rule q: unique cards

Silly Question: Is there any reason that one could not play a unique card that had been burned for whatever reason? For example if I play Renegade Garu, it gets burned in combat and I have another in my deck that I wish to recruit later on in the same game. If the answer is no then does the same go for named cards? (Thaddius Zoe or Mr. Winthrop) Thanks Chris -- ---- Chris Gottbrath ---- "All the rest is silence Physics Student, DePauw University On the other side of the wall; CL...@IO.com, Chr...@DePauw.edu And the silence ripeness http://www.io.com/~cleeg/ And the ripeness all. " W.H.Auden

On 12 Oct 1996, Chris Gottbrath wrote: > Silly Question: > > Is there any reason that one could not play a unique card that had > been burned for whatever reason? For example if I play Renegade Garu, it > gets burned in combat and I have another in my deck that I wish to recruit > later on in the same game. > > If the answer is no then does the same go for named cards? > (Thaddius Zoe or Mr. Winthrop) > > Thanks > Chris > > Actually Chris, O contrare to whatever I said above, you can bring back burned items if you have another in your deck. It's not contested because cards in the ash heap are considered "Remove(d) from play." And Contested cards are:" if there are multiple copies of unique cards in play" Yeah, lets say someone burns you elysium by a vote and later in the game you have more votes, you can put another elysium into play. Salutaions. Matt.

> Is there any reason that one could not play a unique card that had >been burned for whatever reason? For example if I play Renegade Garu, it >gets burned in combat and I have another in my deck that I wish to recruit >later on in the same game. I don't see any reason why you couldn't. I have done so several times, especially when Thadius or Outcast mage gets wiped. Sorrow -- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <53ouq1$6...@nntp-3.io.com>, Chris Gottbrath <cl...@io.com> wrote: > Silly Question: > Is there any reason that one could not play a unique card that had >been burned for whatever reason? For example if I play Renegade Garu, it >gets burned in combat and I have another in my deck that I wish to recruit >later on in the same game. No problems there; but the Garou isn't unique (this has come up a couple of times lately, for some reason) -- it's just prohibitively expensive. > If the answer is no then does the same go for named cards? >(Thaddius Zoe or Mr. Winthrop) Yep. You can replace burned uniques all day long. gomi -- 'spend a day and a half dead and the lettuce runs amok.' -babs woods

On 13 Oct 1996, Gomi no Sensei wrote: > In article <53ouq1$6...@nntp-3.io.com>, Chris Gottbrath <cl...@io.com> wrote: > > Silly Question: > > > Is there any reason that one could not play a unique card that had > >been burned for whatever reason? For example if I play Renegade Garu, it > >gets burned in combat and I have another in my deck that I wish to recruit > >later on in the same game. > > If the answer is no then does the same go for named cards? > >(Thaddius Zoe or Mr. Winthrop) > > Yep. You can replace burned uniques all day long. > According to the official rules, yes. But I'm compiling a set of guidelines that prevent this absurdity. They are broad guidelines, but you can solve most problems with a reality check. The main problem is that you should play the RPG in order to make these reality ckecks more accurate: - These rules apply to unique locations, retainers, minions (every named vampire is unique) and equipment. "Unique Master"s (Fame, Bureaucratic Overload, et al) are not included. - There's a difference between "discard" and "burned": discard happens when it doesn't matter what the card says. Burn happens when the card was destroyed by another's intervention. - There's another ash pile: the unique pile. There we'll place all the uniques that are burned (by the latter definitions). - A card that's in the unique pile can never be brought into play. - The ash pile and the unique pile work as if they are the same. Any activity that would target the ash pile can reach any one of these piles. Quite simple! This will surely make the game much more realistic. I'd be more than happy to hear from you what you think about it. :) David Pontes 8[ 8[

David Pontes (l41...@alfa.ist.utl.pt) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Much simpler way: the one per deck rule. One of each unique (vamp, location, etc.), no more allowed in your library/crypt.

