Hello
until yesterday i did not know equipment use is mandatory (and i
discovered it in the worst way).
And now i wonder
WHY?
why couldn't i choose if i want to intercept using my sport bike or
not?
why a laptop is always on?
why can't i choose to have a walk, leave my bike parked and use my
senses (enhanced)?
i would love to press that small button and shut off the laptop i'm
using, sometimes.
also retainers can't be left home? mr. wintrop please today stay home
cleaning thanks....
I know, i know the rules say.....
but there's a deeper reason? some balance issue? consistency problems?
it seems to me so illogical, and i do not see why should be this way
and not reversed.
Andrea
"andrea" <andrea....@infinito.it> wrote in message
news:8b06c4c.03102...@posting.google.com...
> Hello
Hi! :)
> until yesterday i did not know equipment use is mandatory (and i
> discovered it in the worst way).
> And now i wonder WHY?
See the rulebook:
[6.1.3.] EQUIP (+1 stealth)
"Equipment cards are action cards that give minions special abilities."
So, by definition, when you successfully equip an equipment card, you *get*
those special abilities.
> why couldn't i choose if i want to intercept using my
> sport bike or not?
[6.1.3.]
> why a laptop is always on?
[6.1.3.]
> why can't i choose to have a walk, leave my bike parked
> and use my senses (enhanced)?
[6.1.3.]
> i would love to press that small button and shut off the
> laptop i'm using, sometimes.
That contradicts [6.1.3.] unfortunately.
> also retainers can't be left home?
[6.1.4.] EMPLOY RETAINER (+1 stealth)
"Retainers are action cards that give minions special abilities."
So, by definition, when you successfully employ a retainer card, you *get*
those special abilities.
> mr. wintrop please today stay home cleaning thanks....
[6.1.4]
> I know, i know the rules say.....
It's those pesky rules again! Sorry, but the RULES are the RULES. :(
> but there's a deeper reason? some balance issue? consistency problems?
It sounds like YOU feel there's a deeper reason that the rules are the way
they are. It's just my opinion, obviously, but instead of asking LSJ about
balance issues and consistency problems, it might be more constructive to
tell us about how you feel the rules should be changed, and why.
> it seems to me so illogical,
What *exactly* is illogical about it?
> and i do not see why it should be this way and not reversed.
Reversed to be... what?
> Andrea
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
andrea....@infinito.it (andrea) writes:
> until yesterday i did not know equipment use is mandatory (and i discovered
> it in the worst way). And now i wonder WHY?> but there's a deeper reason? some balance issue? consistency problems?> it seems to me so illogical, and i do not see why should be this way
> and not reversed.
I'd wager a guess it's a balance issue. There are a lot of cards out there
that say: you *may* do this. You *may* give a vampire +1 intercept. You
*can* burn 1 blood to get +1 bleed. You don't *have* to use a weapon in a
combat, etc.
If your vamp with Mr. Winthrop is blocking an action at +1 stealth, you
can't cycle that Enhanced Senses out of your hand.
But if your vamp has a .44 Magnum, you don't have to use it, if you want to
get rid of that Undead Strength that's clogging your hand.
No, it's not realistic. But hey - how realistic is it that a vampire
forgets how to use his disciplines, just because the player does not have the
right cards in her hand?
--
hg@ It's better to open your mouth and appear stupid,
iki.fi than to hold it shut and keep thinking you know it all.
andrea wrote:
> Hello
> until yesterday i did not know equipment use is mandatory (and i
> discovered it in the worst way).
> And now i wonder
> WHY?> but there's a deeper reason? some balance issue? consistency problems?
Cards in play are mandatory unless card text says otherwise.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ expounded:
> andrea wrote:
> > Hello
> > until yesterday i did not know equipment use is mandatory (and i
> > discovered it in the worst way).
> > And now i wonder
> > WHY?
> > but there's a deeper reason? some balance issue? consistency problems?
>
> Cards in play are mandatory unless card text says otherwise.
