Thoughts...

This is just some generic input on some points which I have seen in several points. It in no way represents official information. Master - Out of Turn: In the rules, in the section entilted What You Can Do On Your Turn, there is no mention of playing this type of card - this leads one to believe that one cannot play a master out of turn when it is their turn. This could explain why master out of turn cards are cards used to react to other events in the game, or perhaps this is just a coincidence. Cross table bleeds: In the corrected rules, section 13.3.1 Whom may Block Whom, it reads "Directed actions are noted on action cards with a (D) in the card text and allow you to dirrect the action against ANY methuselah." This text indicates that cross table bleeds are legal. I have also found that they tend to preserve game balance( not that they should or shouldn't, but in the games I've played, they do) Clan Hosers - clan hosers only present a problem in a friendly play setting, and should be dealt with in frienly ways - i.e. you put five Letter From Vienna, I put in Five Malkavian Dementia, and I build my deck specifically against yours, wow I win - that sure was fun - now can we stop playing like babies and show some maturity. In a tournament setting, clan hosers are essentially useless, except in their intended format( the weakness of my malk deck is tremere rush -> Letter From Vienna ) If I am at a tournament, and someone asks me what clan I play with, I will flat out lie to them and say Gangrel(really Tremere). When Sara Cobler comes out in my first transfer phase, I will look at him, laugh, and say "Looks like some idiot wishes he(or she) wouldn't have put those ten Gangrel De Evolutions in their deck, now doesn't it, shmuck"

Intimate apperal (abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote: : This is just some generic input on some points which I have seen in : several points. It in no way represents official information. : Master - Out of Turn: In the rules, in the section entilted What You Can : Do On Your Turn, there is no mention of playing this type of card - this : leads one to believe that one cannot play a master out of turn when it is : their turn. This could explain why master out of turn cards are cards : used to react to other events in the game, or perhaps this is just a : coincidence. Actually, you can. The ruling on Master: Out of Turn is that it takes the place of your next master phase.... therefore, if you play it during your master phase, it is still reflected to the next one. Example: I play a Minion tap Bob the Magic Mushroom Sudden Reversals my Minion Tap I sudden reversal his sudden reversal The first master took my first master phase, the second will take next turn's master phase. : Cross table bleeds: In the corrected rules, section 13.3.1 Whom may Block : Whom, it reads "Directed actions are noted on action cards with a (D) in : the card text and allow you to dirrect the action against ANY : methuselah." This text indicates that cross table bleeds are legal. I : have also found that they tend to preserve game balance( not that they : should or shouldn't, but in the games I've played, they do) This is correct... you can directed bleed across the table. : Clan Hosers - clan hosers only present a problem in a friendly play : setting, and should be dealt with in frienly ways - i.e. you put five : Letter From Vienna, I put in Five Malkavian Dementia, and I build my deck : specifically against yours, wow I win - that sure was fun - now can we stop : playing like babies and show some maturity. In a tournament setting, : clan hosers are essentially useless, except in their intended format( the : weakness of my malk deck is tremere rush -> Letter From Vienna ) If I am : at a tournament, and someone asks me what clan I play with, I will flat : out lie to them and say Gangrel(really Tremere). When Sara Cobler comes : out in my first transfer phase, I will look at him, laugh, and say "Looks : like some idiot wishes he(or she) wouldn't have put those ten Gangrel De : Evolutions in their deck, now doesn't it, shmuck" I agree... Clan Hosers suck... but hey, if they want to waste their cards in that manner, that's fine. I occassionally put in 1 Gangrel De-Evolution in case I get a Gangrel on my tail which I don't want to fight (Little Mrs. Aggrivated comes to mind ;'>)

dle...@curly.cc.emory.edu (David Leader) wrote: > > Intimate apperal (abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote: > : This is just some generic input on some points which I have seen in > : several points. It in no way represents official information. > > : Master - Out of Turn: In the rules, in the section entilted What You Can > : Do On Your Turn, there is no mention of playing this type of card - this > : leads one to believe that one cannot play a master out of turn when it is > : their turn. This could explain why master out of turn cards are cards > : used to react to other events in the game, or perhaps this is just a > : coincidence. > Actually, you can. The ruling on Master: Out of Turn is that it takes the > place of your next master phase.... therefore, if you play it during your > master phase, it is still reflected to the next one. Example: > I play a Minion tap > Bob the Magic Mushroom Sudden Reversals my Minion Tap > I sudden reversal his sudden reversal > The first master took my first master phase, the second will take next > turn's master phase. Peace David, NO, you may NOT play OoTMaster cards during your turn. Somewhere in the rules it defines OoT as NOT during your turn (someone posted that w/i the last 24hrs). You can't play SR during your turn in response to another SR. Some OoTMs are terribly unbalanced if played during your turn, e.g.: Major Boon. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

David Leader (dle...@curly.cc.emory.edu) wrote: : Intimate apperal (abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote: : : Master - Out of Turn: In the rules, in the section entilted What You Can : : Do On Your Turn, there is no mention of playing this type of card - this : : leads one to believe that one cannot play a master out of turn when it is : : their turn. This could explain why master out of turn cards are cards : : used to react to other events in the game, or perhaps this is just a : : coincidence. : Actually, you can. The ruling on Master: Out of Turn is that it takes the : place of your next master phase.... therefore, if you play it during your : master phase, it is still reflected to the next one. Actually, you CAN'T. This is OFFICIAL. This is the NAME OF THE CARD (out of _turn_ = not during your your turn; out of _phase_ = not during the normal play-sequence). Allowing OOTM to be played during your current turn makes several of them unbabancing, to say the least. Surprisingly enough, this is one of the things that almost everyone who has played a significant amount of Jyhad eventually agrees on. Shane Travis | A man who carries a cat by the tail learns sht...@duke.usask.ca | something he can learn no other way. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Mark Twain