rob...@adam.com.au (robert donoghue) writes: >David Pontes (l41...@alfa.ist.utl.pt) wrote: >: > Yep. You can replace burned uniques all day long. >: >: According to the official rules, yes. But I'm compiling a set of >: guidelines that prevent this absurdity. They are broad guidelines, but you can >: solve most problems with a reality check. The main problem is that you >: should play the RPG in order to make these reality ckecks more accurate: >Much simpler way: the one per deck rule. One of each unique (vamp, >location, etc.), no more allowed in your library/crypt. This solution, while simpler, is not sufficient. It still allows for each Methuselah to have a Nik is her crypt, for example, and to bring one out after someone else's has been burned. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Hard work has a future payoff. http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | Laziness pays off now. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

On 18 Oct 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote: > rob...@adam.com.au (robert donoghue) writes: [Re: Changing rules on unique cards] > >Much simpler way: the one per deck rule. One of each unique (vamp, > >location, etc.), no more allowed in your library/crypt. > This solution, while simpler, is not sufficient. It still allows for > each Methuselah to have a Nik is her crypt, for example, and to bring > one out after someone else's has been burned. To add to this, not only does it not stop multiple Niks, it really isn't good for the game. By only allowing one for each unique, whether or not the narrative improves, the game becomes more based on luck rather than on deck design skill. Another drawback (though only a temporary one) is that clans from Dark Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts will have a hard time making a decent crypt. The original solution (to not allow the _return_ of burned uniques) is better in that deck construction is not hurt. However, I'm not convinced the additional comlexity is necessary. [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # P++ C(+++) USX+ N++ !w @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ X++ b++(+++) tv(+)> @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ e+* PS++@ PE@ z*++?

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : rob...@adam.com.au (robert donoghue) writes: : >David Pontes (l41...@alfa.ist.utl.pt) wrote: : >: > Yep. You can replace burned uniques all day long. : >: : >: According to the official rules, yes. But I'm compiling a set of : >: guidelines that prevent this absurdity. They are broad guidelines, but you can : >: solve most problems with a reality check. The main problem is that you : >: should play the RPG in order to make these reality ckecks more accurate: : : >Much simpler way: the one per deck rule. One of each unique (vamp, : >location, etc.), no more allowed in your library/crypt. : : This solution, while simpler, is not sufficient. It still allows for : each Methuselah to have a Nik is her crypt, for example, and to bring : one out after someone else's has been burned. : : -- : L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Hard work has a future payoff. Alright, how about this: you take a pack of ordinary playing cards. Each player sheffles them in turn. They are cut. The 1st player takes a card from the top, notes the value (i.e 2 is bad, ace is very good), replaces it. TYhey are shuffled. The next player cuts, draws a card, etc. They go in order of card value, each declaring one unique crypt and one unique library card. Once a card is declared, you cannot then name it. This continues until no-one wishes to or is able to name a unique card. They put their cards into their deck, shuffle, play.

