JYHAD:TOM:Progeny,Bum's,M

THE THIRD TRADITION: PROGENY What clan does the progeny belong to? We've come up with three different options: 1) the clan of the progenitor 2) Caitiff 3) no clan HAVEN UNCOVERED/BUM'S RUSH Does being attacked via one of these cards tap the defending vampire? TELEPAHTIC COUNTER If the bleed is reduced to zero, then the bleed is considered unsuccessful. Is the bleeding vampire tapped? MINION TAP Is this card a one-shot deal? IE, you play it and you get to move the blood one time only. Or do you play it on a particular vampire and then do you get to move blood every turn? Thanks for any info. -- Jonathan Aiello jmaiello@ucdavis.edu 1111 J St. #45 Davis, CA 95616 USA (916) 758-0960 Rhonda: "DS" (B+O)t+W+R G 3.3 X W- C+++ I T+ A+ E H++ S++ V+ F P+ B PA I think I am therefore I am, I think.

(Jonathan Aiello) writes: > >THE THIRD TRADITION: PROGENY > > What clan does the progeny belong to? We've come up with > three different options: > 1) the clan of the progenitor > 2) Caitiff > 3) no clan Good question. Would also apply to The Embrace (usable by all kindred). Going by the Masquerade, it would have to be (1). Princes aren't likely to be thin blooded, and thus produce Caitiff. >HAVEN UNCOVERED/BUM'S RUSH > > Does being attacked via one of these cards tap the defending > vampire? Absolutely NOT. If another vampire block's the rush, the blocker taps. Actions tap. Blocks tap. Voting doesn't. >TELEPAHTIC COUNTER > > If the bleed is reduced to zero, then the bleed is considered > unsuccessful. Is the bleeding vampire tapped? Yes. The bleed is unsuccessful, but the action still taps the bleeder. >MINION TAP > > Is this card a one-shot deal? IE, you play it and you get to > move the blood one time only. Or do you play it on a particular > vampire and then do you get to move blood every turn? One shot. One vampire. Into the ash heap. (Maybe what the FAQ needs is a list of all the cards that aren't immediately burned.) !-----------------------------------------------------------------------------! Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966 rxm@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.

Jonathan Aiello <ez008723@chip.ucdavis.edu> wrote: >THE THIRD TRADITION: PROGENY > What clan does the progeny belong to? We've come up with > three different options: > 1) the clan of the progenitor > 2) Caitiff > 3) no clan Certainly not the clan of the progenitor... Probably no clan at all. Would it ever matter if it was a Catiff? >HAVEN UNCOVERED/BUM'S RUSH > Does being attacked via one of these cards tap the defending > vampire? No. Only acting or blocking causes vampires to tap. >TELEPAHTIC COUNTER > If the bleed is reduced to zero, then the bleed is considered > unsuccessful. Is the bleeding vampire tapped? Yes, because it took an action. "considered unsuccessful" basically means "treat it as if it had been blocked", though no minions will go into combat as a result. >MINION TAP > Is this card a one-shot deal? IE, you play it and you get to > move the blood one time only. Or do you play it on a particular > vampire and then do you get to move blood every turn? Yes, it's a one-shot deal. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <3550g5$pea@perv.hal.COM>, aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes: |>Jonathan Aiello <ez008723@chip.ucdavis.edu> wrote: |>>HAVEN UNCOVERED/BUM'S RUSH |>> Does being attacked via one of these cards tap the defending |>> vampire? |> |>No. Only acting or blocking causes vampires to tap. Suppose the defending vampire was tapped to begin with. 1. Does "combat ensue", as after a successful block; or does the attacker get a free hit, because the attackee is tapped and so unable to take any actions? 2. If it's a free hit, can the attacker use combat cards to do more damage or get more strikes? Thanks, Vicki Laidler

<laidler@stsci.edu> wrote: > 1. Does "combat ensue", as after a successful block; or does the >attacker get a free hit, because the attackee is tapped and so unable >to take any actions? Tapped vampires can fight just fine; it doesn't matter how that fight started. They just can't act, block, or react. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes: >Jonathan Aiello <ez008723@chip.ucdavis.edu> wrote: >>THE THIRD TRADITION: PROGENY >> What clan does the progeny belong to? We've come up with >> three different options: >> 1) the clan of the progenitor >> 2) Caitiff >> 3) no clan > >Certainly not the clan of the progenitor... Probably no clan at all. >Would it ever matter if it was a Catiff? Major dispute here: you'd have to divorce the card game from the Masquerade. (Which in the case of this card - maybe it is, but then there'd be no point in having a separate card - "The Embrace") The third tradition (from Vampire: TM) states that progeny are the responsibility of their makers, and must be conditioned and trained to be "good" vampires until such time as they are presented to the prince. Since all the vampires (sans Caitiff) are of the upstanding Camrilla variety, they should be same clan. (I think there should actually be a separate rule stating that no Caitiff could ever hold the title of Prince. It's implicit for Justicars.) !-----------------------------------------------------------------------------! Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966 rxm@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.