In article <3lu2l1$q...@moe.cc.emory.edu>, David Leader <dle...@curly.cc.emory.edu> wrote: >: Master - Out of Turn: In the rules, in the section entilted What You Can >: Do On Your Turn, there is no mention of playing this type of card - this >: leads one to believe that one cannot play a master out of turn when it is >: their turn. This could explain why master out of turn cards are cards >: used to react to other events in the game, or perhaps this is just a >: coincidence. >Actually, you can. The ruling on Master: Out of Turn is that it takes the >place of your next master phase.... therefore, if you play it during your >master phase, it is still reflected to the next one. Example: >I play a Minion tap >Bob the Magic Mushroom Sudden Reversals my Minion Tap >I sudden reversal his sudden reversal >The first master took my first master phase, the second will take next >turn's master phase. David, no offense, but have you read this group at all before posting this? Are you aware of what others are saying and their reasonings for saying it? Are you aware of the Design Team rulings on this card? Are you aware of all places where OOT Masters are mentioned in the rules? Or are you just ignoring the rest of us? Surely you must realize that the Design Team and the Corrected Rules both say that you can't play a M OOT on your turn. Surely you've seen us discussing the merits and flaws of that ruling here on the newsgroup. At least acknowledge in your post that your answer is a house rule, and that the official rule is that you cannot play one on your turn. It's no big deal to have a house rule or two (with this game you *have* to have a few), but at least acknowledge that it is one. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

More and more people seem to feel the first draft of the rules was the better one. Master OOT's were obviously intended at first to be playable on your turn (played whenever applicable in lieu of your next master phase.) The question is whether someone decided to change that in the second set of rules or they just "dumbed it down" and ended up saying something other than they intended. If you look at the entire section describing master cards, it's all very badly written. I played around and rewrote it (took 15 minutes) to be easier to read, to explain more and to be shorter. I wouldn't be surprised if someone were to show both sets of rules to the design team and they'd look at them and say, "you're right -- they can be used on your turn. Sorry." >Allowing OOTM to be played during your current turn makes several of them >unbabancing, to say the least. Surprisingly enough, this is one of the >things that almost everyone who has played a significant amount of Jyhad >eventually agrees on. So, don't allow them to be played on your turn. Major Boon (or whatever) shouldn't be playable on one of your bleeds, so let the card say that. I doubt anyone who allows OOTs on your turn would allow it, anyway. How is saving you from my bleed doing you a favor? Does allowing Sudden Reversal or Frenzy to be played on your turn cause any serious problems?

> Does allowing Sudden Reversal or Frenzy to be played on your turn > cause any serious problems? Rotschrek too, by the way. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: > > More and more people seem to feel the first draft of the rules was > the better one. Master OOT's were obviously intended at first to be > playable on your turn (played whenever applicable in lieu of your next > master phase.) The question is whether someone decided to change that > in the second set of rules or they just "dumbed it down" and ended up > saying something other than they intended. Peace Owen, I disagree with that whole paragraph. More & more people DO NOT seem to feel that the first draft was better, nor is it "obvious" OoTM can be played during your turn. It is fairly obvious to anyone who cares about game balance that some OoTM are terribly unbalancing when played during your turn. That is not the question. The rules have always read that way. > If you look at the entire section describing master cards, it's > all very badly written. I played around and rewrote it (took 15 minutes) > to be easier to read, to explain more and to be shorter. > I wouldn't be surprised if someone were to show both sets of rules > to the design team and they'd look at them and say, "you're right -- they > can be used on your turn. Sorry." I'll take that bet! > >Allowing OOTM to be played during your current turn makes several of them > >unbabancing, to say the least. Surprisingly enough, this is one of the > >things that almost everyone who has played a significant amount of Jyhad > >eventually agrees on. > > So, don't allow them to be played on your turn. Major Boon (or > whatever) shouldn't be playable on one of your bleeds, so let the > card say that. I doubt anyone who allows OOTs on your turn would allow > it, anyway. How is saving you from my bleed doing you a favor? The card DOES say that, Owen, right at the top middle. "Out of Turn." Major Boon would help you immensely if played the wrong way. For example: Curt is preying on me, I am preying on you. Curt is Malk, I am Brujah, you are a non-combat deck. I bleed you with one of my minions. You choose not to block for fear of combat. I play Major Boon on my own bleed to take the one loss for you. Later in the game, you and I are both at four pool. Curt bleeds me; I attempt to block; he stealths; I fail to intercept. Now, if Curt plays sup Conditioning to oust me, I will use my Major Boon to force you to take the loss for me and you are ousted insted. > Does allowing Sudden Reversal or Frenzy to be played on your turn > cause any serious problems? Yes, that is why they are OoTMs. [ quoted text not captured ]

I write: >> More and more people seem to feel the first draft of the rules was >> the better one. Master OOT's were obviously intended at first to be >> playable on your turn (played whenever applicable in lieu of your next >> master phase.) The question is whether someone decided to change that >> in the second set of rules or they just "dumbed it down" and ended up >> saying something other than they intended. Mr. McClure writes: >I disagree with that whole paragraph. More & more people DO NOT seem to >feel that the first draft was better, nor is it "obvious" OoTM can be played >during your turn. After reading the first draft of the rules, the one that comes with the game, it is obvious they were not intended at that time to be unplayable during your turn. They are "played whenever applicable" with no mention of not-on-your turn. >> >Allowing OOTM to be played during your current turn makes several of them >> >unbabancing, to say the least. Surprisingly enough, this is one of the >> >things that almost everyone who has played a significant amount of Jyhad >> >eventually agrees on. >> >> So, don't allow them to be played on your turn. Major Boon (or >> whatever) shouldn't be playable on one of your bleeds, so let the >> card say that. I doubt anyone who allows OOTs on your turn would allow >> it, anyway. How is saving you from my bleed doing you a favor? >The card DOES say that, Owen, right at the top middle. "Out of Turn." This is sophistry. The card does not say "This card may not be played on one of your own bleeds" at the top, neither does it say "This card may not be played during your turn." "Out of Turn" is a good descriptive name for a card which can violate the normal sequence of play. Would anyonoe seriously consider naming a class of cards "Out of phase" cards? Even if they did, people would argue you can't play them during your Master phase, since that would be in phase. In short, you are missing the entire basis of disagreement -- whether the name "Out of Turn" is just a name or a rule written into a name. >Major Boon would help you immensely if played the wrong way. I agree. I'd guess it should be fixed, were you to allow on your turn MOOT's, by adding the phrase "by another Methuselah" somewhere >> Does allowing Sudden Reversal or Frenzy to be played on your turn >> cause any serious problems? >Yes, that is why they are OoTMs. Frenzy is an OOTM because it's designed to be played during combat, which rarely occurs during your master phase. Can you give me an example where either of these would be unbalancing if played during your turn? Obviously, they would be more useful if you had that option, but excessively powerful?