rob...@adam.com.au (robert donoghue) wrote: >David Pontes (l41...@alfa.ist.utl.pt) wrote: >: On 13 Oct 1996, Gomi no Sensei wrote: >: >: > In article <53ouq1$6...@nntp-3.io.com>, Chris Gottbrath <cl...@io.com> wrote: (much snipage) >: > Yep. You can replace burned uniques all day long. >: > >: >: According to the official rules, yes. But I'm compiling a set of >: guidelines that prevent this absurdity. They are broad guidelines, but you can >: solve most problems with a reality check. The main problem is that you >: should play the RPG in order to make these reality ckecks more accurate: >: >: - These rules apply to unique locations, retainers, minions (every >: named vampire is unique) and equipment. "Unique Master"s (Fame, >: Bureaucratic Overload, et al) are not included. >: >: - There's a difference between "discard" and "burned": discard >: happens when it doesn't matter what the card says. Burn happens when the >: card was destroyed by another's intervention. >: >: - There's another ash pile: the unique pile. There we'll place >: all the uniques that are burned (by the latter definitions). >: >: - A card that's in the unique pile can never be brought into >: play. >: >: - The ash pile and the unique pile work as if they are the same. >: Any activity that would target the ash pile can reach any one of these >: piles. >: >: Quite simple! This will surely make the game much more realistic. >: I'd be more than happy to hear from you what you think about it. :) >: >: David Pontes >Much simpler way: the one per deck rule. One of each unique (vamp, >location, etc.), no more allowed in your library/crypt. Simple: yes. Good: no. How can you build any strategy at all around a card you can only put one of in a deck. Do you actually expect you will draw this card. It would come down to pure luck. I often put 4 or more of certain unique cards (Elysium, KRCG) that I really need so I have a decent chance of drawing one from a 90 card deck. Restricting uniques to 1 is incredably harsh and IMO unfounded. Steve Bucy

>decent chance of drawing one from a 90 card deck. Restricting uniques to >1 is incredably harsh and IMO unfounded. I completely agree. A unique card is something in which there can be only one that is controlled at a time (KRCG, ToR, Arboretrum, Any Vamp, etc). The way that I look at it is that when you play that card, you control it. If that card gets burned, then you lost control of it and with that being the case, some other Meth can then try to gain control of that card. This line of thinking fits very well in a storytelling type of game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow (cbo...@apdi.net) wrote: : >decent chance of drawing one from a 90 card deck. Restricting uniques to : >1 is incredably harsh and IMO unfounded. : I completely agree. A unique card is something in which there can : be only one that is controlled at a time (KRCG, ToR, Arboretrum, Any : Vamp, etc). The way that I look at it is that when you play that : card, you control it. If that card gets burned, then you lost : control of it and with that being the case, some other Meth can then : try to gain control of that card. This line of thinking fits very : well in a storytelling type of game. Well, it fits well in your mind, and mine. It's a nice quick fix. Of course, people rightly point out that it doesn't make much sense in terms of, say, "shattering blow" of a unique weapon, or the amaranth or diablerie of a vampire. The arson of a building, however, I would explain as you making the investment to rebuild it, thus bringing it under your control. -spongy

theCorrupter (adr...@ducat.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: : On 18 Oct 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote: : : > rob...@adam.com.au (robert donoghue) writes: : : [Re: Changing rules on unique cards] : : > >Much simpler way: the one per deck rule. One of each unique (vamp, : > >location, etc.), no more allowed in your library/crypt. : : > This solution, while simpler, is not sufficient. It still allows for : > each Methuselah to have a Nik is her crypt, for example, and to bring : > one out after someone else's has been burned. : : To add to this, not only does it not stop multiple Niks, it really isn't : good for the game. By only allowing one for each unique, whether or not : the narrative improves, the game becomes more based on luck rather than on : deck design skill. : : Another drawback (though only a temporary one) is that clans from Dark : Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts will have a hard time making a decent crypt. : : The original solution (to not allow the _return_ of burned uniques) is : better in that deck construction is not hurt. However, I'm not convinced : the additional comlexity is necessary. : A-ha! Yes, it is all correct. This is an incredibly stupid idea, and basically destroys the game. But, someone (i have no idea who) posted about this, and i offered them a solution. Personally if i ever found myself playing like this i would sharpen a .44 magnum card and remove my head.