Neither The Embrace nor the Third Tradition say that the vampire so created is of the same clan as the acting vampire, so they're not. While Jyhad is based on Vampire: the Masquerade, VtM really shouldn't be used as the basis for making rulings on cards. If you want to play such that the vampire so created is of the same clan, go for it, but be aware that that's a house rule, and not what the card says. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In <3584q6$6ru@perv.hal.COM>, aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes: >Neither The Embrace nor the Third Tradition say that the vampire so >created is of the same clan as the acting vampire, so they're not. While >Jyhad is based on Vampire: the Masquerade, VtM really shouldn't be used >as the basis for making rulings on cards. If you want to play such that >the vampire so created is of the same clan, go for it, > (sarcasm on) Well, let's see what WOULD make for a good ruling on cards. Black's Legal dictionary? Symbolic logic? The Kama Sutra? No, wait! Loons and their Habitats in the British Isles. (sarcasm off) If VtM isn't appropriate source material for producing answers to such questions, then the game would best be served by removing all VtM references thus being stripped to bare game mechanics. Games are formulations of rules. When rules are placed within a reference framework, these rules have a 'spirit of interpretation.' (When I was a kid, I won a game of Battle of the Bulge by getting X units over the Meuse. According to the rules, I won, but my 'bulge' was about three hexes wide and the winning units were isolated. Yeah, I won the game, but my opponent won the *WAR*. I no longer feel that I was the victor.) So, which came first. VtM or the WotC game system? To any players who care to comment: What are your preferences for resolution such unforseen combinations? >but be aware that >that's a house rule, and not what the card says. Not a problem. 1) The "Convocation" doesn't accept Australian membership, so what's the point of worrying about convocation rules. 2) More than a few of WotC rulings are disputed amongst players here. 3) If we play by the card text in every case we'd have an unplayable mess (or did the creator of the Chaos Orb really think about someone carving the card.) 4) Army of Rats is ruled redundant. (But that's not what the card says...) How about Flak Jackets? How many can a minion use? No limitation is set on the card like there is for vehicles or ammo. But as most gun enthusiasts (and NFL quarterbacks) will say, "You can't wear two." Disclaimer: Never used Progeny/Embrace in a game, but they are in the deck. !-----------------------------------------------------------------------------! Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966 rxm@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.

Rick Mc Leod <rxm@mda.com.au> wrote: >If VtM isn't appropriate source material for producing answers to such >questions, then the game would best be served by removing all VtM references >thus being stripped to bare game mechanics. While Jyhad is based on Vampire: the Masquerade, pretend it never was, and just look at the rules and the cards. If V:tM said that a Saturday Night Special did more damage than a .44 Magnum, would you play those cards differently in Jyhad? The official answer is "No. SNS says it does 1 damage and .44 Magnum says it does 2. Therefore SNS does more damage." One might wonder why Jyhad was designed differently from V:tM in that regard, but the simple fact is that it was. In this case, The Embrace and Progeny are not designed as they would work in V:tM. Why there weren't I don't know; the point is that they were not. >So, which came first. VtM or the WotC game system? V:tM, but it doesn't really matter, since it has no direct bearing on how Jyhad works. >1) The "Convocation" doesn't accept Australian membership, so what's > the point of worrying about convocation rules. Whether the Convocation accepts anyone's membership is pretty irrelevant to whether you accept the rules, since it has nothing to say about the rules of the games it organizes tournaments for, other than imposing deck construction rules. Ring of Ma'Ruf is the exception there. >2) More than a few of WotC rulings are disputed amongst players here. Not surprising, it happens all the time ;) >3) If we play by the card text in every case we'd have an > unplayable mess (or did the creator of the Chaos Orb really think > about someone carving the card.) Occasionally exceptions have to be made, but I don't see how making the vampire resulting from Embrace or Progency clanless makes the cards "unplayable". >4) Army of Rats is ruled redundant. (But that's not what the card says...) It wasn't "ruled" redundant; errata was issued saying it's redundant. Basically, in that case, we are telling people to play it other than as written. > How about Flak Jackets? How many can a minion use? No limitation is > set on the card like there is for vehicles or ammo. But as most gun > enthusiasts (and NFL quarterbacks) will say, "You can't wear two." There's an axiom in Magic that "magic doesn't have to make sense". The rules have to make sense, but trying to impose a sense of reality on whether certain card combinations should or shouldn't work (e.g. Sandals of Abdallah on a Merchant Ship) is a mistake. The same axiom applies to Jyhad. It *is* possible to wear multiple flak jackets, it's just awkward as hell; but whether it makes sense to do so in reality doesn't have much to do with whether you can do so in the game. The card doesn't prohibit a minion from stacking up multiple vests, so it can. It's also pretty awkward to be lugging around two assault rifles, a sawed-off-shotgun, and a chainsaw... Do you have a problem with a minion doing so, like you do with wearing multiple flak jackets? Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Since the game is based on Vampire, the Masquerade, it only makes sense to look to VtM to resolve open questions. Where Jyhad has obvious differences with VtM, of course we play according to the Jyhad rules. Since it's a question of interpretation as to what happens when a younger vampire is created with the Third Tradition, using VtM as a reference makes sense. I'd much rather do that than look strictly at what the card says. Since, in this case, the card says nothing whatever, which is why it's a question at all. The created vampire should be of the same clan as its creator. -- Tom Doehne doehne@cse.ogi.edu

