Donation deck. > I read several posts from Noal McDonald that their group was > playtesting SW The posts you mention were for requests for volunteers and were made on the Michigan mailing list. They were not made on the newsgroup, the Yahoo group or the VTES-L mailing list and I would really appreciate them not brought up here. In fact, I'm quite annoyed that I should even have to tell you that. Perhaps, since the NJL is defunct, I need to discuss with Raille and Bernie the need to reconsider allowing people outside Michigan and surrounding areas to subscribe to the list. > And even if it wasn't caught during playtesting, Now that you have to drag me into it, I should say that it was. By us, anyway. It was considered a non-issue because, like the Fragment of the Book of Nod, once another player has possession, they also have control and standard contesting rules apply. As for the 60 Covens/Withdrawal case, we considered that a non-issue as it only takes someone playing an Anarch Revolt (very common in these parts) or your predator to bring out a vampire before your first turn to make the whole thing fail and you oust yourself, giving your predator a VP. Even if you did get one (and only one) VP every game, you still wouldn't qualify to get into the finals at any tournament of reasonable size. Too much risk, not enough reward to make this particular corner case even the slightest bit practical. > Changing this rule just isn't right. Considering how unweildy the rule was, I have to strongly with Scott on this issue. From a strictly game mechanics perspective, there are some strong downsides (i.e., your vampire is in torpor, has a nasty permanent effect, etc.) but they are outweighed by the positive aspects. Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

If you're going to cite backstory as a reason for the rules change, you're opening yourself up to role-playing-based counter-arguments. For example, you could counter-argue that by self-contesting, you're attempting to exert influence over the given resource via a new channel. Adding story to this example, you could say that at first you tried to blackmail a vampire into doing your bidding, but then later you decided to try bribery. These two approaches tend to be mutually exclusive, so you'll abandon one plan in favor of another. On the flip side, I don't see this as being just a corner-case matter. For example, you could try to take advantage of self- contestation to make better use of Anarch Troublemaker. It's also a source of card flow for people who use multiple copies of zero-cost, unique master cards (esp. Info Highway). If you don't need the card, self-contest it and yield both, rather than spend a discard on it. At the same time, I don't think the change was needed, especially given that a new rulebook is required. I'm not looking forward to dumping my Sabbat War rulebooks and having to build up a supply of Final Nights rulebooks to distribute to new players. However, given the new Blood Curse rule, I guess a new rulebook was in order anyway. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

Whoops...I'm a dumbass...my Anarch Troublemaker argument doesn't hold 'cause you're not self-contesting...never mind. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Ben Peal wrote: > On the flip side, I don't see this as being just a corner-case > matter. For example, you could try to take advantage of self- > contestation to make better use of Anarch Troublemaker. Strange to relate, I just did that the weekend before last. It was almost a useful trick. But if I understand what your talking about, I believe you can still do that. I don't think you're referring to contesting a Troublemaker you still control. You wouldn't want to do that, anyway. I think what you're talking about is using the Troublemaker, letting him pass around the table somewhere, and then suddenly bringing out another one. Especially if your prey is the one who still controls it and you find it a useful time to cost him pool. That still works because you aren't contesting something you control. Fred

In message <bb705c59.01061...@posting.google.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes >I don't see how the Coven causes a problem. Control of the card >moves with the card per explicit text. The more difficult problem is emptying a deck with it, thus bypassing the 60 card minimum. I did e-mail LSJ suggesting errata be put on it (as a number of people did, I guess) but this works the same way - since you can't contest it with yourself, you can't empty it. It also does other things, too. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > LSJ wrote: > > That may be a difficult back-story to justify, but the mechanics are clean > > and simple. > > Another thing: Just because there's already a few backstory problems in the > game doesn't justify others if you can avoid them. It just means that there's > a precedent, not that you have to follow it or that there's no incentive to > avoid them. I think back story is a very dangerous platform from which to make a rules change. We've just about wrapped up a thread where everyone seemed to agree that story-consistent behavior was an unacceptable rationale for in-game tournament behavior, and now we're getting brand new rules using the back-story as at least part of the justification? And I really hate brand new rules. It makes it more difficult to play Jyhad properly in an informal setting (I don't want to hear the "make your own rules for informal games," everyone has already agreed in my play groups that tourney rules are the most easily agreed upon standard) and disadvantages many players in the tournament setting (since it's very difficult to find the latest updated card errata, rules changes, card interatction rulings, etc). Anyway, it's very difficult to explain to someone why something they just did was legal the last time you played, but not today, with nothing but the internet to point to. Especially a rules change like the new contesting rule, which, to my knowledge, was perhaps mildly confusing, but never considered a game balance problem that you could dump a second Info Highway onto the table to see the next card in your library. Was there any rending of sackcloth over the ability to replace your torpored Basil with one from your uncontrolled region at the cost of an exta blood and a turn without him? So brand new rules, out of nowhere, with no discussion amongst the Jyhad playing community as to whether such a change was necessary for the game, sought by players, or resolved some major game problem. Yuck. It reminds me mightily of the worst days of Magic, when Tom Wylie invented errata lists and rules clarifications with re-re-reversals (Zur's Weirding, anyone?). When Tom first stuck his nose into Jyhad, it was awful, with these same kind of wholesale rules changes and card-text rewrites. I'm not sure on the last part, since I did not follow r.g.t-c.jyhad at that time (there may have been some hue and cry over vampires being burned with a zipgun and people mowing through their wake-filled decks). Ok, I feel better. That's a pretty good rant for a Monday. I may be over it by the time my Final Nights boxes arrive. What do you think, sirs? - Jason Bell

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote > > An especial issue when you have some characters which "break the > > power curve". > > Such as? And if they "break the power curve", why were they printed? Well, duh. To make you buy more packs of cards, of course. Don't make us explain the Deckmaster (TM, R, whatever) business model to you. - Jason Bell

> I did e-mail LSJ suggesting errata be put on it (as a number of people > did, I guess) but this works the same way - since you can't contest it > with yourself, you can't empty it. It also does other things, too. Such as? Sorrow --- "...but you know, evil is an exact science..."

In message <mx9V6.42$8h.1...@newshog.newsread.com>, Sorrow <jcb...@yahoo.com> writes >> I did e-mail LSJ suggesting errata be put on it (as a number of people >> did, I guess) but this works the same way - since you can't contest it >> with yourself, you can't empty it. From the above, it "fixes" Coven - the main point of my post. >> It also does other things, too. > >Such as? LSJ has listed a number of such points - whether you agree with them or not is something else. However, this change to the rules specifically "does other things". I am undecided yet as to whether it was a worthwhile change. I am not saying it was a good change or a bad change, in non-Coven terms, simply that it is a change. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <HX8V6.79547$e34.10...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >I think back story is a very dangerous platform from which to make >a rules change. We've just about wrapped up a thread where everyone >seemed to agree that story-consistent behavior was an unacceptable >rationale for in-game tournament behavior, and now we're getting >brand new rules using the back-story as at least part of the justification? *shrug*. It's not a major motivator. If anything, it's a bone thrown to the story-loving folk, who all too often get their wishes trampled. >And I really hate brand new rules. It makes it more difficult to >play Jyhad properly in an informal setting (I don't want to hear >the "make your own rules for informal games," everyone has already >agreed in my play groups that tourney rules are the most easily >agreed upon standard) and disadvantages many players in the >tournament setting (since it's very difficult to find the latest >updated card errata, rules changes, card interatction rulings, etc). No-one in your play group has internet access? >Anyway, it's very difficult to explain to someone >why something they just did was legal the last time you >played, but not today, with nothing but the internet to point to. Nothing but the internet? That's kind of like saying "I've got nowhere but 7-Eleven to buy Twinkies and vintage hot dogs." I mean, what do you want, White Wolf to mass mail hardcopies of rules changes to every person who ever bought a V:tES card? >Especially a rules change like the new contesting rule, which, >to my knowledge, was perhaps mildly confusing, but never considered >a game balance problem that you could dump a second Info >Highway onto the table to see the next card in your library. The rule was consistently misapplied in the Bay Area, and was used abusively in at least one JOL game: Bring out a 4-cap, act with him, bring out another copy to contest at the end of that turn. The 4-cap can't be rushed or interfered with while contested. Next turn: Yield a copy. Turn after that: Regain control, do obnoxious unblockable Fortitude things, bring out another copy. You only got 1/3rd the actions, but the deck was surprisingly competitive -- and irritating. >Was there any rending of sackcloth over the ability to replace >your torpored Basil with one from your uncontrolled region at >the cost of an exta blood and a turn without him? It's pretty harsh when it's not Basil, but that Basilia you've just worked really, really hard to knock down with a variety of nasty sticky effects like Seeds or Flesh/Bonecraft, Disarm, whatever. >So brand new rules, out of nowhere, with no discussion amongst >the Jyhad playing community as to whether such a change was >necessary for the game, sought by players, or resolved some >major game problem. Yuck. Bell, this was never a democracy. Our opinion is neither sought nor required, and neither is our consent. We vote with our wallets, and we don't do it on USENET. The rules folk do what they do for what they consider good and sufficient reason. If it were up to a majority vote, we might be playing 4CL with Return to Innocence as printed. And that would be Yuckier. >It reminds me mightily of the worst days of Magic, when Tom >Wylie invented errata lists and rules clarifications with re-re-reversals >(Zur's Weirding, anyone?). When Tom first stuck his nose into Jyhad, >it was awful, with these same kind of wholesale rules changes and >card-text rewrites. I'm not sure on the last part, since I did not >follow r.g.t-c.jyhad at that time (there may have been some hue >and cry over vampires being burned with a zipgun and people >mowing through their wake-filled decks). There may have been one or two periodically re-erupting rolling flamewars, you mean. Wylie was sometimes abrupt and made the occasional mistake, but he beat the pants off some of the interim rulesfolk we had before LSJ. >Ok, I feel better. That's a pretty good rant for a Monday. >I may be over it by the time my Final Nights boxes arrive. >What do you think, sirs? Hm. I think I've already used up my good epithet on D*v*ds*n. gomi enclosed: one chill pill. take with fruit juice. -- Yes, I believe but I'd rather not pray What I believe in I'd rather not say, baby

> > > Please, oh please explain *why* this rule was necessary. > > > Not only is it (and always has been) a good strategy in getting > > > rid of effects that are very difficult (and only in special circum- > > > stances <such as Contract>) or impossible (such as Blood Hunt, > > > War Party) to get rid of, but it also has a *cost* - you have to > > > pay for the card again and/or it's out of play for 1 or 2 turns. What about this deck? Multiple Democritus, a lot of "Thanks for your Donation" and several copies of, say, the Barrens. The mechanic of this deck? Contest yourself several times for the Barrens, then play a "Thanks for your Donation" for each copy of Barrens you've played. And don't say it can be stopped. We all know what Daring the Dawn was made for. Tom, Mad&Co

In message <9g3i0h$obg$1...@talia.mad.ttd.net>, "Tom, Mad&Co" <t...@almadrava.net> writes >The mechanic of this deck? Contest yourself several >times for the Barrens, then play a "Thanks for your Donation" for each copy >of Barrens you've played. Put this card into play and choose a card you are contesting with another Methuselah [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason Bell wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > LSJ wrote: > > > That may be a difficult back-story to justify, but the mechanics are > > > clean and simple. > > > > Another thing: Just because there's already a few backstory problems in > > the game doesn't justify others if you can avoid them. It just means that > > there's a precedent, not that you have to follow it or that there's no incentive > > to avoid them. > > I think back story is a very dangerous platform from which to make > a rules change. We've just about wrapped up a thread where everyone > seemed to agree that story-consistent behavior was an unacceptable > rationale for in-game tournament behavior, and now we're getting > brand new rules using the back-story as at least part of the justification? I think you have to make a distinction in what is meant by "backstory as justification". If people are justifying insane actions in the context of the game because they're playing with Malkavian vampires, that's a no. It's a board game, not a roleplaying game. You play it like a board game. On the other hand, board games have backstories, so you get Malkavian Prank as a card usable by Meths playing with Malkavian vampires. I think this justification of the contesting rules is that kind of argument and I think it's reasonable as such. > And I really hate brand new rules. Agreed. That should be viewed as a legitimate drawback. I assume/hope WW took all the legitimate pros and cons and weighed them out and changing the rule was their judgment. Everyone can have their own opinion on whether it's good or bad overall. ...(More complaints about the change elided.) > Ok, I feel better. That's a pretty good rant for a Monday. > I may be over it by the time my Final Nights boxes arrive. > What do you think, sirs? I think that that's a pretty good perspective on the situation. Fred

In message <HX8V6.79547$e34.10...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >Ok, I feel better. That's a pretty good rant for a Monday. >I may be over it by the time my Final Nights boxes arrive. >What do you think, sirs? That I have to weight till Wednesday! Boo! [ quoted text not captured ]

> What about this deck? > Multiple Democritus, a lot of "Thanks for your Donation" and several copies > of, say, the Barrens. The mechanic of this deck? Contest yourself several > times for the Barrens, then play a "Thanks for your Donation" for each copy > of Barrens you've played. And don't say it can be stopped. We all know what > Daring the Dawn was made for. > > Tom, Mad&Co > Still works. Use Millicent Smith, The Coven or Anarch Troublemaker (or even Uriah winter) Wait till they go to your prey and then contest 'em.

>>I think back story is a very dangerous platform from which to make >>a rules change. We've just about wrapped up a thread where everyone >>seemed to agree that story-consistent behavior was an unacceptable >>rationale for in-game tournament behavior, and now we're getting >>brand new rules using the back-story as at least part of the justification? > >*shrug*. It's not a major motivator. If anything, it's a bone thrown >to the story-loving folk, who all too often get their wishes trampled. Hey, I'm one of those that is normally a "story-loving folk" but I have to agree with Sorrow on this issue. I've never considered self-contesting to be a problem and it's always served as a desperate last-minute action. (Sorry, this turned into a semi-rant) And while I like most of the new FN cards, since *someone* brought up back-story...just like with the inconsistency of burned vampires being re-influenced (which can sort of be explained -- he didn't *really* die), I've never really been able to understand how in Jyhad, you're supposed to be playing Methusalehs yet a lot of the time the vampires you control *are* Methusalehs (first brought up after DS and the 11-caps). In addition, Final Nights continues to exacerbate the problem with Ur-Shulgi and Goratrix (who are also fellow Methusalehs) and even worse, Augustus Giovanni and Sutekh (Set) who are 3rd generation Antediluvians! Yeah, I know someone will probably mention the whole thread about if all the cards were named after "dog poo" or whatever. But I still can't find an explanation for the double-standard. LSJ argues that something was eliminated due to "counter to backstory" when Final Nights introduces Antediluvians. And IMHO, Methusalehs controlling fellow Methusalehs and elder Antediluvians is even more counter to backstory. On a slightly different topic, I've wondered if anyone has come up with any rationale to explaining the presence of Augustus and Sutekh. The best (lame) excuses I have come up with are that maybe they are the *false Augustus* and the *false Sutekh*. Elder vampires who are just pretending to be the Ante's. Alternatively, maybe these vampires are avatars or incarnations of the Antediluvians (not the Ante's themselves) and are therefore manipulable? Halcyan 2

>> Does this mean that I cannot play a card from my hand if it will >> contest a copy of that card I control? And if so, can I also not > >Playing a unique card from your hand that you already control would >mean contesting it with yourself. Contesting with yourself, as stated >above, is not allowed. Therefore, you cannot play the card from your >hand. Instead of not being able to play a unique card you control, why isn't it that you can play the card but the new copy gets burned? If you can't play a unique card b/c it would lead to self-contesting, why are you allowed to take control of something that would lead to contesting? To be in more accordance with not contesting yourself (like playing a unique card), shouldn't you be prohibited from gaining control of that card in the first place? I know that if you have Kali's Fang out in play you can't play a new one. And if you Vast Wealth it out, the new one gets burned. I suppose you cannot choose to Magic of the Smith it out as well? Would you be allowed to get it out and then have it burned or are you prohibited from choosing it in the first place? Halcyan 2

Since we're already on the topic of changes... Several times before I've heard other people ask about this and I don't think I remember anyone ever getting a definitive reply: Whatever happened to the old policy of not errata'ing wallpaper cards? I was always under the interpretation that if a card was too powerful it was erratated but if it was too weak, too bad so sad. But ever since Sabbat War (and now Final Nights) it *seems* that a lot of wallpaper cards are being improved. Please note that it's not that I mind it - in fact I like it in many cases. But if un-wallpapering is being done, at the very least I'd like for White Wolf to admit it. I know that in *some* cases the cards are changed to "fit the designer's intent." But with all the changes in SW and FN, either some unwallpapering is really being done, or WotC and/or WW really dropped the ball on earlier printings... Halcyan 2