robert donoghue wrote: > Alright, how about this: > you take a pack of ordinary playing cards. Each player sheffles them in > turn. They are cut. The 1st player takes a card from the top, notes the > value (i.e 2 is bad, ace is very good), replaces it. TYhey are shuffled. > The next player cuts, draws a card, etc. They go in order of card value, > each declaring one unique crypt and one unique library card. Once a card > is declared, you cannot then name it. This continues until no-one wishes > to or is able to name a unique card. > They put their cards into their deck, shuffle, play. EVERY time you play?!?!? The "burned for ever and ever" pile would be simpler. Are you realy willing to go to all that effort for what will amount to a very small increase in realism? -- Steve "I Bled Someone for 14 Pool in One Turn Because of a Misdirection" Wampler, creator of the "Spend 29 Pool on Vampires and Get Bled for One and Die™" deck ---------------------------------------------------------------------- There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another which states that this has already happened. -Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe Any sufficiently advanced technology is indestinguishable from magic. -Clarke's Law

>Steve Wampler wrote: (Re:Robert Donoghue's suggestion over who should get to put the uniques in their deck first if the 1 per game uniques rule is in effect.) > Are you really willing to go to all that effort for what will > amount to a very small increase in realism? 1. Yes. Some people would. Instead of creating a narrative story from the movements of the cards, the narrative story removes cards which aren't easy to explain. 2. There's a horrible, horrible irony in a bunch of people arguing over how they can make a card game with blood- sucking vampires slugging it out more real than it was before. -Nathan Harada

[ quoted text not captured ] Exactly. I say stop worrying about realism and play for fun. [ quoted text not captured ]

Nathan Harada (i...@hula.net) wrote: : >Steve Wampler wrote: : : (Re:Robert Donoghue's suggestion over who should get to put : the uniques in their deck first if the 1 per game uniques : rule is in effect.) : : > Are you really willing to go to all that effort for what will : > amount to a very small increase in realism? : : 1. Yes. Some people would. Instead of creating a narrative : story from the movements of the cards, the narrative story : removes cards which aren't easy to explain. : : 2. There's a horrible, horrible irony in a bunch of people : arguing over how they can make a card game with blood- : sucking vampires slugging it out more real than it was : before. : : -Nathan Harada Well, I'm perfectly happy with the original rules. I was merely offering an improvement, a method that I saw as easier, to someone else's rules. I don't care if sixteen different Nik the caitiffs appear at different times, or if a dozen Elysiums are around during the game. Ooh, it's not realistic. I'm worried. If i ever wanted to play vampires for real, i'd be in jail (or gaol) by now.

Steve Bucy (tb...@lainet.com) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] : >Much simpler way: the one per deck rule. One of each unique (vamp, : >location, etc.), no more allowed in your library/crypt. : : Simple: yes. Good: no. How can you build any strategy at all around a I never said that it was good. Oh, you want good? You stick with the original rules. Personally, that's what i do. : card you can only put one of in a deck. Do you actually expect you will : draw this card. It would come down to pure luck. I often put 4 or more of : certain unique cards (Elysium, KRCG) that I really need so I have a : decent chance of drawing one from a 90 card deck. Restricting uniques to : 1 is incredably harsh and IMO unfounded. Agreed. But, if you're going to restrict, it's much better to do it this way than hunt through everyone's ash piles everytime someone wants to bring out a radio station!

Steve Wampler ("sek10"@cornellSHA.edu) wrote: : robert donoghue wrote: : > Alright, how about this: : > you take a pack of ordinary playing cards. Each player sheffles them in : > turn. They are cut. The 1st player takes a card from the top, notes the : > value (i.e 2 is bad, ace is very good), replaces it. TYhey are shuffled. : > The next player cuts, draws a card, etc. They go in order of card value, : > each declaring one unique crypt and one unique library card. Once a card : > is declared, you cannot then name it. This continues until no-one wishes : > to or is able to name a unique card. : > They put their cards into their deck, shuffle, play. : EVERY time you play?!?!? The "burned for ever and ever" pile would be : simpler. Are you realy willing to go to all that effort for what will : amount to a very small increase in realism? No, I'm not. But if I had to play with someone who was sensetive about this, I'd rather not have half a dozen piles on my side of the table. And have to search through one of them for EVERY player EVERY time someone puts down a zoo hunting grounds.