So, unless a card says you cannot 'stack' them, you may? This came up yesterday during a game when someone wanted to use a stealth card (I forget which one) and wanted to stack them as he had 3. Can you do such things? Or do you play a stealth card, opponent plays intercept, and so on... =======____________________________________________________________======= |\/\/\| . . Mitchell J. Gross mjg@io.com . . * |/\/\/| | | . * Computer Artist & Storyteller . | | | _O_ | ( . alt.arts.storytelling . . * . | _O_ | | | | . Email for info on The Camarilla * | | | | |"Fools allow others to rule them. Wise men rule themselves."| | |\/\/\|____________________________________________________________|/\/\/| ======= =======

In <35amom$ooc@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>, doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) writes: > Since the game is based on Vampire, the Masquerade, it only >makes sense to look to VtM to resolve open questions. Where Jyhad >has obvious differences with VtM, of course we play according >to the Jyhad rules. > > Since it's a question of interpretation as to what happens >when a younger vampire is created with the Third Tradition, >using VtM as a reference makes sense. I'd much rather do >that than look strictly at what the card says. Since, in >this case, the card says nothing whatever, which is why >it's a question at all. > > The created vampire should be of the same clan as its >creator. > >-- >Tom Doehne >doehne@cse.ogi.edu Tom (Doehne, not Wylie), do you think that if the designer had wanted to make progeny created via The Third Tradition be the same clan as their creator, then the card might actually say so? Although I wasn't a playtester -- I only got my hands on real Jyhad cards last week -- I know the game was extensively tested. Whether you believe progeny should be of the same clan as their creators is irrelevant; neither the card nor the rules say so, and until or unless the WotC Jyhad Rules Committee say otherwise, that's the way the card should be played. I've also changed the cross-post to remove <alt.games.whitewolf> and substitute <alt.games.jyhad> -- it's more relevant. Howlingly yours, Charles Keith-Stanley | Sister lovers, | The Werewolf of London Network Representative to | Water brothers; | (Ah-rooooooooooooooo!) rec.games.frp.* | And in time, | Mail: werewolf@vnet.ibm.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc. | Maybe others... | Or.... werewolf@wizards.com

In article <Cw8ww8.1I9C@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> werewolf@vnet.ibm.com (Charles Keith-Stanley) writes: >Tom (Doehne, not Wylie), do you think that if the designer had wanted to make >progeny created via The Third Tradition be the same clan as their creator, then >the card might actually say so? Having had extensive experience with Magic, another WotC product, I know that plenty of questions slip through playtest. I would be completely unsurprised if the designer just assumed that 'of course' a new vampire gets the same clan, and left that info off. If the designer and playtest group had thought it should behave differently than Vampire, they would have made the difference explicit on the card. After all, the designer(s) have to be pretty familiar with VtM in order to be at all true to the original game. I'd be astonished if some unspoken assumptions *didn't* slip through, somewhere. -- Tom Doehne doehne@cse.ogi.edu