WHY?
LSJ expounded:
> andrea wrote:
> > Hello
> > until yesterday i did not know equipment use is mandatory (and i
> > discovered it in the worst way).
> > And now i wonder
> > WHY?
> > but there's a deeper reason? some balance issue? consistency problems?
>
> Cards in play are mandatory unless card text says otherwise.
The qustion is:
WHY?
My guess is that whatever you want, your minion is going to use the
resources at their disposal. You are not the minion -just their
controller.
Timlagor wrote:
> WHY?
The example I think of is Writ of Acceptance. Think about what could be
done if you have a, say, Sabbat Cardinal with a Writ of Acceptance that
is non-mandatory. The controller of this vamp would be able to
determine, at any given time, if it was a Sabbat or Camarilla vampire.
Said Cardinal can call a Praxis Seizure (being a Camarilla member), and
then immediately cast three votes for (being a non-Camarilla member).
Afterwards, the vamp could play cards requiring a Cardinal, and cards
requiring a Prince. Or, the Cardinal could nip down to eat at the
Hungry Coyote while being immune to Protect Thine Own. Etc.
As for +1 intercept/+1 bleed, I'd wager that it's simply to keep it in
line with inherent abilities, or other card effects. Ozmo can't refuse
his +1 bleed, nor can the recipient of a superior Pulse at some point
down the road refuse the +2 bleed.
--Colin McGuigan
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F9655EE...@white-wolf.com>...
> andrea wrote:
> > Hello
> > until yesterday i did not know equipment use is mandatory (and i
> > discovered it in the worst way).
> > And now i wonder
> > WHY?
> > but there's a deeper reason? some balance issue? consistency problems?
>
> Cards in play are mandatory unless card text says otherwise.
so it is just to keep coherence between all the different types of
cards you can play?
well......OK
i still find it inconsistent storywise but....OK
Thanks
Andrea
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<1jrlb.33249$Rd4.20357@fed1read07>...
> > I know, i know the rules say.....
>
> It's those pesky rules again! Sorry, but the RULES are the RULES. :(
>
> > but there's a deeper reason? some balance issue? consistency problems?
>
> It sounds like YOU feel there's a deeper reason that the rules are the way
> they are. It's just my opinion, obviously, but instead of asking LSJ about
> balance issues and consistency problems, it might be more constructive to
> tell us about how you feel the rules should be changed, and why.
>
> > it seems to me so illogical,
>
> What *exactly* is illogical about it?
>
thanks for using your time writing a very long mail and saying nothing
new.
probably i was not clear...i know the rule(from yesterday) and i can
accept it
from a game point of view not from a story point of view
if you imagine hugo on a sport bike he can decide if he wants to use
it or not.
i was wandering if this is a rule that is a result of deep reasoning
or just a construction on older ruling. even more as there was a time
when the ruling was reverse
LSJ 1998/01/27 said "since using equipment is always optional"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=laptop+optional+group:rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad&safe=off&selm=34CDE4AD.2781%40wizards.com&rnum=1
(BTW when did the rule changed?)
and don't say "the RULES are the RULES!" as if that is true then we
would still play with the repeat action rule
or with the "more than one political card" rule
Andrea
andrea wrote:
> thanks for using your time writing a very long mail and saying nothing
> new.
> probably i was not clear...i know the rule(from yesterday) and i can
> accept it
> from a game point of view not from a story point of view
> if you imagine hugo on a sport bike he can decide if he wants to use
> it or not.
Not any more illogical than Gilbert Duane not being able to become Lost
in the Crowds unless he's blocked, or Stanislava not being able to have
a Skin of Rock even when no one's punching her.
Certainly not any more illogical than Arika being able to use her
Majesty sometimes and not others, depending upon what cards you have in
your hand. =P
--Colin McGuigan
andrea....@infinito.it (andrea) wrote in message news:<8b06c4c.03102...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
We as players often lose sight of the original thematic reason that
minions are unruly. You are controlling the minions indirectly. Having
a minion telling Mr. Winthrop is too fine a (non-combat) control over
that minion.
andrea <andrea....@infinito.it> wrote:
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message
> news:<1jrlb.33249$Rd4.20357@fed1read07>...