robert donoghue (rob...@adam.com.au) wrote: : James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: : : : : The arson of a building, however, I would explain as you making the : : investment to rebuild it, thus bringing it under your control. : : Then why does building an art gallery cost less than buying an assault : rifle??? : :) Despite the fact that you were poking fun and probably could care less about the answer... Blood does NOT equal cash. It is my understanding that the high cost of using a "gun" is twofold: 1) because if they were too cheap it would unbalance the game. 2) because it takes more influence to get a vampire to use a gun than to use their hands or a bastard sword, or other more traditional weapons. It probably takes less "influence" to get an art gallery under control, whether it needs to be rebuilt or not. Then again, I never claimed I wanted to explain short and long term investments... ;) -spongy

It is not all that hard to justify multiple uniques in the game people! And, the rules for contesting a unique card are there for a reason. There is also nothing wrong with a vampire being burned and later reappearing in the same game. Maybe they were never really burned in the first place. Maybe the vampire who supposedly diaberized them screwed up and didn't actually finish them off. Maybe the vampire was actually spared and is just laying low for awhile. -- David Kent -aka- Constant Hazard \----------------------/ \ haz...@potomac.net / \------------------/

James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: : Sorrow (cbo...@apdi.net) wrote: : : >decent chance of drawing one from a 90 card deck. Restricting uniques to : : >1 is incredably harsh and IMO unfounded. : : : I completely agree. A unique card is something in which there can : : be only one that is controlled at a time (KRCG, ToR, Arboretrum, Any : : Vamp, etc). The way that I look at it is that when you play that : : card, you control it. If that card gets burned, then you lost : : control of it and with that being the case, some other Meth can then : : try to gain control of that card. This line of thinking fits very : : well in a storytelling type of game. : : Well, it fits well in your mind, and mine. It's a nice quick fix. : Of course, people rightly point out that it doesn't make much sense : in terms of, say, "shattering blow" of a unique weapon, or the amaranth : or diablerie of a vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 21 Oct 1996, robert donoghue wrote: > James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: > : The arson of a building, however, I would explain as you making the > : investment to rebuild it, thus bringing it under your control. > Then why does building an art gallery cost less than buying an assault > rifle??? > :) Ah. It's been awhile. There is a simple reason. Remember that pool is an abstract measure of your influence, holdings, and basic status with the other Methuselahs. From a game world standpoint, there are far more Methuselahs than the 2 to 7 others sitting at your table. Thus, their opinions of you are quite influential on your ability to do things. Secondly, these Methuselahs are near omniscient. If you influence one of your minions into getting an assault rifle, They will know. Using such modern tools as assault rifles is banal and smacks of lowering oneself to the standards of human (read: cattle) conflict. Such an action is both foolish seeming, and influence expensive (getting an illegal weapon into the hands of an undead creature who might not have records remaining of their mortal existence). The loss of pool is a loss of support from "other" Methuselahs as well... Art museums are far less of a lowering of status. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, theCorrupter wrote: > On 18 Oct 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote: > > > rob...@adam.com.au (robert donoghue) writes: > > [Re: Changing rules on unique cards] > > The original solution (to not allow the _return_ of burned uniques) is > better in that deck construction is not hurt. However, I'm not convinced > the additional comlexity is necessary. > I can see you understand that the guidelines are too "loose", and the thing is in fact more complicated than it seems. :) The truth is that in order to make the thing work you need to have a good judgement on how the things actually work. Scott and I traded a few emails trying to smooth the things out and realized it's not that simple, and there would be many "special cases" (decided not by the rule itself but by an interpretation of the game environment). A good example is "Goodnight Sweet Prince" -- Reading the guidelines what do you think it would happen if the "kissed" vampire was already in play? (yes, this is a trick question (: ). Just checking if the think could work without it's creator. Please reply :) David Pontes 8[