Thomas Doehne <doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu> wrote: > Having had extensive experience with Magic, another WotC product, >I know that plenty of questions slip through playtest. I would be >completely unsurprised if the designer just assumed that 'of course' >a new vampire gets the same clan, and left that info off. While assumptions do slip through from time to time, they tend to be of the "of course you can't use this card to do that" variety, and not "of course this card does that". In any event, it's dangerous to try and get inside the designers' heads and try to guess at what their intentions were, since often people are very wrong about that. It's best to just look at the card(s) in question, and the game in question. Jyhad is the game in question here, not V:tM, and nothing in the rules or on the card indicates that the clan would be copied by the fledgling vampire. >If the >designer and playtest group had thought it should behave differently >than Vampire, they would have made the difference explicit on the >card. After all, the designer(s) have to be pretty familiar with >VtM in order to be at all true to the original game... Yes, but Jyhad rulings should not be made based on V:tM. For the most part it should exist in a vacuum. If it really is ambiguous as to how a card reads, then looking to see how that concept works in V:tM can be useful as a tiebreaker, but there is nothing ambiguous about Progeny or The Embrace. Neither says that the fledgling has a clan, therefore it does not. Errata might change that, but handwaving about how V:tM works won't. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In <35c9ti$i1b@pentagon.io.com> mjg@pentagon.io.com (Mitchell J. Gross) writes: >So, unless a card says you cannot 'stack' them, you may? This came up >yesterday during a game when someone wanted to use a stealth card (I >forget which one) and wanted to stack them as he had 3. Can you do such >things? Or do you play a stealth card, opponent plays intercept, and so on... > Do you mean he wanted to use the same Stealth card three times on the same action? If that's the case, then the action is illegal, as the rules explicitly state that the same action modifier cannot be used more than once on the same action. (Rules, p. 15) Or did you mean something completely different? DSR

> >Yes, but Jyhad rulings should not be made based on V:tM. For the most part >it should exist in a vacuum. Let's get this straight; Jyhad is a game based on Vampire: the Masquerade. But the rules for Jyhad should not have anything to do with V:tM? >If it really is ambiguous as to how a card >reads, then looking to see how that concept works in V:tM can be useful >as a tiebreaker, but there is nothing ambiguous about Progeny or The Embrace. >Neither says that the fledgling has a clan, therefore it does not. >Errata might change that, but handwaving about how V:tM works won't. Neither will 'handwaving' that unclear cards should be interpreted however the Netreps like, without reference to the intellectual foundations of the game. Jyhad, unlike Magic, is based on something outside the game designer's imagination. Unlike Magic, Jyhad rules do not exist on an intellectual clean slate. While you might wish to be able to interpret Jyhad rules in a vacuumb, you cannot -- V:tM is the pattern to which Jyhad was woven. It is a derivative product, however much you'd like to claim it is completely separate. Where Jyhad does not conform to the V:tM background, it should be very clear about the differences. The Jyhad rules seem to be pretty good about that, but this question is one place where it isn't. -- Tom Doehne doehne@cse.ogi.edu

Before I could do anything to stop it, Thomas Doehne wrote: > Let's get this straight; Jyhad is a game based on Vampire: the Masquerade. > But the rules for Jyhad should not have anything to do with V:tM? By Jove, I think he's got it! -- There be that can pack the cards and yet cannot play | a-Henh! well; so there are some that are good in canvasses and | Brian Wilson factions, that are otherwise weak men. | Francis Bacon |