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote > Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > > No-one in your play group has internet access? Sigh. Not in the middle of a game. Tell me you've never had a rules argument during an informal game and been unable to resist the urge to stop the game, find the rule or ruling (usually with Google), and make a long game longer still. > >Anyway, it's very difficult to explain to someone > >why something they just did was legal the last time you > >played, but not today, with nothing but the internet to point to. > > Nothing but the internet? That's kind of like saying "I've got nowhere > but 7-Eleven to buy Twinkies and vintage hot dogs." I mean, what do you > want, White Wolf to mass mail hardcopies of rules changes to every person > who ever bought a V:tES card? What I'd really like are stable rules, like every other non-CCG game. I understand that new cards mean new rules, but this new rule isn't about that, which is why I'm piqued. > >Especially a rules change like the new contesting rule, which, > >to my knowledge, was perhaps mildly confusing, but never considered > >a game balance problem that you could dump a second Info > >Highway onto the table to see the next card in your library. > > The rule was consistently misapplied in the Bay Area, and was used > abusively in at least one JOL game: Bring out a 4-cap, act with him, > bring out another copy to contest at the end of that turn. The 4-cap > can't be rushed or interfered with while contested. Next turn: Yield a > copy. Turn after that: Regain control, do obnoxious unblockable Fortitude > things, bring out another copy. You only got 1/3rd the actions, but the > deck was surprisingly competitive -- and irritating. This has got to be some sort of joke. A deck that spent 8 pool every 3 turns to make sure his 4-cap vampire didn't get bum's rushed, while in the interim either had no vampires at all or none more worth the bum's rush than a 4-cap? Come on, pull the other one. > >So brand new rules, out of nowhere, with no discussion amongst > >the Jyhad playing community as to whether such a change was > >necessary for the game, sought by players, or resolved some > >major game problem. Yuck. > > Bell, this was never a democracy. Our opinion is neither sought nor > required, and neither is our consent. We vote with our wallets, and > we don't do it on USENET. The rules folk do what they do for what > they consider good and sufficient reason. Thanks for the update. I like this game, and I've already seen it die once due to an idiotic and non-democratic parent. I've seen the wallets vote the price of the cards down to less than $0.20 per booster pack (which is why you may never see V:TES in some retail outlets where Jyhad was once sold and Magic still is). And you've got to be out of your gord if you believe WW is not interested in pleasing the existing players, or WW must be out of thiers if they aren't. Pardon me for not being in a hurry to see it die again. An unstable rules environment is a darned good recipe for a game's death, as teaching the already devastatingly complex game becomes yet more frustrating for everyone involved. And I still haven't seen the "good and sufficient reason" for this particular rules change, again why I'm piqued. - Jason Bell

On 12 Jun 2001 08:18:17 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote: >Methusalehs controlling fellow Methusalehs >and elder Antediluvians is even more counter to backstory. I don't quite follow you. The Methusalehs are locked in an eternal struggle struggle right? Why is it unreasonable that one should manipulate and secretly control another? My understanding is that the players represent ancients who are in torpor, typically deep underground, and directing events using mental powers and magic. The Methusalehs that one sees in the game are those that are up and about. This puts them in the front line and presumably they lose the focus and concentration that they need to be "players". Another thought is that the players might be Inconnu - those that are especially unknown and obscure. Andrew

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:11:20 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >I think you have to make a distinction in what is meant by "backstory as >justification". If people are justifying insane actions in the context of >the game because they're playing with Malkavian vampires, that's a no. It's >a board game, not a roleplaying game. You play it like a board game. This is just your approach to it. Here's a quote from the intro to the Players' Guide, Darkness Unveiled, "As you can tell, we strove from the beginning to make Vampire: The Eternal Struggle even more of a storytelling game than Magic. With Magic, the challenge seemed to be adding roleplaying elements and a setting to a wonderful card game. With Eternal Struggle, the challenge was exactly the opposite." The Guide goes on to emphasise roleplaying elements in the game. I thought that it was even quite cool that that book is tied up with black ribbons. This probably leaves you cold but that says more about you than it does about the game. If what you want is a board game with clever mechanics but an arbitrary theme then you ought to check out the many German games which fit this description - Ra, Tikal, Taj Mahal, etc. Andrew

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >> Does this mean that I cannot play a card from my hand if it will > >> contest a copy of that card I control? And if so, can I also not > > > >Playing a unique card from your hand that you already control would > >mean contesting it with yourself. Contesting with yourself, as stated > >above, is not allowed. Therefore, you cannot play the card from your > >hand. > > Instead of not being able to play a unique card you control, why isn't it that > you can play the card but the new copy gets burned? > > If you can't play a unique card b/c it would lead to self-contesting, why are > you allowed to take control of something that would lead to contesting? To be > in more accordance with not contesting yourself (like playing a unique card), > shouldn't you be prohibited from gaining control of that card in the first > place? Yes. Except that that's not always under your control. Hence the rules as they are. > I know that if you have Kali's Fang out in play you can't play a new one. And > if you Vast Wealth it out, the new one gets burned. I suppose you cannot choose > to Magic of the Smith it out as well? Would you be allowed to get it out and > then have it burned or are you prohibited from choosing it in the first place? You cannot contest with yourself, so you could not choose it in the first place. [ quoted text not captured ]