cat.cs.wisc.edu>: Distribution: theCorrupter (adr...@ducat.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: : On 21 Oct 1996, robert donoghue wrote: : : > James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: : : > : The arson of a building, however, I would explain as you making the : > : investment to rebuild it, thus bringing it under your control. : : > Then why does building an art gallery cost less than buying an assault : > rifle??? : > :) : : Ah. It's been awhile. : : There is a simple reason. Remember that pool is an abstract measure of : your influence, holdings, and basic status with the other Methuselahs. : From a game world standpoint, there are far more Methuselahs than the 2 to : 7 others sitting at your table. Thus, their opinions of you are quite : influential on your ability to do things. Secondly, these Methuselahs are : near omniscient. If you influence one of your minions into getting an : assault rifle, They will know. Using such modern tools as assault rifles : is banal and smacks of lowering oneself to the standards of human (read: : cattle) conflict. Such an action is both foolish seeming, and influence : expensive (getting an illegal weapon into the hands of an undead creature : who might not have records remaining of their mortal existence). The loss : of pool is a loss of support from "other" Methuselahs as well... Art : museums are far less of a lowering of status. So, when you influence a vampire (i.e. spending 11 pool on an IC) then you are ACTUALLY spending favor of the other meths. So, you meet Stanislava and say 'Hey, Meth X says if you work for me, he'll be your friend and invite you to his birthday [perhaps death-day?] party!" and Stanislava says 'Oh wow! Great!' Right?

robert donoghue (rob...@adam.com.au) wrote: : theCorrupter (adr...@ducat.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: : : : : There is a simple reason. Remember that pool is an abstract measure of : : your influence, holdings, and basic status with the other Methuselahs. : : So, when you influence a vampire (i.e. spending 11 pool on an IC) then : you are ACTUALLY spending favor of the other meths. So, you meet : Stanislava and say 'Hey, Meth X says if you work for me, he'll be your : friend and invite you to his birthday [perhaps death-day?] party!" and : Stanislava says 'Oh wow! Great!' Right? Well, that's kind of silly. ;) But it could possibly be. Keep in mind, however, that the Corrupter noted that pool isn't JUST status with other Meths. Bringing Stanislava into your fold could also be as simple as spending an enormous emount of your influence (time, resources, etc.) to entice Stan. to be one of your minions. This investment of your own resources to bring 'em in and keep 'em there is a measure of your pool loss. If you hadn't devoted all of those resources to Stanislava, you certainly could have talked a bunch of Caitiff into it... -spongy

James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: : robert donoghue (rob...@adam.com.au) wrote: : : theCorrupter (adr...@ducat.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: : : : : : : There is a simple reason. Remember that pool is an abstract measure of : : : your influence, holdings, and basic status with the other Methuselahs. : : : : So, when you influence a vampire (i.e. spending 11 pool on an IC) then : : you are ACTUALLY spending favor of the other meths. So, you meet : : Stanislava and say 'Hey, Meth X says if you work for me, he'll be your : : friend and invite you to his birthday [perhaps death-day?] party!" and : : Stanislava says 'Oh wow! Great!' Right? : : Well, that's kind of silly. ;) But it could possibly be. Keep in mind, What? You thought i was serious? Oh dear. :) (that was a joke too...) : however, that the Corrupter noted that pool isn't JUST status with other : Meths. Bringing Stanislava into your fold could also be as simple as : spending an enormous emount of your influence (time, resources, etc.) to : entice Stan. to be one of your minions. This investment of your own resources : to bring 'em in and keep 'em there is a measure of your pool loss. If you : hadn't devoted all of those resources to Stanislava, you certainly could : have talked a bunch of Caitiff into it... Well, sure, but if you want to say this then "pool" could be absolutely anything. It could be the measure of your cheese collection. You could offer a piece of edam in exchange for Donald Cruez's alleigance. It could be a combination of limitless variables; it cannot be defined. BUT, surely by any means, it MUST be easier, say, to go to some guy and purchase an uzi than it is to bribe the boss of an art gallery, and say "hey, toreadors, come over here! it's art! Now, i have a favour to ask..."