In <Cw8ww8.1I9C@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>, werewolf@vnet.ibm.com (Charles Keith-Stanley) writes: >In <35amom$ooc@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>, doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) writes: >> Since the game is based on Vampire, the Masquerade, it only >>makes sense to look to VtM to resolve open questions. Where Jyhad >>has obvious differences with VtM, of course we play according >>to the Jyhad rules. >> >> Since it's a question of interpretation as to what happens >>when a younger vampire is created with the Third Tradition, >>using VtM as a reference makes sense. I'd much rather do >>that than look strictly at what the card says. Since, in >>this case, the card says nothing whatever, which is why >>it's a question at all. >> >> The created vampire should be of the same clan as its >>creator. > >Tom (Doehne, not Wylie), do you think that if the designer had wanted to make >progeny created via The Third Tradition be the same clan as their creator, then >the card might actually say so? Although I wasn't a playtester -- I only got my >hands on real Jyhad cards last week -- I know the game was extensively tested. I don't think the designer ever thought about the clan or she would have been smart enough to write "This vampire is a Caitiff" on the card. So extensively tested that one Tasha Morgan is usable by allies, and the other isn't. So well written that the Ventrue Justicar actually creates a Tremere Justicar. With such tremendous quality control that stacks of R2 are readily identifiable. Oh, but there's errata...so what? Percent of Australian players with net access: < 5%. Number of convocation members: 3 known in the country. Distribution of the Duelist: limited copies available 2-months after publication. >Whether you believe progeny should be of the same clan as their creators is >irrelevant; neither the card nor the rules say so, and until or unless the WotC >Jyhad Rules Committee say otherwise, that's the way the card should be played. Well until we get direct access to the Jyhad Rules Committee, forget it. Judging from the correspondence, we (the people for whom I liaise) can't tell if or what is presented to the JRC and what isn't. We consider Magic a game that need not make sense (and thus is a senseless game for some), >I've also changed the cross-post to remove <alt.games.whitewolf> and substitute ><alt.games.jyhad> -- it's more relevant. > Who died and made you God? As it happens, there are VtM players who have shown an interest in Jyhad who may decide whether or not to buy it based on how strong the links to VtM are. Since according to you, WotC's position is that it's a vacuum game, some sales may be in jeopardy. Such a position may also affect who will buy the Star Trek game. At least, that is the consensus currently developing here. Oh yes, and if you read the ongoing discussions in the various ST groups, you'll find that Trekkers abhor inconsistencies in the fabric of their reality. In response to Tom Wylie's last bit: I finally got my hands on Rumours of Gehenna. I was wrong, the card does say 'burn this card.' I was confusing it with Archon, which is 'this effect can be removed'. Which changes the question: Does the Archon card go to the ash heap after the vote leaving an after effect behind? That's what the card says... >Do I think actually think that a person could carry an assault rifle, RPG >and a shotgun? (or some such combination) Yes. I do. I personally am not a huge person, but I can hip holster a 44 magnum, shoulder holster a SN special, shoulder sling a sawed off 12 gauge, back holster a 9mm, ankle holster a zip gun, wear (1) flak jacket (Second Chance body armor), back sling an RPG with one in the pipe, belt sheath a (Sengir) dagger, drop a assault rifle in a cross handlebar mount on either a Hawg or a Sport Bike, and carry extra mags of Glasers without any real difficulty. (Could put two pineapples on the chest, and a satchel charge (Bomb) in the saddlebags as well, but who can afford to out fit a vampire like that - Oh and did you see the Raven, Crows, and Owl flying overhead - two Wolves running alongside and Tasha looks so butch on the pillon typing on that Powerbook) :-) And yes, I could use these weapons serially in a very short amount of time. Just ask the families of the 23 (dead) victims of 1 man on a tower in Austin. Disclaimer: this isn't flamage. It's cynical. !-----------------------------------------------------------------------------! Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966 rxm@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.

aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes: > Thomas Doehne <doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu> wrote: > > Having had extensive experience with Magic, another WotC product, > >I know that plenty of questions slip through playtest. I would be > >completely unsurprised if the designer just assumed that 'of course' > >a new vampire gets the same clan, and left that info off. > > While assumptions do slip through from time to time, they tend to be > of the "of course you can't use this card to do that" variety, and not > "of course this card does that". In any event, it's dangerous to try > and get inside the designers' heads and try to guess at what their > intentions were, since often people are very wrong about that. It's best > to just look at the card(s) in question, and the game in question. Jyhad > is the game in question here, not V:tM, and nothing in the rules or on > the card indicates that the clan would be copied by the fledgling vampire. Jyhad is the Deckmaster version of the ceaseless vampyric waring Jyhad depicted in V:tM. The fact the game is based on V:tM indicates that V:tM logic should prevail where no logic is set forth. > >If the > >designer and playtest group had thought it should behave differently > >than Vampire, they would have made the difference explicit on the > >card. After all, the designer(s) have to be pretty familiar with > >VtM in order to be at all true to the original game... > > Yes, but Jyhad rulings should not be made based on V:tM. For the most part > it should exist in a vacuum. If it really is ambiguous as to how a card That's similar to saying my Genes exist alone and are not -really- a combination of my parents. Make a game based on V:tM, and it only exists in a vacuum if the starter pack came with V:tM 2nd edition. > reads, then looking to see how that concept works in V:tM can be useful > as a tiebreaker, but there is nothing ambiguous about Progeny or The Embrace. > Neither says that the fledgling has a clan, therefore it does not. > Errata might change that, but handwaving about how V:tM works won't. > Anyone who has played the game Jyhad is based on would know the general principle of lineage. Furthermore, you are talking about bloodlines. It's not just in V:tM, it's common sense. > Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for > aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc. -- Alex Feely ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I grow tired of continuous games and trivalities, torturous endeavors and continued pain, I want the sky and I want to keep it for once. af2e@andrew.cmu.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas Doehne <doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu> wrote: >>Yes, but Jyhad rulings should not be made based on V:tM. For the most part >>it should exist in a vacuum. >Let's get this straight; Jyhad is a game based on Vampire: the Masquerade. >But the rules for Jyhad should not have anything to do with V:tM? One should not have to know how to play Vampire in order to be able to play Jyhad. Allowing V:tM to override what the Jyhad rules and cards say effectively requires one to know how to play Vampire. Again, if a card is totally ambiguous as to what should happen in a given situation, then going to V:tM for reference can be helpful, but it should not be permitted to simply override Jyhad. Saying that vampire created via Progeny gets a clan simply because that's what would happen in V:tM qualifies as allowing V:tM to override Jyhad, which is bad. >It is a derivative product, >however much you'd like to claim it is completely separate. Obviously Jyhad was not designed in a vacuum. But again, people should not have to know how to play Vampire to play Jyhad, so Jyhad rulings should not be overtly based on V:tM. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Alex Feely <af2e+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: > Jyhad is the Deckmaster version of the ceaseless vampyric >waring Jyhad depicted in V:tM. The fact the game is based on V:tM >indicates that V:tM logic should prevail where no logic is set forth. Probably a plan, but I fail to see how "Progeny doesn't say the vampire inherits the clan" qualifies as "where no logic is set forth". The rule of thumb "don't read something into a card that isn't there" applies equally well to Jyhad as to Magic. > Anyone who has played the game Jyhad is based on would know >the general principle of lineage. Furthermore, you are talking about >bloodlines. It's not just in V:tM, it's common sense. If we made rulings based on "common sense", then Frozen Shades would fly, Sea Serpents could band with Mesa Pegasi to block Fallen Angels, and one wouldn't be able to wear multiple Flak Jackets. Don't read something into a card that isn't there... don't let "common sense" or Vampire blind you as to what's really there. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Alex Feely (af2e+@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote: : Anyone who has played the game Jyhad is based on would know : the general principle of lineage. Furthermore, you are talking about : bloodlines. It's not just in V:tM, it's common sense. And how are those of us who just picked up Jyhad to play supposed to know these things? I hate to tell you this, but it ISN'T common sense. I had just assumed clans were a matter of choice (like choosing political parties) but I gather from these posts that it is instead a matter of heredity. But this distracts from my point. How the **** am I supposed to know this 'rule' when I go to a Jyhad tourney? Terry Wright | "You're talking a lot, Tww133@cs.usask.ca | but you're not saying anything." Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- from "Psycho Killer", Talking Heads

Tom Wylie (aahz@hal.COM) wrote: : If we made rulings based on "common sense", then Frozen Shades would : fly, Sea Serpents could band with Mesa Pegasi to block Fallen Angels, : and one wouldn't be able to wear multiple Flak Jackets. Don't read something ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ REALLY? The wording on the card says 'Prevents 1 damage each combat'. Given 2 Flak Jackets, you can 'prevent 1 damage each combat.' Thus multiple Flaks are just a waste of space. Y'know, I like our interpretation better... :-( Terry Wright | "You're talking a lot, Tww133@cs.usask.ca | but you're not saying anything." Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- from "Psycho Killer", Talking Heads

In article <35ldpe$nea@perv.hal.COM> aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes: >Thomas Doehne <doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu> wrote: >>>Yes, but Jyhad rulings should not be made based on V:tM. For the most part >>>it should exist in a vacuum. >>Let's get this straight; Jyhad is a game based on Vampire: the Masquerade. >>But the rules for Jyhad should not have anything to do with V:tM? > >One should not have to know how to play Vampire in order >to be able to play Jyhad. Allowing V:tM to override what the Jyhad rules >and cards say effectively requires one to know how to play Vampire. I agree. But that's not what we're talking about here -- we're talking about necessary information being left off a card, and what it should be. We're talking about figuring out what the Jyhad rules *are*, not about overriding them. >>It is a derivative product, >>however much you'd like to claim it is completely separate. > >Obviously Jyhad was not designed in a vacuum. But again, people should >not have to know how to play Vampire to play Jyhad, so Jyhad rulings should >not be overtly based on V:tM. If the rules are unclear, why shouldn't you use V:tM? This does not bode well for the game based on Tolkien.... -- Tom Doehne doehne@cse.ogi.edu

In article <35le00$nfv@perv.hal.COM> aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes: >Probably a plan, but I fail to see how "Progeny doesn't say the vampire >inherits the clan" qualifies as "where no logic is set forth". The rule >of thumb "don't read something into a card that isn't there" applies >equally well to Jyhad as to Magic. Wrong. Magic was designed from the ground up. Jyhad is based on V:tM. The 'don't read something' guideline makes less sense *because* there is a foundation that has been built on (V:tM). P.S. If you guys try this argument with the Tolkien game, you'll earn the world's undying contempt. -- Tom Doehne doehne@cse.ogi.edu

In article <Cw3uoM.1rH@ucc.su.oz.au>, Rick Mc Leod <rxm@mda.com.au> wrote: > aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes: >>Jonathan Aiello <ez008723@chip.ucdavis.edu> wrote: >>>THE THIRD TRADITION: PROGENY >>> What clan does the progeny belong to? We've come up with >>> three different options: >>> 1) the clan of the progenitor >>> 2) Caitiff >>> 3) no clan >> >>Certainly not the clan of the progenitor... Probably no clan at all. >>Would it ever matter if it was a Catiff? > >Major dispute here: you'd have to divorce the card game from the Masquerade. >(Which in the case of this card - maybe it is, but then there'd be no >point in having a separate card - "The Embrace") I don't agree. You can have "Progeny" and "The Embrace" produce new vampires that, in Jyhad terms, have no clan, while still being consistant with Vampire: The Masquerade. You've got to remember that Jyhad is far more abstract than Vampire. What does a clan symbol on a Jyhad card *mean*? It doesn't just mean that the vampire is descended from the same antideluvian founder as other vampires with that symbol. It means that they have enough STATUS in that clan to invoke it's special privelages -- voting for a Justicar, invoking special clan allies, et cetera. It means they're an integral part of the political structure of that clan. A Neonate wouldn't have the clan status to do these things yet. So, while in Vampire terms they're of the clan of their sire, in *JYHAD* terms, they aren't of any clan at all. It makes perfect sense to me. -- Doug DeJulio ddj+@pitt.edu http://www.pitt.edu/~ddj/

Terrence W Wright <tww133@cs.usask.ca> wrote: >: and one wouldn't be able to wear multiple Flak Jackets. > ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ >REALLY? The wording on the card says 'Prevents 1 damage each combat'. >Given 2 Flak Jackets, you can 'prevent 1 damage each combat.' Thus >multiple Flaks are just a waste of space. Each Flak Jacket can only prevent 1 damage each combat. There's nothing on the cards stopping you fromm using more than one to do so. If you want to disallow it for "role-playing" reasons then go for it, but... Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Rick Mc Leod <rxm@mda.com.au> wrote: >I finally got my hands on Rumours of Gehenna. I was wrong, the card does >say 'burn this card.' I was confusing it with Archon, which is 'this effect >can be removed'. Which changes the question: Does the Archon card go to >the ash heap after the vote leaving an after effect behind? That's what >the card says... Neither Archon nor Camarilla Exemplary stays in play, but rather just have an effect on the vampire. Thus their effects would not wear off if the person putting that effect into play was ousted. People will typically leave these cards out to remind everyone of the effect, but technically they are not in play. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Mitchell J. Gross <mjg@pentagon.io.com> wrote: >So, unless a card says you cannot 'stack' them, you may? This came up >yesterday during a game when someone wanted to use a stealth card (I >forget which one) and wanted to stack them as he had 3. Can you do such >things? Or do you play a stealth card, opponent plays intercept, and so on... You can't use the same action modifier multiple times on the same action, so you could use both Lost in Crowds and Cloak the Gathering to increase the stealth of an action, but not two Cloaks. Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <35n5mk$pg1@perv.hal.com>, Tom Wylie <aahz@hal.COM> wrote: >Terrence W Wright <tww133@cs.usask.ca> wrote: >>: and one wouldn't be able to wear multiple Flak Jackets. >> ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ >>REALLY? The wording on the card says 'Prevents 1 damage each combat'. >>Given 2 Flak Jackets, you can 'prevent 1 damage each combat.' Thus >>multiple Flaks are just a waste of space. > >Each Flak Jacket can only prevent 1 damage each combat. There's nothing on >the cards stopping you fromm using more than one to do so. If you want to >disallow it for "role-playing" reasons then go for it, but... So multiple Armies of Rats are redundant, while multiple Flak Jackets are cumulative? Is there some rule of thumb to determine which category a given card falls into? Would 2 pairs of IR Goggles give you 2 maneuvers, for example?