In article <3m14pt$j...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >The card DOES say that, Owen, right at the top middle. "Out of Turn." >Major Boon would help you immensely if played the wrong way. For example: >Curt is preying on me, I am preying on you. Curt is Malk, I am Brujah, >you are a non-combat deck. I bleed you with one of my minions. You choose >not to block for fear of combat. I play Major Boon on my own bleed to take >the one loss for you. Later in the game, you and I are both at four pool. >Curt bleeds me; I attempt to block; he stealths; I fail to intercept. Now, >if Curt plays sup Conditioning to oust me, I will use my Major Boon to >force you to take the loss for me and you are ousted insted. James, have you ever seen cards like `Deflection' or `Misdirection'? You think they are really unbalancing? A full-length article coming up form the Theory Elder ... -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

sht...@herald.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: >This is OFFICIAL. >This is the NAME OF THE CARD (out of _turn_ = not during your your turn; >out of _phase_ = not during the normal play-sequence). Sorry to pick on your post, Shane, but I just came across this, and I'm tired of people hiding behind the "English" of an idiomatic expression: Webster's III New Riverside University Dictionary (1984): Turn: - out of turn: 1. Not in the proper sequence or order. So, it IS out-of-phase, or whatever else you want to call it, and this is how the original rules read. (Just because they allow you to play the things when is _is_not_your_turn_ [13.1], doesn't mean you can't play them when it _is_ your turn.) >Allowing OOTM to be played during your current turn makes several of them >unbabancing, to say the least. Surprisingly enough, this is one of the >things that almost everyone who has played a significant amount of Jyhad >eventually agrees on. The (mis-)errata is the only thing turning what used to be a balanced effect (SR of an SR, Frenzy when you are blocked, etc.) into an unbalanced one ("grossly unbalancing" is probably a little extreme). Even Major Boon is not unbalanced, IMO. Take a bleed for your Prey? That's border-line insane (until you happen to get a Malk Predator, of course, then it's just like any other time you could officially play the *$!@ card.) And I've played a few games with the mis-errata to know that it unbalances the games around here. Just so you can sleep easy knowing that there is not a consensus to be had on the net :-).

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > > sht...@herald.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes: > > >This is OFFICIAL. > > >This is the NAME OF THE CARD (out of _turn_ = not during your your turn; > >out of _phase_ = not during the normal play-sequence). > > Sorry to pick on your post, Shane, but I just came across this, and I'm > tired of people hiding behind the "English" of an idiomatic expression: > > Webster's III New Riverside University Dictionary (1984): > Turn: > - out of turn: 1. Not in the proper sequence or order. > > So, it IS out-of-phase, or whatever else you want to call it, and this is > how the original rules read. (Just because they allow you to play the > things when is _is_not_your_turn_ [13.1], doesn't mean you can't play them > when it _is_ your turn.) Peace Scott, Yes, in this case it DOES mean that you can't play them when it is your turn. > And I've played a few games with the mis-errata to know that it unbalances > the games around here. Could you site examples of how playing OoTMs the way they were always intended to be played is unbalancing? Here's another example of how OoTM when played the wrong way are unbalancing. Take the Brujah deck that I posted, add a handful of Life Boons. Now, all I have to do is BR/HU my predator several times and then play Life Boon on each one of his/her/its vampires to make myself totally immune to bleeds. > Just so you can sleep easy knowing that there is not a consensus to be had > on the net :-). Like any of us really expected a consensus. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> >This is the NAME OF THE CARD (out of _turn_ = not during your your turn; >> >out of _phase_ = not during the normal play-sequence). >> >> Webster's III New Riverside University Dictionary (1984): >> Turn: >> - out of turn: 1. Not in the proper sequence or order. >> >> So, it IS out-of-phase, or whatever else you want to call it, and this is >> how the original rules read. (Just because they allow you to play the >> things when is _is_not_your_turn_ [13.1], doesn't mean you can't play them >> when it _is_ your turn.) >Yes, in this case it DOES mean that you can't play them when it is your >turn. Well, thanks for clearing that up. :-) I was saying that the English doesn't *force* that interpretation, not that the interpretation wasn't official. >> And I've played a few games with the mis-errata to know that it unbalances >> the games around here. >Could you site examples of how playing OoTMs the way they were always >intended to be played is unbalancing? Here's another example of how OoTM when By not allowing you to SR and SR, like I said. >played the wrong way are unbalancing. Take the Brujah deck that I posted, add >a handful of Life Boons. Now, all I have to do is BR/HU my predator several >times and then play Life Boon on each one of his/her/its vampires to make >myself totally immune to bleeds. I assume you mean Minor Boon. "All" you have to do is send all of you predator's minions to torpor? OOhh, that *is* too easy! :-) Especially with all those BF's being played on you! Instead, why don't you send all your Prey's minions to torpor the same way and oust her? (And you're still not immune to bounced bleeds, of course)

I checked the original rulebook, and it indeed does not prohibit OoT Masters on your turn. (The "fixed" rules do prohibit them.) However, I have serious concerns with the balance if you can OoT on your turn. An obvious deck would be Brujah combat with about 8 Major Boons, or a Gangrel Rush deck with 8 Rotschreks. Owen, has anybody ever played such a deck in you group? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : >> And I've played a few games with the mis-errata to know that it unbalances : >> the games around here. : >Could you site examples of how playing OoTMs the way they were always : >intended to be played is unbalancing? Here's another example of how OoTM when : By not allowing you to SR and SR, like I said. (Aside - _I_ don't remember you saying that...) Personally, it may just be the way that I view the 'game world', but I have a problem with a Meth1 playing a Master, Meth2 SRing it, and Meth1 SRing the SR. See, I view it this way: Meth1 is expending all of the energy/time he has to pull off this effect (whatever it may be). Meth2, having gotten wind of it, puts his future plans on hold and expends all his energy at stopping this effect. This exhausts him for a while (uses his next Master Phase). There simply _is_ no more time/energy for Meth1 to use in countering the counter - his plans are in motion and require his constant attention. Thus, he cannot send his own forces out to counter the destabiling forces sent by Meth2. I realize that this world=view may not work for everyone, but it works for me, and I like the official' way of playing it. Anyone who doesn't care to counter with how they justify it in _their_ world view? Shane Travis | Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits sht...@duke.usask.ca | are objects of scorn to Americans who blow horns Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | to break up traffic jams. | -- Mary Ellen Kelly

In article <3m3miu$n...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>> And I've played a few games with the mis-errata to know that it unbalances >>> the games around here. >>Could you site examples of how playing OoTMs the way they were always >>intended to be played is unbalancing? Here's another example of how OoTM when >By not allowing you to SR and SR, like I said. SR'ing SR's IMO is not a big concern, but SR'ing XTC-Laced Blood, SR'ing Frenzy, and SR'ing other O-O-T's, is. >>played the wrong way are unbalancing. Take the Brujah deck that I posted, add >>a handful of Life Boons. Now, all I have to do is BR/HU my predator several >>times and then play Life Boon on each one of his/her/its vampires to make >>myself totally immune to bleeds. >I assume you mean Minor Boon. > >Instead, why don't you send all your Prey's minions to torpor the same way >and oust her? If immunity to bleeds is what he's concerned, wouldn't sending all of his predator's minions to torpor alone good enough? The Minor Boons are just waste of precious Master Phases. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3m3fgj$p...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >Could you site examples of how playing OoTMs the way they were always >intended to be played is unbalancing? Here's another example of how OoTM when >played the wrong way are unbalancing. Take the Brujah deck that I posted, add >a handful of Life Boons. Now, all I have to do is BR/HU my predator several >times and then play Life Boon on each one of his/her/its vampires to make >myself totally immune to bleeds. What's the rationale in making this Minor Boon `strategy' not availiable to Rushing Brujah, but availiable to Intercept-combat Tremere and Toreador? [ quoted text not captured ]

kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > > In article <3m3miu$n...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: > > >>> And I've played a few games with the mis-errata to know that it unbalances > >>> the games around here. > > >>Could you site examples of how playing OoTMs the way they were always > >>intended to be played is unbalancing? Here's another example of how OoTM when > >>played the wrong way are unbalancing. Take the Brujah deck that I posted, add > >>a handful of Life Boons. Now, all I have to do is BR/HU my predator several > >>times and then play Life Boon on each one of his/her/its vampires to make > >>myself totally immune to bleeds. > > >I assume you mean Minor Boon. Peace Scott & Alan, Yes, I get the cards mixed up some times. > >Instead, why don't you send all your Prey's minions to torpor the same way > >and oust her? It is an example, Scott, ok. I am trying to make myself immune to bleeds from my predator. > If immunity to bleeds is what he's concerned, wouldn't sending all > of his predator's minions to torpor alone good enough? The Minor > Boons are just waste of precious Master Phases. Because, Alan, if I torp'd all my pred's minions, then soon s/h/it would be ousted and I'd have to start all over again on a new, stronger, pred. This way my pred can still resist his/her/its pred. OK. [ quoted text not captured ]

kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes: >What's the rationale in making this Minor Boon `strategy' not availiable >to Rushing Brujah, but availiable to Intercept-combat Tremere and >Toreador? Tremere and Toreador certainly seem more the boon types. The Brujah are just punks, with no respect for tradition. -- Aaron Mandelbaum

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: > > I write: > >> More and more people seem to feel the first draft of the rules was > >> the better one. Master OOT's were obviously intended at first to be > >> playable on your turn (played whenever applicable in lieu of your next > >> master phase.) The question is whether someone decided to change that > >> in the second set of rules or they just "dumbed it down" and ended up > >> saying something other than they intended. > > Mr. McClure writes: > >I disagree with that whole paragraph. More & more people DO NOT seem to > >feel that the first draft was better, nor is it "obvious" OoTM can be played > >during your turn. > > After reading the first draft of the rules, the one that comes with > the game, it is obvious they were not intended at that time to be unplayable > during your turn. They are "played whenever applicable" with no mention > of not-on-your turn. Peace Owen, Obvious to you, perhaps, but not obvious to me. To me, Out of Turn means not during your turn. > >> >Allowing OOTM to be played during your current turn makes several of them > >> >unbabancing, to say the least. Surprisingly enough, this is one of the > >> >things that almost everyone who has played a significant amount of Jyhad > >> >eventually agrees on. > >> > >> So, don't allow them to be played on your turn. Major Boon (or > >> whatever) shouldn't be playable on one of your bleeds, so let the > >> card say that. I doubt anyone who allows OOTs on your turn would allow > >> it, anyway. How is saving you from my bleed doing you a favor? > > >The card DOES say that, Owen, right at the top middle. "Out of Turn." > > This is sophistry. The card does not say "This card may not be > played on one of your own bleeds" at the top, neither does it say "This > card may not be played during your turn." My argument isn't false, if it was no one would agree with it or someone would prove me wrong. Again, to me, it is crystal clear that Out of Turn on the card means not during your turn. > "Out of Turn" is a good descriptive name for a card which can violate > the normal sequence of play. Would anyonoe seriously consider naming a > class of cards "Out of phase" cards? Even if they did, people would > argue you can't play them during your Master phase, since that would be > in phase. Yes, they might label a card "Out of Phase" to show that it couldn't be played during your Master phase. Yes, people will always argue the semantics (sp) of the cards, see the current discussion. > In short, you are missing the entire basis of disagreement -- whether > the name "Out of Turn" is just a name or a rule written into a name. No, I'm not. I'm saying that it is obvious to me that Out of Turn means not during your turn and that is why it is printed in bold type on the card. > >Major Boon would help you immensely if played the wrong way. > > I agree. I'd guess it should be fixed, were you to allow on your > turn MOOT's, by adding the phrase "by another Methuselah" somewhere It doesn't need to be fixed, it is an OoTM. > >> Does allowing Sudden Reversal or Frenzy to be played on your turn > >> cause any serious problems? > > >Yes, that is why they are OoTMs. > > Frenzy is an OOTM because it's designed to be played during combat, > which rarely occurs during your master phase. Can you give me an example > where either of these would be unbalancing if played during your turn? > Obviously, they would be more useful if you had that option, but > excessively powerful? Just because a card of two of the class OoTM isn't "excessively powerful" when played at the wrong time does not mean that all OoTMs should be allowed to be played at the wrong time. Talk about a sophistic argument. Looking back, some of this seems kinda harsh. Let me make it clear, this is not intended to be a flame, Owen. I just believe that you are misinterpreting the use of OoTMs. [ quoted text not captured ]

kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > > In article <3m3fgj$p...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: > > >Could you site examples of how playing OoTMs the way they were always > >intended to be played is unbalancing? Here's another example of how OoTM when > >played the wrong way are unbalancing. Take the Brujah deck that I posted, add > >a handful of Life Boons. Now, all I have to do is BR/HU my predator several > >times and then play Life Boon on each one of his/her/its vampires to make > >myself totally immune to bleeds. > > What's the rationale in making this Minor Boon `strategy' not availiable > to Rushing Brujah, but availiable to Intercept-combat Tremere and > Toreador? Peace Alan, Everyone knows that Brujah rush is the weakest deck concept, so we have to go out of our way to find more ways to weaken it. 8^) A defending Brujah player can play a MB, just as easily as a Tremere/Toreador. Rush decks don't need to be able to play MBs on the minions that they rush. It is unbalancing. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: >> >> I write: >> >> More and more people seem to feel the first draft of the rules was >> >> the better one. Master OOT's were obviously intended at first to be >> >> playable on your turn (played whenever applicable in lieu of your next >> >> master phase.) The question is whether someone decided to change that >> >> in the second set of rules or they just "dumbed it down" and ended up >> >> saying something other than they intended. >> >> Mr. McClure writes: >> >I disagree with that whole paragraph. More & more people DO NOT seem to >> >feel that the first draft was better, nor is it "obvious" OoTM can be played >> >during your turn. >> >> After reading the first draft of the rules, the one that comes with >> the game, it is obvious they were not intended at that time to be unplayable >> during your turn. They are "played whenever applicable" with no mention >> of not-on-your turn. >Peace Owen, >Obvious to you, perhaps, but not obvious to me. To me, Out of Turn means not >during your turn. Again: to the English speaking community represented by Webster, Out of Turn means any time out of the normal sequence of things. Turn: out of turn: 1. Not in the proper sequence or order. You may not use English as a defense in this one, since it obviously (even to you, I would hope) means that the master card is not restricted to "other than your turn". You may, of course, still use the Design Team rule (and the corrected rules) as defense, since they do say what you're trying to say. >My argument isn't false, if it was no one would agree with it or someone >would prove me wrong. Again, to me, it is crystal clear that Out of Turn >on the card means not during your turn. I prove you wrong, sir. Not that your point isn't the official one, but that Out-of-Turn on the card doesn't support your point. Just because you can ignore the dictionary doesn't make your argument valid. >> In short, you are missing the entire basis of disagreement -- whether >> the name "Out of Turn" is just a name or a rule written into a name. >No, I'm not. I'm saying that it is obvious to me that Out of Turn means >not during your turn and that is why it is printed in bold type on the card. It's obvious to most correct English speakers that Out of Turn means not-necessarily during your master phase, when normal Master cards are to be played. (Naturally, correct English speakers are few and far between :-).

In article <3mbkjo$9...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >Again: to the English speaking community represented by Webster, Out of Turn >means any time out of the normal sequence of things. > >It's obvious to most correct English speakers that Out of Turn means >not-necessarily during your master phase, when normal Master cards are >to be played. >(Naturally, correct English speakers are few and far between :-). "Turn" is a specifically defined term within the game. Therefore the phrase "Out of turn" is ambiguous, since we cannot be sure which definition of "turn" is being used in the phrase. If it is the 'usual' definition, then "out of sequence" is synonymous with "out of turn," but if the word "turn" within the phrase indicates the game-specific definition of the word, then "out of sequence" is no longer a synonom, and "out of turn" specifically means "not on your turn." Neither side can know which definition of "turn" is being used on the cards, and thus, the argument is a stalemate. If you wish to keep going, feel free, but realize that what you are debating is which definition of "turn" is being used in the phrase. To a "correct English speaker," the term is ambiguous. [ quoted text not captured ]

This out of turn master thing has gone on too damn long. Let me quote from the rulebook: 7.2.1 Master Cards Out-of-turn: Out-of-turn cards you play when it is not your turn 13. WHAT YOU CAN DO WHEN IT IS NOT YOUR TURN 13.1 Playing Out-of-turn cards See section 7.2.1 VERY CLEARLY STATED the OOT cards are played only when it is not your turn. Otherwise, 7.2.1 would read "You CAN play OOT when it is not your turn." At least one OOT can really be abused if played during your turn: Major Boon: Put these in my Gangrel deck. I'm a poor bleeder anyway, so if my prey lets me through, I can call for a Major Boon. Now if that Malki-boy who's hunting me pulls off a governed conditioning, I can pass a 6-point bleed on to my prey. 'Nuff said, Ray [=- Go Steelers! -=] [=- Do some Calculus -=] [=- Democritus rules! -=] [=- And Pirates! -=] [=- Ride a Century -=] [=- But only the Ventrue! -=]

On Sat, 8 Apr 1995, Aaron Mandelbaum wrote: > kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes: > > >What's the rationale in making this Minor Boon `strategy' not availiable > >to Rushing Brujah, but availiable to Intercept-combat Tremere and > >Toreador? > > Tremere and Toreador certainly seem more the boon types. The Brujah are just > punks, with no respect for tradition. > > -- > Aaron Mandelbaum > I don't think this is an appropriate rationale. The Caitiff are the punks (clanless) who don't care about the existing hierarchy, not the Brujah. In the pictures they look like punks, but they are still just as cemented in the "clan structure" as any other clan. Not to mention that the vamps are just the puppets of the Meths, so it is a question of whether the Meth is the Boon type. But are there any other takes on the rationale of "they can, tose can't" a.k.a. "I can but I won't let you"? Remy leb...@u.washington.edu | It's not my fault! Gambit at the U.W. | Laugh it up fuzzball! | - Han Solo "I don't want the world, I just want your half." "Life is like a riddle, and I'm really stumped." >

James Bowes (leb...@u.washington.edu) wrote: : > Tremere and Toreador certainly seem more the boon types. The Brujah are just : > punks, with no respect for tradition. : > : > -- : > Aaron Mandelbaum : > : I don't think this is an appropriate rationale. The Caitiff are the : punks (clanless) who don't care about the existing hierarchy, not the : Brujah. In the pictures they look like punks, but they are still just as : cemented in the "clan structure" as any other clan. Not to mention that : the vamps are just the puppets of the Meths, so it is a question of : whether the Meth is the Boon type. But are there any other takes on the : rationale of "they can, tose can't" a.k.a. "I can but I won't let you"? The Brujah seem to be the most clan/organization-oriented. Clan advantages are usually +1 intercept on other members of the Brujah clan (reflecting who has power over who within the clan), and there are a lot of gangs working for the Brujah (slashers, The Knights, Loyal Street Gang, etc). The Brujah are indeed an organized, structured lot, within themselves. This has no reflection with their organization within the Camarilla. Erik

In article <3mcns2$r...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>7.2.1 Master Cards >> Out-of-turn: Out-of-turn cards you play when it is not your turn > >>13. WHAT YOU CAN DO WHEN IT IS NOT YOUR TURN >>13.1 Playing Out-of-turn cards >> See section 7.2.1 > >>VERY CLEARLY STATED the OOT cards are played only when it is not your >>turn. Otherwise, 7.2.1 would read "You CAN play OOT when it is not your >>turn." > >Very clearly stated in such a way that does not include the "only" >that you put into your text. >Why is that? For the same reason that when I ask you what you do when your car comes upon a red light. You'd say, "I stop." By your logic, I should assume that since I am not told that is the only thing I may do, I may safely go through a red light. >There is ambiguity - that is all. I think the Simpson defense team is taking applications for a rules lawyer. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3mbkjo$9...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >>Obvious to you, perhaps, but not obvious to me. To me, Out of Turn means not >>during your turn. >Again: to the English speaking community represented by Webster, Out of Turn >means any time out of the normal sequence of things. > >Turn: >out of turn: 1. Not in the proper sequence or order. >You may not use English as a defense in this one, since it obviously >(even to you, I would hope) means that the master card is not restricted >to "other than your turn". that parenthetical, mr. johnson, seems somewhat testier than warranted by this discussion. that aside, i believe the disagreement between yourself and mr. mcclure seems to stem from a difference in the definition of 'turn,' to wit: mr. mcclure (and, for the record, myself) refer to master: out-of-turn under a definition of 'turn' as 'one game turn,' i.e., one untap-to-discard sequence. you refer to the definition of the phrase 'out of turn.' it seems clear that no consensus is to be reached until we establish similar premises to base our argumentation on. your definition of 'out-of-turn' as a phrase via webster's supports the 'out-of-phase' (a phrase i use here to indicate that an out-of-turn master may be played on one's own turn, outside the master phase) interpretation of the rules, where mr. mcclure's definition of 'out-of-turn' as 'not during the current methuselah's untap-to-discard sequence' supports the 'out-of-turn (literal)*' interpretation. mr. mcclure? mr. johnson? have i left anything out? gomi no sensei (officious, pompous, pedant) *'literal' clearly by my own definition; mr. johnson has a different version of 'literal' in mind in his argumentation. -- "A global village is NOT supposed to be an anarchic tyranny of the discourteous!" pers...@athena.mit.edu, vox clamans

rmu...@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Ray Mulford) writes: >In article <3mcns2$r...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>>7.2.1 Master Cards >>> Out-of-turn: Out-of-turn cards you play when it is not your turn >> >>>13. WHAT YOU CAN DO WHEN IT IS NOT YOUR TURN >>>13.1 Playing Out-of-turn cards >>> See section 7.2.1 >> >>>VERY CLEARLY STATED the OOT cards are played only when it is not your >>>turn. Otherwise, 7.2.1 would read "You CAN play OOT when it is not your >>>turn." >> >>Very clearly stated in such a way that does not include the "only" >>that you put into your text. >>Why is that? >For the same reason that when I ask you what you do when your car comes >upon a red light. You'd say, "I stop." By your logic, I should assume >that since I am not told that is the only thing I may do, I may safely go >through a red light. Oooh. Nice redirection. Unfortunately there are many more rules written (they're called laws) as to what is expected of you when you come to a red light. The laws (at least in South Carolina) very explicitly state that you MUST (not "only may", this is even stronger - it is not optional) come to a complete (non-rolling) stop before the white line marking the intersection. So I would say I must stop. This anaolgy is unworkable because: 1) It is blatantly wrong (the rules state MUST). 2) It is an example of positive action (You *must* do something) where the OOT argument centers on negative action (You can *not* do something). >>There is ambiguity - that is all. >I think the Simpson defense team is taking applications for a rules lawyer. Ah, your spot suddenly came open, is that it?

pech...@nunki.usc.edu (gomi no sensei) writes: >In article <3mbkjo$9...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >>>Obvious to you, perhaps, but not obvious to me. To me, Out of Turn means not >>>during your turn. >>Again: to the English speaking community represented by Webster, Out of Turn >>means any time out of the normal sequence of things. >> >>Turn: >>out of turn: 1. Not in the proper sequence or order. >>You may not use English as a defense in this one, since it obviously >>(even to you, I would hope) means that the master card is not restricted >>to "other than your turn". >that parenthetical, mr. johnson, seems somewhat testier than warranted >by this discussion. that aside, i believe the disagreement between yourself >and mr. mcclure seems to stem from a difference in the definition of 'turn,' >to wit: I am testier because the English has already been posted and ignored to his benefit. That is bad form. >mr. mcclure (and, for the record, myself) refer to master: out-of-turn >under a definition of 'turn' as 'one game turn,' i.e., one untap-to-discard >sequence. you refer to the definition of the phrase 'out of turn.' it >seems clear that no consensus is to be reached until we establish similar >premises to base our argumentation on. If you depend on the game definition of "turn", then depend on the game definition of "out-of-turn": "whenever appropriate in lieu of your next master phase" You can't have it both ways. The argument that "out-of-turn" implicity means not on your turn is standing on the English rules of grammar, which do not support it in this case because the expression is idiomatic. >your definition of 'out-of-turn' as a phrase via webster's supports the >'out-of-phase' (a phrase i use here to indicate that an out-of-turn master >may be played on one's own turn, outside the master phase) interpretation >of the rules, where mr. mcclure's definition of 'out-of-turn' as 'not during >the current methuselah's untap-to-discard sequence' supports the 'out-of-turn >(literal)*' interpretation. The literal interpretation assumes the rules of grammar, and fail to account for all the rules (namely idiomatic expressions). >mr. mcclure? mr. johnson? have i left anything out? Possibly, but thank you for arbitrating.

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > > "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: > >Obvious to you, perhaps, but not obvious to me. To me, Out of Turn means not > >during your turn. > > Again: to the English speaking community represented by Webster, Out of Turn > means any time out of the normal sequence of things. > > Turn: > out of turn: 1. Not in the proper sequence or order. > > You may not use English as a defense in this one, since it obviously > (even to you, I would hope) means that the master card is not restricted > to "other than your turn". Peace Scott, Where did I try to use English as a defense? I said, "To me, Out of Turn means not during your turn." Looks pretty clear. Again, it is NOT obvious to me that that is not the original meaning. > You may, of course, still use the Design Team rule (and the corrected rules) > as defense, since they do say what you're trying to say. I'm using my twenty years of gaming experience as a defense (with a dash of common sense and distortion-detection thrown in). OoT=not during your turn. > >My argument isn't false, if it was no one would agree with it or someone > >would prove me wrong. Again, to me, it is crystal clear that Out of Turn > >on the card means not during your turn. > > I prove you wrong, sir. > Not that your point isn't the official one, but that Out-of-Turn on the card > doesn't support your point. Yes, it does. Given the semantics problems that WotC had with Mt$, I am sure that they chose the word Turn vise Phase to emphasize that you can't use the card during your turn. > Just because you can ignore the dictionary doesn't make your argument valid. Just because you can ignore the imbalance cause be playing OoTMs incorrectly doesn't make your argument valid. > >> In short, you are missing the entire basis of disagreement -- whether > >> the name "Out of Turn" is just a name or a rule written into a name. > > >No, I'm not. I'm saying that it is obvious to me that Out of Turn means > >not during your turn and that is why it is printed in bold type on the card. > > It's obvious to most correct English speakers that Out of Turn means > not-necessarily during your master phase, when normal Master cards are > to be played. Well, it is obvious to this _gamer_ that Out of Turn means not during your turn not out of your phase. I've read enough rules and it was crystal clear to me the very first time that I read about Out of Turn Master cards in the original rules. We are talking gaming-language here, Scott. Just as other professions/ hobbies have terminology which means something other than the "proper English" translation, games have terms which mean certain "unEnglish" things. Out of Turn means not during your turn. Correct English has nothing to do with it. [ quoted text not captured ]