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > Since we're already on the topic of changes... > > Several times before I've heard other people ask about this and I don't think I > remember anyone ever getting a definitive reply: > > Whatever happened to the old policy of not errata'ing wallpaper cards? Still in place. Just remember that errata is not what happens when a card gets reprinted. Errata is what happens after a printing. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Whatever happened to the old policy of not errata'ing wallpaper cards? > Still in place. > Just remember that errata is not what happens when a card gets reprinted. > Errata is what happens after a printing. But isn't the end effect the exact same? Making a wallpaper card more powerful/useful than it used to be...? The above is a pretty weak/thin distinction... Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

> > Elaborate. We only rarely see questions regarding self contesting > > on the NG (and I've never fielded one anywhere I played) and > > once it's explained, that it... concept grasped. > If you say so. My experience has been different. You were constantly barraged with questions about self contesting and once you answered them, were asked again by those same people? I did a search on the Google archives and wasn't able to come up with many posts that asked about it initially and none that posted a follow up. > > Still a good utility. Since you are getting rid of self contesting vampires, > > how about you errata Blood Hunt and War Party so that they can be > > removed. Otherwise, once they are on the vampire, now that you cannot > > self contest to get a copy w/o it, you may as well leave it in torpor or > > diablerize it yourself so you can get a clean copy into play. > I don't see the problem. Don't see a problem with which? Leaving the vamp in torpor and diablerizing yourself? No, of course not. Of course, that course has a signigicant cost and will hardly ever be taken. Or about Blood Hunt/War Party? Have you ever had 2 or 3 of your key vampires get Blood Hunted and put into torpor? Why bother waste the actions getting them back out when they are going to get torporized yet again? At least with Haven, you could get blood on that vamp another way and remove it. But with BH, you don't have that option. And now, the only option you did have (spending the pool on that vamp again and going a turn w/o) has been removed. So I guess that leaves diablerie. Oh, wait, until you change the rules and remove that option, too. New rule in the base set reprint: "You cannot take actions targetting vampires you control". > > And you want to talk about difficult to grasp or unwieldy mechanics... > > try to explain how it is that a vampire is burned by diablerie but can > > pop right back up if influenced... > That may be a difficult back-story to justify, but the mechanics are clean > and simple. So is "You can't bleed". Removing options always makes something more simple, but not always better. Hell, you could remove everything from the game and turn it into Rock/Paper/Scissors. That would make the game much more simpler than it is now. > > Again, elaborate. It works just as regular contesting. If the mechanics > > are unwieldy then why not just get rid of contesting altogether? > It doesn't work just as regular contesting - there's an additional delay > that most players miss. Which was a delay that came about only in the last few years. It used to be that you regained control of the second copy after yielding the first. Then you changed that rule, too. And all the old players who didn't have access to the NG at that time and who used to play the other way needed to learn this new way the hard way. Way... > > > counter to backstory; > > And diablerizing and influencing the same vampire isn't? And if it's > Yes, but that's a difficult problem to fix - it was brought up in 1998. How is it a difficult problem to fix. While you are adding new rules to the game out of the blue, why not adding one where once a vampire is removed from the game/burned, it cannot be put back into play? Sure, it's a brand new rule. But then, so is this one. Why be squeamish about one when you obviously weren't about the other? > > to back story, how is 2 seperate meths contesting different than self > > contesting? > Trivially. > You fight with another Methuselah for control. > Fighting with yourself for control of something is nonsensical. Possible reasons were brought up in another post. > Because Coven isn't the problem. If my mentioning it annoys you, then > just pretend I didn't - the rules would still be the same. How can it not be at least part of the reason when there was a very large and very many Coven threads here over the past several months. It seems when oddball rules/errata are issued it's on the heals of such a discussion. See "Life Boon". And again, how can it not be at least part of the reason when it is the only real "abuse" of this mechanic? You play Coven until you run out of library, annouce your withdrawal and if you are successful, automatic VP. There can be a coorelation <sp> drawn to Life Boon where it, too, gave you a VP for doing nothing (so it was claimed). And yes, the rules would still be the same. However, the reasoning behind the rule wouldn't be. > > Changing this rule just isn't right. Especially, as I pointed out in my > > initial post, since it does have a _cost_. It's not as if it was ever taken > > all that lightly and/or happend *all* the time. And it's not as if it was > > really a game winner or automatically gave you a VP (which the Coven - > > Withdrawal almost always did). There's just no sense in it. > Likewise from my point of view for the old rules. You don't think the old rules had any sense? Then why not just eliminate most of the rules? When you get right down to it, most of them don't make any sense. Change rules/make rules to fix something that is broken. This was not broken. Sorrow --- I told the priest - don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. He had the balls to come, the gall to die and then forgive us. No, I don't wonder why, I wonder what he thought it would get us

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:34:51 GMT, "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > Whatever happened to the old policy of not errata'ing wallpaper cards? >> Still in place. >> Just remember that errata is not what happens when a card gets reprinted. >> Errata is what happens after a printing. > >But isn't the end effect the exact same? Making a wallpaper card >more powerful/useful than it used to be...? The above is a pretty >weak/thin distinction... With a reprint, you have a card you can point to and say "This is the new text." With errata, you have a list on the Internet you have to point to. Which is going to carry more weight with a new player? =) -- Derek Thug of Atlanta

> >> > Whatever happened to the old policy of not errata'ing wallpaper cards? > >> Still in place. > >> Just remember that errata is not what happens when a card gets reprinted. > >> Errata is what happens after a printing. > >But isn't the end effect the exact same? Making a wallpaper card > >more powerful/useful than it used to be...? The above is a pretty > >weak/thin distinction... > With a reprint, you have a card you can point to and say "This is the > new text." > With errata, you have a list on the Internet you have to point to. > Which is going to carry more weight with a new player? =) I'm not saying that isn't the case. But if you aren't going to errata wallpaper cards to make them more powerful/useful, why go through the effort of reprinting them? It is much more resource intensive which could probably have been put to better use. If the problem isn't with giving wallpaper cards more use/power and just with "errata", then hell, I've got a list of wallpaper cards that could use reprinting... Let's reprint those as well... Sorrow --- If you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth.