In <35m4bh$qpf@reuter.cse.ogi.edu> doehne@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) writes: >>Probably a plan, but I fail to see how "Progeny doesn't say the vampire >>inherits the clan" qualifies as "where no logic is set forth". The rule >>of thumb "don't read something into a card that isn't there" applies >>equally well to Jyhad as to Magic. >Wrong. Magic was designed from the ground up. Jyhad is based on V:tM. >The 'don't read something' guideline makes less sense *because* there >is a foundation that has been built on (V:tM). Yes, but the rules underwent a major modification in the transition from rpg to cardgame.... some rules just simply aren't applicable... Why don't I get a soak roll? Why does aggravated damage send me directly to torpor? etc, etc... VtM isn't my personal favorite game (I greatly prefer Mage: the Ascension), but the point still goes... you are changing a paper 'n pencil rpg to a card game.... the complexity of one system's rules don't carry over into the other one... >P.S. If you guys try this argument with the Tolkien game, you'll >earn the world's undying contempt. Ah, just play Talislanta..... Dave "And how'd you dare to tell me that I'm my Father's son When that was just an accident of birth? I'd rather look around me and compose a better song 'Cause that's the honest measure of my worth" -Jethro Tull, "Wind-Up" P.S. - For the Talislanta-impared, it is a fantasy rpg system that is not based upon Tolkein... P.P.S. - Hmm.. the quote seems strangely significant this time....

In <35ldpe$nea@perv.hal.COM>, aahz@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes: > >One should not have to know how to play Vampire in order >to be able to play Jyhad. Allowing V:tM to override what the Jyhad rules >and cards say effectively requires one to know how to play Vampire. >Again, if a card is totally ambiguous as to what should happen in a given >situation, then going to V:tM for reference can be helpful, but it should >not be permitted to simply override Jyhad. Saying that vampire created >via Progeny gets a clan simply because that's what would happen in V:tM >qualifies as allowing V:tM to override Jyhad, which is bad. > I don't see any override. It's a logical inference based on common sense and VtM. Clans are not an award. Vampires can not change clan. They can be cast out of society. They can be orphaned. If I believed that VtM should override Jyhad, then I'd print out little Thaumaturgy symbols for Wake with Evening's Freshness and stick them on everyone's cards. > >Obviously Jyhad was not designed in a vacuum. But again, people should >not have to know how to play Vampire to play Jyhad, so Jyhad rulings should >not be overtly based on V:tM. > Who said anything about overt basis on VtM? I believe it's supporting evidence, but, I was a member of my clan the day I became progeny. That is common sense. It didn't require a written decree (and there still aren't any in many parts of the world.) No one has to know anything about VtM to come to that conclusion. This leads to a bigger question: Does the "Jyhad Rules Committee" intend to take into account VtM when making such decisions, or are they more likely to be vacuum based? Admittedly, many cards have no relationship to VtM at all (Fake Out, etc.), and questions of this type are few and far between (Rotschreck, Titles, and this are the only ones that come to mind so far. It should probably also be noted that the one vampire, one title position has strong basis in VtM, but no support whatsoever in the Jyhad rules - according to which a single vampire could be Prince of All Cities and Justicar of her Clan, and a primogen simultaneously.) !-----------------------------------------------------------------------------! Rick Mc Leod - Systems Wizard, Court Jester, Guardian of the Galaxy Environment MDA P/L PO Box 1692 N Sydney NSW 2058 Australia (02) 956-7966 rxm@mda.com.au/NIC:RM25/There can be only one...fortunately.

Terrence W Wright writes :REALLY? The wording on the card says 'Prevents 1 damage :each combat'. Given 2 Flak Jackets, you can 'prevent 1 :damage each combat.' Thus multiple Flaks are just a waste :of space. : If it had said "this vampire can prevent 1 damage each combat" you'd be right (similar to Rumors of Gehenna). However, it isn't worded that way. So Flak Jacket A prevents a point of damage, and so does Flak Jacket B (preventing a different point of damage). -- AGLA | Michael Schmahl (Black-Robe Mage) | M:tG | d""""b | fxmgs@aurora.alaska.edu | () | Mb dM | fsmgs@acf-lab.alaska.edu | () () | VbdP | Oblivion BBS: (907)479-4751 | ()() |