robert donoghue (rob...@adam.com.au) wrote: : What? You thought i was serious? Oh dear. :) (that was a joke too...) I knew you weren't serious. But, regardless, it was a valid description. : Well, sure, but if you want to say this then "pool" could be absolutely : anything. Well, not absolutely ANYTHING. : It could be the measure of your cheese collection. You could : offer a piece of edam in exchange for Donald Cruez's alleigance. It could : be a combination of limitless variables; it cannot be defined. Well, not defined as a specific commodity. But if you think of pool as the sum total of the resources which you have available to you to gain and maintain influence, then you have a handle on it. If you really _want_ to have a specific commodity in mind, that's where those storytelling variants come in... ;) : BUT, surely by any means, it MUST be easier, say, to go to some guy : and purchase an uzi than it is to bribe the boss of an art gallery, You are correct that it is _probably_ easier to actually purchase an uzi. But buying an uzi and getting someone to use are two totally different things. This is where the difference between pool and cash lies. As I understand it, in the world of vampires, guns are taboo -- so it takes more influence for you to force a minion to use one that it does to keep and maintain influence over an art museum... a respected investment. ;) : and say "hey, toreadors, come over here! it's art! Now, i have a : favour to ask..." And again, jokingly or not, it's a valid (if thin) story to describe your investment in influence. -spongy

robert donoghue (rob...@adam.com.au) wrote: : James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: : : As I understand it, in the world of vampires, guns are taboo -- so it takes : : more influence for you to force a minion to use one that it does to keep : : and maintain influence over an art museum... a respected investment. ;) : But surely there are a _large_ number of extremely unscrupulous vampires : out there. The society's even stronger against Diablerie, but good ol' : Igo'll do it without a thought for his own safety. Now you're starting to split hairs. Yes, there are probably many unscrupulous vampires, but consider that the vampires that participate _in this game_ aren't as unscrupulous as some. And that the ones that are more unscrupulous, and thus more likely to use guns, have special abilities which help lower the cost of equipping with them and using them. -spongy

James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: : robert donoghue (rob...@adam.com.au) wrote: : You are correct that it is _probably_ easier to actually purchase an uzi. : But buying an uzi and getting someone to use are two totally different things. : This is where the difference between pool and cash lies. [ quoted text not captured ]

> BUT, > surely by any means, it MUST be easier, say, to go to some guy and > purchase an uzi than it is to bribe the boss of an art gallery, and say > "hey, toreadors, come over here! it's art! Now, i have a favour to ask..." Not if you are an art-loving, gallery-supporting Toreador... Chris

James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: : robert donoghue (rob...@adam.com.au) wrote: : : James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: : : : As I understand it, in the world of vampires, guns are taboo -- so it takes : : : more influence for you to force a minion to use one that it does to keep : : : and maintain influence over an art museum... a respected investment. ;) : : But surely there are a _large_ number of extremely unscrupulous vampires : : out there. The society's even stronger against Diablerie, but good ol' : : Igo'll do it without a thought for his own safety. : : Now you're starting to split hairs. Yes, there are probably many : unscrupulous vampires, but consider that the vampires that participate _in : this game_ aren't as unscrupulous as some. And that the ones that are : more unscrupulous, and thus more likely to use guns, have special abilities : which help lower the cost of equipping with them and using them. Starting?!? I thought we'd been splitting hairs for days now. :) Those whose special abilities lower the cost of equipping represent connections, not unscupulousness. It refers to laptops as well.

Distribution: Chris Shorb (ino...@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : > BUT, [ quoted text not captured ] This would provide the motivation, yes, but not the means. I was talking about cost, not how badly you want something.