Sorrow wrote: > > > > Elaborate. We only rarely see questions regarding self contesting > > > on the NG (and I've never fielded one anywhere I played) and > > > once it's explained, that it... concept grasped. > > If you say so. My experience has been different. > > You were constantly barraged with questions about self contesting > and once you answered them, were asked again by those same > people? I did a search on the Google archives and wasn't able to > come up with many posts that asked about it initially and none that > posted a follow up. In email, yes. This forum is not always friendly to newbie players. > > > Still a good utility. Since you are getting rid of self contesting > vampires, > > > how about you errata Blood Hunt and War Party so that they can be > > > removed. Otherwise, once they are on the vampire, now that you cannot > > > self contest to get a copy w/o it, you may as well leave it in torpor or > > > diablerize it yourself so you can get a clean copy into play. > > I don't see the problem. > > Don't see a problem with which? Leaving the vamp in torpor and > diablerizing yourself? No, of course not. Of course, that course > has a signigicant cost and will hardly ever be taken. > Or about Blood Hunt/War Party? Have you ever had 2 or 3 of > your key vampires get Blood Hunted and put into torpor? Why > bother waste the actions getting them back out when they are > going to get torporized yet again? At least with Haven, you could > get blood on that vamp another way and remove it. But with BH, > you don't have that option. And now, the only option you did have > (spending the pool on that vamp again and going a turn w/o) has > been removed. So I guess that leaves diablerie. > Oh, wait, until you change the rules and remove that option, too. > New rule in the base set reprint: "You cannot take actions targetting > vampires you control". Cute. I don't see a problem with Archbishops having some power. Some cards will screw your deck (depending on your deck). That's the nature of the game. > > > And you want to talk about difficult to grasp or unwieldy mechanics... > > > try to explain how it is that a vampire is burned by diablerie but can > > > pop right back up if influenced... > > That may be a difficult back-story to justify, but the mechanics are clean > > and simple. > > So is "You can't bleed". Removing options always makes something > more simple, but not always better. Hell, you could remove everything > from the game and turn it into Rock/Paper/Scissors. That would make > the game much more simpler than it is now. You said it had unwieldy mechanics. I merely responded. > > > Again, elaborate. It works just as regular contesting. If the > mechanics > > > are unwieldy then why not just get rid of contesting altogether? > > It doesn't work just as regular contesting - there's an additional delay > > that most players miss. > > Which was a delay that came about only in the last few years. It used to > be that you regained control of the second copy after yielding the first. Not true. It had always been there. See what I mean about being hard to understand? > Then you changed that rule, too. And all the old players who didn't have > access to the NG at that time and who used to play the other way needed > to learn this new way the hard way. > Way... Not true. I didn't change the rule - the rule was simply misunderstood by many players (because, you guessed it, it was complitcated and unintuitive). > > > > counter to backstory; > > > And diablerizing and influencing the same vampire isn't? And if it's > > Yes, but that's a difficult problem to fix - it was brought up in 1998. > > How is it a difficult problem to fix. While you are adding new rules to > the game out of the blue, why not adding one where once a vampire > is removed from the game/burned, it cannot be put back into play? > Sure, it's a brand new rule. But then, so is this one. Why be squeamish > about one when you obviously weren't about the other? Because there are different ways to burn vampires that make this rule untenenable. Yielding is a prime and obvious example. > > > to back story, how is 2 seperate meths contesting different than self > > > contesting? > > Trivially. > > You fight with another Methuselah for control. > > Fighting with yourself for control of something is nonsensical. > > Possible reasons were brought up in another post. > > > Because Coven isn't the problem. If my mentioning it annoys you, then > > just pretend I didn't - the rules would still be the same. > > How can it not be at least part of the reason when there was a very large > and very many Coven threads here over the past several months. It seems > when oddball rules/errata are issued it's on the heals of such a discussion. OK. Either its a part of the problem or it's not. I said it was odd. I believe it was odd. I don't think it was a problem, however. Take the coincidence however you like. > See "Life Boon". Which was a problem. > And again, how can it not be at least part of the reason when it is the only > real "abuse" of this mechanic? You play Coven until you run out of library, > annouce your withdrawal and if you are successful, automatic VP. There > can be a coorelation <sp> drawn to Life Boon where it, too, gave you a > VP for doing nothing (so it was claimed). > And yes, the rules would still be the same. However, the reasoning behind > the rule wouldn't be. The main reason is to make the rules better (clearer, more intuive, easier to remember, etc.) See "Paralyze". > > > Changing this rule just isn't right. Especially, as I pointed out in my > > > initial post, since it does have a _cost_. It's not as if it was ever > taken > > > all that lightly and/or happend *all* the time. And it's not as if it > was > > > really a game winner or automatically gave you a VP (which the Coven - > > > Withdrawal almost always did). There's just no sense in it. > > Likewise from my point of view for the old rules. > > You don't think the old rules had any sense? Then why not just eliminate > most of the rules? When you get right down to it, most of them don't > make any sense. > Change rules/make rules to fix something that is broken. This was not > broken. Neither was Paralyze. It was just a complicated corner-case rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:28:50 GMT, "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> With a reprint, you have a card you can point to and say "This is the >> new text." >> With errata, you have a list on the Internet you have to point to. >> Which is going to carry more weight with a new player? =) > >I'm not saying that isn't the case. But if you aren't going to errata >wallpaper cards to make them more powerful/useful, why go through >the effort of reprinting them? It is much more resource intensive >which could probably have been put to better use. well, IANTSD/IANLSJ, but if the alternative is between making Ravnos Cache free and reprinting it, or coming up with a brand-new Master card to help the Ravnos... I can tell you which of those looks more "resource intensive" to me. >If the problem isn't with giving wallpaper cards more use/power >and just with "errata", then hell, I've got a list of wallpaper cards >that could use reprinting... Let's reprint those as well... As I understand it, the intent is to avoid errata whenever possible, as errata IS more confusing and not easily demonstrable to a new player. (In a pickup game recently, a newish player had an old Fame copy dropped on his vampire. We told him "hang on, don't read that card, it's the old version", and searched through my library to find a NEW copy of Fame that he could read. It is MUCH easier to explain to newer players when you can show them a card, as opposed to saying "Oh, that got fixed on the Internet...") A suitable solution to me seems to simply refuse to errata anything that isn't a dire need... and fixing wallpaper is never a DIRE need. [ quoted text not captured ]

If you can't contest with yourself, then what happens if you do influence out a duplicate? Is it not allowed to be in play? What about Jimmy Dunn? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > You cannot contest with yourself, so you could not choose it in the first > place. So if I Vast Wealth into my second Ivory Bow, do I pay the 1 pool and have it burned, or is it not allowed into play due to the self contest rule? - Jason Bell

>Whatever happened to the old policy of not errata'ing wallpaper cards? I believe the current philosophy is: if a card makes sense to reprint for a reason other than playability and its playability blows, then there's nothing wrong with reprinting it with better text/cost. Powerbase: Rome fits well into this. However, reprinting a card just so that it can be made more playable isn't sufficient; there has to be another reason to reprint it, like needing another card of that discipline or because it's a clan card for a clan being emphasized or something. >I was always under the interpretation that if a card was too powerful it was >erratated but if it was too weak, too bad so sad. > >But ever since Sabbat War (and now Final Nights) it *seems* that a lot of >wallpaper cards are being improved. Please note that it's not that I mind it >- >in fact I like it in many cases. But if un-wallpapering is being done, at the >very least I'd like for White Wolf to admit it. I appreciate efforts to decoasterize some old cards. My concern is that there isn't enough structure to the process. The Grand Temple of Suck, AFAICT, has no text/cost change at all. Admittedly, permanent steal is conceptually bad (I'm more impressed with the balance of Temptation every time I play it, unlike the permanent steal effects), but the card is too painful to play. OT - I don't see the reason for Phobia to be reprinted. Slot could have been used for something like, oh, Clan Impersonation (it occurred to me that the FoS precon would also benefit from having a "Toreador").

Sorrow wrote: > > With a reprint, you have a card you can point to and say "This is the > > new text." > > With errata, you have a list on the Internet you have to point to. > > Which is going to carry more weight with a new player? =) > > I'm not saying that isn't the case. But if you aren't going to errata > wallpaper cards to make them more powerful/useful, why go through > the effort of reprinting them? It is much more resource intensive > which could probably have been put to better use. Creating a new card is a different thing, though. If there's 50,000 pieces of this wallpaper out in the field and you reprint the same card with more power, those 50,000 cards can now be used in games. If you create a new card, the 50,000 cards remain in the box. I can see a down side to this: that there are now 50,000 cards that do something different than what their card text says it can do. But the upside is that they're now usable. I kind of like the latter point better myself. YMMV, I guess. Fred

On 12 Jun 2001 16:37:23 GMT, cur...@aol.com (Ian Lee) wrote: >I appreciate efforts to decoasterize some old cards. My concern is that there >isn't enough structure to the process. The Grand Temple of Suck, AFAICT, has >no text/cost change at all. Admittedly, permanent steal is conceptually bad >(I'm more impressed with the balance of Temptation every time I play it, unlike >the permanent steal effects), but the card is too painful to play. Guard Duty. *drool* [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] This is what the welcome message discussed. You can't choose to contest (i.e., you cannot play the Ivory Bow and attempt the action to equip it). If you somehow manage to get a second copy, then the second copy is burned. As is the case with a second Sport Bike - since the retrieved equipment is not legal for you, it is discarded without cost. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > > If you can't contest with yourself, then what happens if you do influence out > a duplicate? Is it not allowed to be in play? What about Jimmy Dunn? See the welcome message at the start of this thread, and the Jimmy Dunn message in the middle. The influenced vampire is burned. Jiummy Dunn cannot be contested (card text), so the contesting rule isn't applicable. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <82c154eb.01061...@posting.google.com>, XZealot <X_Ze...@email.msn.com> writes >If you can't contest with yourself, then what happens if you do influence out >a duplicate? You can't (intentionally). > Is it not allowed to be in play? No. > What about Jimmy Dunn? Specific exception. You can bring a second Jimmy Dunn out because he doesn't contest. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > As I understand it, the intent is to avoid errata whenever possible, > as errata IS more confusing and not easily demonstrable to a new > player. (In a pickup game recently, a newish player had an old Fame > copy dropped on his vampire. We told him "hang on, don't read that > card, it's the old version", and searched through my library to find a > NEW copy of Fame that he could read. It is MUCH easier to explain to > newer players when you can show them a card, as opposed to saying "Oh, > that got fixed on the Internet...") It's one of those things that is just plain unavoidable. My solution in this very same case was to allow the player to play Fame the old way butI also explained the change to them and we agreed that for the next time she built a deck with Fame, the new text will apply. Of course, in this particular case, their entire strategy would have been hosed by the new ruling. New players need a break sometimes and also the last thing I want to do is scare them away with all the errata/un-errata changes. That's not to say I don't agree with the changes--I do, but it's difficult enough teaching a newbie the rules without having to explain the history of the game. So far, this seems to have worked. Although some players are still confused, they mostly want to keep playing (moreso now with the new cards!). Cheers, WES

>You cannot contest cards with yourself [4.1]. If, via the ending of some >temporary-control effect or via some other effect, you end up contestinging >with yourself, simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card. If you were >previously contesting the card, you continue contesting until your untap >phase. If you had uncontested control of the card, then you retain >uncontested control of the card [DTR]. Note: your vampires can still contest >titles with each other. Quick questions on how this new rule works with Political Seizure and non-unique vampires. #1. Player A and Player B each have a Living Manse in play. Player A cannot play a Political Seizure and choose "Living Manse" as the location because it would then mean he's contesting with himself, right? #2. Player B has two (or more) Living Manse in play. Player A plays a Political Seizure and chooses "Living Manse" so that card is now contested. In particular, this means Player B is contesting multiple Living Manses with himself which is not allowable. So...how do you determine which Living Manse is burned? The one that was brought into play the latest (7 turns ago instead of the one brought into play 15 turns ago?)? Or does Player B get to choose which Living Manse remains in play? #3. (Not related to Political Seizure). What happens if you have Jimmy Dunn with a Seeds of Corruption (so this Jimmy *can* be contested). And then you bring out another one (this second one *can't* be contested). Now what happens? #4. I have two or more Fida'i and/or Aabt Kindred (they don't contest with each other). A single Seeds of Corruption is placed on only one of them. Now what? Do they contest? And if so, who burns? One of the Aabt allows contestation and uniqueness but the other Aabt still says that they he does not contest. #5. Similar situation to #4 but this time all of your Fida'i and/or Aabt Kindred have Seeds of Corruption on them (somehow). This time I'm pretty sure they all contest so how do you determine which ones burn? Thanks! Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >You cannot contest cards with yourself [4.1]. If, via the ending of some > >temporary-control effect or via some other effect, you end up contestinging > >with yourself, simply burn the incoming copy of the unique card. If you were > >previously contesting the card, you continue contesting until your untap > >phase. If you had uncontested control of the card, then you retain > >uncontested control of the card [DTR]. Note: your vampires can still contest > >titles with each other. > > Quick questions on how this new rule works with Political Seizure and > non-unique vampires. > > #1. Player A and Player B each have a Living Manse in play. Player A cannot > play a Political Seizure and choose "Living Manse" as the location because it > would then mean he's contesting with himself, right? Not true. Politcal Seizure would only contest the targetted Living Manse. Nothing indicates that the other Living Manse would be contested. > #2. Player B has two (or more) Living Manse in play. Player A plays a Political > Seizure and chooses "Living Manse" so that card is now contested. In > particular, this means Player B is contesting multiple Living Manses with > himself which is not allowable. So...how do you determine which Living Manse is > burned? The one that was brought into play the latest (7 turns ago instead of > the one brought into play 15 turns ago?)? Or does Player B get to choose which > Living Manse remains in play? No. Again, only the targetted copy of Living Manse is contested. > #3. (Not related to Political Seizure). What happens if you have Jimmy Dunn > with a Seeds of Corruption (so this Jimmy *can* be contested). And then you > bring out another one (this second one *can't* be contested). Now what happens? The Second Jimmy's card text (not being seeded) applies - burn the first. > #4. I have two or more Fida'i and/or Aabt Kindred (they don't contest with each > other). A single Seeds of Corruption is placed on only one of them. Now what? > Do they contest? And if so, who burns? One of the Aabt allows contestation and > uniqueness but the other Aabt still says that they he does not contest. > > #5. Similar situation to #4 but this time all of your Fida'i and/or Aabt > Kindred have Seeds of Corruption on them (somehow). This time I'm pretty sure > they all contest so how do you determine which ones burn? A unique vampire doesn't contest a non-unique vampire. Non-unique vampires never contest. If you get a Seeds on a second one (so that you now have two unique vampires), burn the second one (the one most recently made unique). [ quoted text not captured ]

>Not true. Politcal Seizure would only contest the targetted Living Manse. >Nothing indicates that the other Living Manse would be contested. > My mistake. Never really used it myself (or seen anyone else use it for that matter). Thanks! =) >A unique vampire doesn't contest a non-unique vampire. Non-unique vampires >never contest. If you get a Seeds on a second one (so that you now have two >unique vampires), burn the second one (the one most recently made unique). > Cool! You can burn vampires with Seeds of Corruption! (well some vampires at least). Halcyan 2

> >A unique vampire doesn't contest a non-unique vampire. Non-unique vampires > >never contest. If you get a Seeds on a second one (so that you now have two > >unique vampires), burn the second one (the one most recently made unique). > > > > Cool! You can burn vampires with Seeds of Corruption! (well some vampires at > least). > > Halcyan 2 I'm confused. How does Seeds of Corruption make a non-unique vampire, unique? How do you burn vampires with Seeds? Could someone please explain this to me, it's been a long day...

In message <d9925496.01061...@posting.google.com>, Aramis <came...@hotmail.com> writes >I'm confused. How does Seeds of Corruption make a non-unique vampire, >unique? If "non-unique" is considered a special ability, Seeds of Corruption would remove that. [ quoted text not captured ]