>>> > I know, i know the rules say.....
>>
>> It's those pesky rules again! Sorry, but the RULES are the RULES.
>> :(
>>
>> > but there's a deeper reason? some balance issue? consistency
>> > problems?
>>
>> It sounds like YOU feel there's a deeper reason that the rules
>> are the way they are. It's just my opinion, obviously, but
>> instead of asking LSJ about balance issues and consistency
>> problems, it might be more constructive to tell us about how
>> you feel the rules should be changed, and why.
>>
>> > it seems to me so illogical,
>>
>> What *exactly* is illogical about it?
>>> thanks for using your time writing a very long mail and saying
> nothing new.
You're welcome.
> probably i was not clear...
You were perfectly clear. Your English is good. I'm glad all you European
folks know my language, so that we can have a good time discussing our
favorite game! :)
> i know the rule(from yesterday) and i can accept it from
> a game point of view not from a story point of view
Come on, Andrea. You're smarter than this. You have been around reading
this newsgroup for long enough. You have seen LSJ state OVER and OVER and
OVER that the rpg and corresponding backstory is secondary in consideration
to the consistency and rationality of the ccg.
> if you imagine hugo on a sport bike he can decide if he
> wants to use it or not.
See above.
> and don't say "the RULES are the RULES!" as if that is
> true then we would still play with the repeat action rule
> or with the "more than one political card" rule
How in the heck did you come to THAT conclusion? :) I wasn't talking about
the rules from the Jyhad days. When talking about "the RULES are the RULES"
we are obviously talking about the CURRENT rules.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Kevin M." wrote:
> andrea wrote:
> > i know the rule(from yesterday) and i can accept it from
> > a game point of view not from a story point of view
>
> Come on, Andrea. You're smarter than this. You have been around reading
> this newsgroup for long enough. You have seen LSJ state OVER and OVER and
> OVER that the rpg and corresponding backstory is secondary in consideration
> to the consistency and rationality of the ccg.
This should, perhaps, be stated a bit stronger.
V:TES is a card game. V:TES is NOT a story. If you want a story, read
a book. You do not play characters. If you want to play a character,
go get your dice, paper & pencil and go play a RPG.
The reason that equipment was ruled non-optional in the 7/7 rulings
was to close a number of loopholes. For example, if equipment was
optional, Ozmo with a Laptop could survive a Justicar Retribution and
then go on bleeding people for 3. For another, a vampire with a Sport
Bike could play an Enhanced Senses to cycle a card even though they
didn't really need to. (The practice of limitless card cycling for the
sake of doing so is not generally encouraged by the rules.) If memory
serves me correctly, even the NJL agreed with LSJ on this issue back
in the day. I don't recall anyone having an problem with it.
> > and don't say "the RULES are the RULES!" as if that is
> > true then we would still play with the repeat action rule
> > or with the "more than one political card" rule
>
> How in the heck did you come to THAT conclusion? :) I wasn't talking about
> the rules from the Jyhad days. When talking about "the RULES are the RULES"
> we are obviously talking about the CURRENT rules.
Quite. Never mind that those changes were made for the same reason
that equipment was made mandatory; game balance and consistency.
Regards,
Noal
andrea....@infinito.it writes:
>until yesterday i did not know equipment use is mandatory (and i
>discovered it in the worst way).
>And now i wonder WHY?
I notice you got a number of answers that boiled down to
"because", which doesn't answer your question.
Somebody else mentioned balance issues but IMO the big
reason is there's currently no mechanic in the game to
turn equipment off and on. The interactions of that kind
of thing with other events can create a lot of timing issues
and there's just no reason to put up with a blizzard of
extra rules and rulings for a minor "storyline" benefit.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson