Help with Jyhad PLEASE???

Shawn de Lioncourt >:| (sfen...@wpo.uwsuper.edu) wrote: : Help! I am new to this game (Tried it once). Is it me or do the directions : just suck! I play Magic the Gathering (rather Well if you ask me :) ) but I : couldn't make head or Fangs of this one! Is there a FAQ out there that I : could FTP or get E-mailed to me? Or would someone be patient enough to try : to give a quick example of the first few rounds? My Big questions are About : Bleeding, Combat, and Hunting. OK, here goes: Jessica goes first. She has nothing to untap, so she skips that. For her master phase she plays short term investment. She has no minions out, so her minion phase is really short. Then comes transfers. She puts 4 blood on Sarah Cobbler, bringing her into the controlled region(She chuckles evily at this point, because she knows that Sarah is my favorite Tremere). She decides that she likes her hand, so she doesn't discard. Then it's my turn. The only master I have is Aching beauty, but I have no Toreador out yet, so I can't play it. During my transfer phase, I put 4 blood on Dorian Streck, and put him into play. On Jessica's turn she takes a blood off of her investment rather than playing a master. During her minion phase, Sarah attempts to bleed me. Dorian could block, but seeing as how I need him around next round to play Aching Beauty, and Sarah has superior Thaumaturgy with which to kill my vamp, I tell Jessica that I'm not going to block. Sarah then spends one blood, and plays conditioning(an action modifier) to bleed me for 3. I loose 3 pool. Jessica then transfers four blood to an unknown vampire, and says that it's my turn. I make Dorian achingly beautiful, and then move on to my minion phase. Dorian pays 1 blood, and attempt to use legal manipulations(an action). Since this is an action, I have to declare it before blocking, unlike conditioning. Not wanting me to bleed her for 3, Jessica play Wake with Evenings Freshness, allowing Sarah to block Dorian. She still loses 1 pool for blocking Dorian(because of Aching Beauty), but she doesn't lose the edge. Dorian is the acting vampire, so he does thinks first. I don't play any manuevers, and neither does she, so combat is at close range. I dodge as my strike. Noticing my cowardly act, Jessica decides not to play the theft of vitae she was holding. She strikes for one hand damage, which the dodge cancels. I definitely dont press, but Jessica does with a trap. Next round goes pretty much the same exept that I play the majesty I just drew instead of a dodge. Combat ends before she can even think about using her cauldron of blood. I transfer some blood onto an expensive Tremere, and my turn is over. Jessica untaps Sarah, gains a blood from the edge, and takes a blood off of her investment. Since she still has the edge, she isn't in a hurry to bleed me, and she knows she's going to bring out a vampire to block Dorian with later this turn, Sarah decides to hunt. Sarah gains one blood from the bank(she's back up to four). If I had blocked her, she would have entered combat with only 3 blood, and never would have gotten the one from her hunt. Jessica then spends three blood to bring out Muriel-Lady Thunder. And the game continues... Hope that helps. Larrx...

Almost right... > Jessica goes first. She has nothing to untap, so she skips that. For > her master phase she plays short term investment. She has no minions out, so > her minion phase is really short. Then comes transfers. She puts 4 blood on > Sarah Cobbler, bringing her into the controlled region(She chuckles evily at > this point, because she knows that Sarah is my favorite Tremere). She decides > that she likes her hand, so she doesn't discard. The first turn "Jessica" is allowed only 1 transfer; on your first turn you get two. On Jessica's next turn, she gets 3 transfers; and everyone after that gets 4. Barring cards that say otherwise, of course. papillo the numerologist

Bob Ellison (pap...@fc.hp.com) wrote: : Almost right... [ quoted text not captured ] I always thought that the reduced number of transfers is optional and that it should be used in games that have more than 2 players Unlike the example.... All the 2 player games I have played have worked fine with both meths having 4 transfers right away. Where did I put that rulebook..... -- ______________________________________________________ |* \|/ Chaos is the way of the World! *| | --*-- Nik Olver. | |*___/|\_________...@uwe.ac.uk________________*|

NP Olver (np-o...@uwe.ac.uk) wrote: > Bob Ellison (pap...@fc.hp.com) wrote: > : Almost right... > : > :>Jessica goes first. She has nothing to untap, so she skips that. For > :>her master phase she plays short term investment. She has no minions out, so > :>her minion phase is really short. Then comes transfers. She puts 4 blood on > :>Sarah Cobbler, bringing her into the controlled region(She chuckles evily at > :>this point, because she knows that Sarah is my favorite Tremere). She decides > :>that she likes her hand, so she doesn't discard. > : > :The first turn "Jessica" is allowed only 1 transfer; on your first turn > :you get two. On Jessica's next turn, she gets 3 transfers; and everyone > :after that gets 4. Barring cards that say otherwise, of course. > :papillo the numerologist > I always thought that the reduced number of transfers is optional > and that it should be used in games that have more than 2 players > Unlike the example.... All the 2 player games I have played have worked > fine with both meths having 4 transfers right away. > Where did I put that rulebook..... Why get the rulebook. You're right. Optional rule it is, and it says in the rules that "in multiplayer games (ie more than two players) fewer transfers are allowed in the first few rounds."

Well, not really. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say "(ie more than two players)." Nor does the word "optional" enter anywhere in that section. "Multi-player" simply means more than one player. It is a rule, nothing optional or make believe about it. Of course, if your group wants to make a house rule to change it, no one will stop you. "Why get the rulebook." Indeed.... -prophet Stephen Perry Kraker (spk...@jove.acs.unt.edu) wrote: : Why get the rulebook. You're right. Optional rule it is, and it says in [ quoted text not captured ]

rge...@ucs.indiana.edu (Ryan Gentry) writes: >Well, not really. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say "(ie more than >two players)." Nor does the word "optional" enter anywhere in that >section. "Multi-player" simply means more than one player. It is a Heh. Heh. Multi-player means more than One Player. Heh. Heh. That's what all the fuss is about in the Magic the Gathering Newsgroups, eh? More than one-player magic? Seriously, the rulebook may be read as follows: (12.4 pg.24): "During your influence phase, you have four transfers..." "At the beginning of a multi-player game, the first few turns Methuselahs will have less than four transfers." Now, if you really believe "Multi-player Chess" is targetting 2-player chess, then by all means, treat the above as obviously non-optional. (What, then, is a non-multiplayer game of Jyhad - lessee, I'm the last Methuselah in the game, so I get a victory point and win! Oohh, let me play again :-) >rule, nothing optional or make believe about it. Of course, if your >group wants to make a house rule to change it, no one will stop you. >"Why get the rulebook." Indeed.... Of course, if your pair wants to make a house rule that the multi-player method of gaining transfers applies to a simple two-player game, no one will stop you. :-)

> :The first turn "Jessica" is allowed only 1 transfer; on your first turn > :you get two. On Jessica's next turn, she gets 3 transfers; and everyone > :after that gets 4. Barring cards that say otherwise, of course. > :papillo the numerologist > I always thought that the reduced number of transfers is optional > and that it should be used in games that have more than 2 players > Unlike the example.... All the 2 player games I have played have worked > fine with both meths having 4 transfers right away. Unless the official ruling has been reversed, the staggered transfers is intended for 2-player games as well. The rulebook specifies that staggered transfers are to be used for "multi-player games" - very misleading, if "multi" means two! The reasons to stagger even a 2-player game are sound. With a staggered ramp, consider the number of total transfers spent each turn of the game, given two players: 1 4 8 12 16 20 2 6 10 14 18 etc. Each Methuselah on his or her turn leapfrogs the other by the same amount. In contrast, consider the number of total transfers if you don't stagger: 4 8 12 16 20 24 4 8 12 16 20 If you stagger the 2-player game, each Methuselah on his or her turn "leapfrogs" the other by the same amount. If you do not, the second Methuselah is always "catching up" to the first. papillo the obstreperous

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : Heh. Heh. Multi-player means more than One Player. Heh. Heh. : That's what all the fuss is about in the Magic the Gathering Newsgroups, : eh? More than one-player magic? Multi: prefix meaning multiple (more than one). Player: person/thing playing a game. Multi-Player: More Than One Player : Seriously, the rulebook may be read as follows: : (12.4 pg.24): "During your influence phase, you have four transfers..." : "At the beginning of a multi-player game, the first few : turns Methuselahs will have less than four transfers." Exactly. No "optional" in there. : Now, if you really believe "Multi-player Chess" is targetting 2-player I said nothing about chess. Do not presume to put words in my mouth, please. We are, or I thought we were, discussing Jyhad. : chess, then by all means, treat the above as obviously non-optional. : (What, then, is a non-multiplayer game of Jyhad - lessee, I'm the last : Methuselah in the game, so I get a victory point and win! Oohh, let me : play again :-) Yes. A "non-multiplayer" game of Jyhad would have one player. Not much of a game. : Of course, if your pair wants to make a house rule that the multi-player : method of gaining transfers applies to a simple two-player game, no one : will stop you. :-) It wouldn't be a house rule, it is in the rule book. -prophet

While I may have been mistaken about the transfer rate in my example (we only stagger with 4+ players), I think the "multi-player = two player" argument is just plain silly. Come on guys, one-player jyhad is meaningless, and was never meant to be played. Since you would never play one-player, the rule book would have said "when you play jyhad" not "when you play multi-player jyhad". This is a card game, not income taxes. Don't take the rule book so seriously. Larrx...

[ quoted text not captured ] Agreed. However, Mr. Netrep Guy chimed in the first time this debate came up with a ruling from WotC that said that the "staggering" was meant for 2 player games too. So it is not a debate on semantics, but something that's been calrified from the source. Alec -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

Larry Harriman (la...@bu.edu) wrote: : and was never meant to be played. Since you would never play one-player, the : rule book would have said "when you play jyhad" not "when you play : multi-player jyhad". My arguement exactly. Keep in mind that there is no "non-multiplayer" Jyhad. The game was designed for multiple players. I think the box even says so (don't have one infront of me). : This is a card game, not income taxes. Don't take the rule book so seriously. Without rules, you have no game. And I happen to not pay much attention to taxes. Just games.....and studying, of course. ;> -prophet

rge...@ucs.indiana.edu (Ryan Gentry) writes: >Multi: prefix meaning multiple (more than one). >Player: person/thing playing a game. >Multi-Player: More Than One Player Game- Contest between two or more people. (Solitaire is a pasttime, not a game). Multi-player game is redundant by your definition. >: Seriously, the rulebook may be read as follows: >: (12.4 pg.24): "During your influence phase, you have four transfers..." >: "At the beginning of a multi-player game, the first few >: turns Methuselahs will have less than four transfers." >Exactly. No "optional" in there. Rulebook: "During you influence phase, you have four transfers" It doesn't say optional. It does, however, make an overriding rule for a multi-player game. >: Now, if you really believe "Multi-player Chess" is targetting 2-player >I said nothing about chess. Do not presume to put words in my mouth, >please. We are, or I thought we were, discussing Jyhad. Your argument that multi-player means more than one player means that you believe multi-player chess includes 2-player games of chess. I didn't put "multi-player = 2 or more players" in your mouth, you did. Multi-player chess = chess with more than two people. Ask around. Therefore (uh-oh, a logic word :-), Multi-player Jyhad = Jyhad with more than two people.

Distribution: inet L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : Game- Contest between two or more people. : (Solitaire is a pasttime, not a game). : Multi-player game is redundant by your definition. Nope. Solataire is a game. A game can _be_ a pasttime, but solitaire is definitley a game. So, no, multi-player is not redundant by my definition. And, yes, you can play Jyhad solatiare. Just takes imagination, which I am seriously doubting any of us has, by debating this point this much. : Rulebook: "During you influence phase, you have four transfers" : It doesn't say optional. No. But four paragraphs later, it says that players do not get the full four transfers until four turns have passed. : It does, however, make an overriding rule for a multi-player game. Yes it does. Not exactly "overiding," more of a continuance of the same subject. : Your argument that multi-player means more than one player means that : you believe multi-player chess includes 2-player games of chess. I didn't Of course it does. By definition. : put "multi-player = 2 or more players" in your mouth, you did. I said that, yes. I did not try to impose a very wierd analogy with chess. I have no idea how to play chess with more than two people. I do not claim however that that simply constitutes "chess." I am sure there are ways, but that fact remains that multiplayer = 1+n. Period. No cute semantics. Just plain english. : Multi-player chess = chess with more than two people. Ask around. Yes. I have no reason to ask around. I believe you. You could ask around (or just consult a dictionary) that multiplayer chess _can also equal_ two people. : Therefore (uh-oh, a logic word :-), No. Incorrect analogy (& logic). : Multi-player Jyhad = Jyhad with more than two people. Nope. Again, the ruling was posted about the transfers being staggered in a two (multi) player game. Thus (wow, another logical summation, I must go to college), multiplayer Jyhad= two or more. -prophet ============================================================================== The above opinions are my own, as I wouldn't condescend to speak for anyone else. -Ryan Gentry, RA/Gamer/Student...*cough* ==============================================================================

Boys, boys. <Ding. Ding. Ding. Back in your corners please. :) > Games are _suppost_ to be _fun_ aren't they. Have a good one. Gaz.

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : I know what the ruling is, this argument was about how the rulebook can : be interpretted. : The mere fact that the design team had to rule on the subject only validates : my point that the rules are ambiguous. I never said it wasn't ambiguous. I am simply (or trying to) saying that in plain English, _in no context of ANY game_ :Multiplayer includes two people (& more). That's all. The rulebook sucks. That's why we are getting V:tES. Revised. I am not jumping sides of the ole proverbial fence. I have maintained my same point for the entire thread. Really. [ quoted text not captured ]

rge...@ucs.indiana.edu (Ryan Gentry) writes: >Larry Harriman (la...@bu.edu) wrote: >: and was never meant to be played. Since you would never play one-player, the >: rule book would have said "when you play jyhad" not "when you play >: multi-player jyhad". > My arguement exactly. Keep in mind that there is no >"non-multiplayer" Jyhad. The game was designed for multiple players. I >think the box even says so (don't have one infront of me). Missed it again, did you? Larry clearly explained the difference between multi-player = 3+ players (as the rules ARE written) and multi-player = 2+ players (as you keep banging, and as the rulebook dodges). >: This is a card game, not income taxes. Don't take the rule book so seriously. > Without rules, you have no game. And I happen to not pay much >attention to taxes. Just games.....and studying, of course. ;> Rules != rulebook. Most groups have house rules to make the game more enjoyable for their style of play. Try taking a "house rule" when preparing your taxes, and see how much fun the gov't has :-) > -prophet

rge...@ucs.indiana.edu (prophet) writes: >Distribution: inet >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: >: Game- Contest between two or more people. >: (Solitaire is a pasttime, not a game). >: Multi-player game is redundant by your definition. >: Rulebook: "During you influence phase, you have four transfers" >: It doesn't say optional. > No. But four paragraphs later, it says that players do not get >the full four transfers until four turns have passed. >: It does, however, make an overriding rule for a multi-player game. >Yes it does. Not exactly "overiding," more of a continuance of the same >subject. But it IS ambiguous, since it starts that paragraph with "In a multi-player game", as if that (maybe) was something different than a non-multiplayer game. >: Multi-player chess = chess with more than two people. Ask around. > > Yes. I have no reason to ask around. I believe you. You could >ask around (or just consult a dictionary) that multiplayer chess _can >also equal_ two people. Stick to one side of the fence, either multi-player chess means MORE THAN two players, or it means two OR MORE players, not both. [...] >: Multi-player Jyhad = Jyhad with more than two people. > Nope. Again, the ruling was posted about the transfers being >staggered in a two (multi) player game. Thus (wow, another logical >summation, I must go to college), multiplayer Jyhad= two or more. I know what the ruling is, this argument was about how the rulebook can [ quoted text not captured ]