pech...@nunki.usc.edu (gomi no sensei) wrote: > > In article <3mbkjo$9...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, > L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: > >"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: > > >>Obvious to you, perhaps, but not obvious to me. To me, Out of Turn means not > >>during your turn. > > >Again: to the English speaking community represented by Webster, Out of Turn > >means any time out of the normal sequence of things. > > > >Turn: > >out of turn: 1. Not in the proper sequence or order. > > >You may not use English as a defense in this one, since it obviously > >(even to you, I would hope) means that the master card is not restricted > >to "other than your turn". > > that parenthetical, mr. johnson, seems somewhat testier than warranted > by this discussion. that aside, i believe the disagreement between yourself > and mr. mcclure seems to stem from a difference in the definition of 'turn,' > to wit: > > mr. mcclure (and, for the record, myself) refer to master: out-of-turn > under a definition of 'turn' as 'one game turn,' i.e., one untap-to-discard > sequence. you refer to the definition of the phrase 'out of turn.' it > seems clear that no consensus is to be reached until we establish similar > premises to base our argumentation on. > > your definition of 'out-of-turn' as a phrase via webster's supports the > 'out-of-phase' (a phrase i use here to indicate that an out-of-turn master > may be played on one's own turn, outside the master phase) interpretation > of the rules, where mr. mcclure's definition of 'out-of-turn' as 'not during > the current methuselah's untap-to-discard sequence' supports the 'out-of-turn > (literal)*' interpretation. > > mr. mcclure? mr. johnson? have i left anything out? Peace Gomi, No, looks like you have a firm grasp of the situation. Except, that I'm not "Mr. Mcclure;" I'm "James." "Mr. Mcclure" is my father. 8^) [ quoted text not captured ]

lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > > pech...@nunki.usc.edu (gomi no sensei) writes: > > >In article <3mbkjo$9...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, > >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: > >>"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: > > >>>Obvious to you, perhaps, but not obvious to me. To me, Out of Turn means not > >>>during your turn. > > >>Again: to the English speaking community represented by Webster, Out of Turn > >>means any time out of the normal sequence of things. > >> > >>Turn: > >>out of turn: 1. Not in the proper sequence or order. > > >>You may not use English as a defense in this one, since it obviously > >>(even to you, I would hope) means that the master card is not restricted > >>to "other than your turn". > > >that parenthetical, mr. johnson, seems somewhat testier than warranted > >by this discussion. that aside, i believe the disagreement between yourself > >and mr. mcclure seems to stem from a difference in the definition of 'turn,' > >to wit: > > I am testier because the English has already been posted and ignored to his > benefit. That is bad form. Peace Scott, Sorry annoy you, not my intention, old chap. I'm not ignoring the English for my benifit. I'm recognizing that we're dealing with a game term and that has its (sp) own idiomatic meaning. > >mr. mcclure (and, for the record, myself) refer to master: out-of-turn > >under a definition of 'turn' as 'one game turn,' i.e., one untap-to-discard > >sequence. you refer to the definition of the phrase 'out of turn.' it > >seems clear that no consensus is to be reached until we establish similar > >premises to base our argumentation on. > > If you depend on the game definition of "turn", then depend on the game > definition of "out-of-turn": > "whenever appropriate in lieu of your next master phase" > > You can't have it both ways. I'm not having it both ways. The rules are clear to me. > The argument that "out-of-turn" implicity means not on your turn is standing > on the English rules of grammar, which do not support it in this case because > the expression is idiomatic. Yes, as a gaming term "out of turn" has a special meaning: not during your "turn" (whatever a turn is defined as). > >your definition of 'out-of-turn' as a phrase via webster's supports the > >'out-of-phase' (a phrase i use here to indicate that an out-of-turn master > >may be played on one's own turn, outside the master phase) interpretation > >of the rules, where mr. mcclure's definition of 'out-of-turn' as 'not during > >the current methuselah's untap-to-discard sequence' supports the 'out-of-turn > >(literal)*' interpretation. > > The literal interpretation assumes the rules of grammar, and fail to account > for all the rules (namely idiomatic expressions). I'm not being literal; I'm using two decades of gaming experience and game term knowledge to draw a conclusion. [ quoted text not captured ]

rmu...@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Ray Mulford) writes: >This out of turn master thing has gone on too damn long. Let me quote >from the rulebook: >7.2.1 Master Cards > Out-of-turn: Out-of-turn cards you play when it is not your turn >13. WHAT YOU CAN DO WHEN IT IS NOT YOUR TURN >13.1 Playing Out-of-turn cards > See section 7.2.1 >VERY CLEARLY STATED the OOT cards are played only when it is not your >turn. Otherwise, 7.2.1 would read "You CAN play OOT when it is not your >turn." Very clearly stated in such a way that does not include the "only" that you put into your text. Why is that? Otherwise 7.2.1 would read "You ONLY play OOT when it is not your turn" [ quoted text not captured ]

>Obvious to you, perhaps, but not obvious to me. To me, Out of Turn means not >during your turn. Well, hell, Master card to me means it can only be played by men, otherwise it would say Master/Mistress card. Saying that the phrase they chose for the type of card is actually a hidden rule is really that silly IMHO. We're talking about a game that calls cards that give you a Discipline a "Skill Card." The names of cards and names of types of cards were obviously chosen poorly in places and not by Avalon Hill standards (for anyone not in the know, they are the people who are famous for rules like 12.34.5.3 A unit completing an overrrun (8.12-8.18) does not check for supply until the following deployment phase, in exception to 6.2.14.) >Where did I try to use English as a defense? >I said, "To me, Out of Turn means >not during your turn." Looks pretty clear. >Again, it is NOT obvious to me that >that is not the original meaning. Hopefully, you are looking at the words "out-of-turn" and figuring out what these words most commonly mean in English. The only other possibilities include things like aliens telling you what it means. _I'm_ assuming that the way the types of cards work are written in the rules. From that point of view, the booklet makes no mention of not playing them on your turn and the corrected rules are unclear. If you already magically "know" what Out-of-Turn was intended to mean (so presumably aren't confused by Rothscreck, either, since the name tells you all you need to know) then of course any set of rules not specifically saying they can be played on your turn will "clearly" say they cannot. >I'm using my twenty years of gaming experience as a defense (with a dash of >common sense and distortion-detection thrown in). OoT=not during your turn. Oooo...20 years. I think I first played StarShip Troopers about 15 years ago, and Rise and Decline of the 3rd Reich maybe 17 years ago. Does having a 9 inch long "thing" make up for the extra 3 years? If not, my dad's still in pretty good shape, so we could arrange to have him fight yours. >Yes, it does. Given the semantics problems that WotC had with Mt$, I am sure >that they chose the word Turn vise Phase to emphasize that you can't use the >card during your turn. So, you're saying that WotC took great pains to put out a set of rules, including the ones on cards, that was very clear. They would never define a term like Close Quarters and then not use it, have to release a corrected set of rules before anyone even bought the game, fail after 2 tries to get how Steal Blood works right, screw up what they mean by a Directed Action, or anything like that. I'm sure the same person who left the "other" in the part about 'other Meth's being able to use vote cards' spent days deciding on the exact rules- specific phrasing for "Out-of-Turn" cards. >Just because you can ignore the imbalance cause be playing OoTMs incorrectly >doesn't make your argument valid. Major Boon gets errata that it cannot be played on one of your bleeds, or possibly on a bleed against your prey. Are there any others? Torpor/Minor Boon just fails to strike fear into my heart. >> In short, you are missing the entire basis of disagreement -- whether >> the name "Out of Turn" is just a name or a rule written into a name. >No, I'm not. I'm saying that it is obvious to me that Out of Turn means >not during your turn and that is why it is printed in bold type on the card. It's printed in bold type because the names and types of all cards are printed on them that way. +1 Stealth is printed on lots of cards in bold type, but it's just convention. It doesn't mean that the card can be used to give you +1 Stealth. The same way you have to read the rules to see what a bold +1 Stealth means, you have to read the rules to see what a bold OOT means. >Well, it is obvious to this _gamer_ that Out of Turn means not during your turn >not out of your phase. I've read enough rules and it was crystal clear to me >the very first time that I read about Out of Turn Master cards in the original >rules. We are talking gaming-language here, Scott. Just as other professions/ >hobbies have terminology which means something other than the "proper English" >translation, games have terms which mean certain "unEnglish" things. Out of >Turn means not during your turn. Correct English has nothing to do with it. Again, this is simply the assertion that the name of the type of card is a coded rule. From Magic and Jyhad I see lots of evidence that the exact word used for a name or type of thing is just meant to sound good and be easy to remember. To give this post some content, look at the rule for additional strike cards. It says you can play 1 card for additional strikes, which seems clear enough, and then they add the word "only" to be extra clear. The absence of the word "only" in the OOT's description has got to make you wonder.

Why don't we all END the Out of Turn BULLSHIT!!!! If you can't figure it out than play something else, out of turn means out of turn.....simple as that.....no dictionary, no indepth translation....just out of turn!!!! Thanks, Bryce Miller

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: > > >Obvious to you, perhaps, but not obvious to me. To me, Out of Turn means not > >during your turn. > > Well, hell, Master card to me means it can only be played by men, > otherwise it would say Master/Mistress card. Saying that the phrase they > chose for the type of card is actually a hidden rule is really that > silly IMHO. Peace Owen, The Out of Turn rule isn't hidden, it is in the rule book (see below). > >Where did I try to use English as a defense? > >I said, "To me, Out of Turn means > >not during your turn." Looks pretty clear. > >Again, it is NOT obvious to me that > >that is not the original meaning. > > Hopefully, you are looking at the words "out-of-turn" and figuring > out what these words most commonly mean in English. The only other > possibilities include things like aliens telling you what it means. What these words most commonly mean in English doesn't necessarily apply when you are talking about the subset of the universe involving gaming. > _I'm_ assuming that the way the types of cards work are written in > the rules. From that point of view, the booklet makes no mention of ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > not playing them on your turn and the corrected rules are unclear. Aye, here's the rub! The booklet is in error. You need a copy of the revised rules. Out of Turn is clearly explained in the revised rules. I can send you a copy, if you'd like. > If you already magically "know" what Out-of-Turn was intended to mean > (so presumably aren't confused by Rothscreck, either, since the name > tells you all you need to know) then of course any set of rules not > specifically saying they can be played on your turn will "clearly" > say they cannot. No, I'm not confused by Roetschreck, either. The revised rules are clear on this point. > >I'm using my twenty years of gaming experience as a defense (with a dash of > >common sense and distortion-detection thrown in). OoT=not during your turn. > > Oooo...20 years. I think I first played StarShip Troopers about 15 > years ago, and Rise and Decline of the 3rd Reich maybe 17 years ago. > Does having a 9 inch long "thing" make up for the extra 3 years? > If not, my dad's still in pretty good shape, so we could arrange to > have him fight yours. Owen, that was not meant as a brag. I was mearly stating my qualifications to make it obvious to someone who seems to think that I fell off the turnip truck yesterday that I know what I'm talking about. No, the size of your penis has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to play Jyhad (unless your wife is also playing). What would fighting solve? > >Yes, it does. Given the semantics problems that WotC had with Mt$, I am sure > >that they chose the word Turn vise Phase to emphasize that you can't use the > >card during your turn. > > So, you're saying that WotC took great pains to put out a set of rules, > including the ones on cards, that was very clear. They would never define > a term like Close Quarters and then not use it, have to release a corrected > set of rules before anyone even bought the game, fail after 2 tries to get > how Steal Blood works right, screw up what they mean by a Directed Action, > or anything like that. I don't see the term Close Quarters in the revised rules (you need a copy). I consider the fact that they were so quick with the revised rules to be a "good thing" (TM), don't you. How does Steal Blood fail to work? Directed Actions are crystal clear. There are seven people in my group who read the rules and understand (D) actions [you /really/ need a copy of the revised rules]. > I'm sure the same person who left the "other" in the part about 'other > Meth's being able to use vote cards' spent days deciding on the exact rules- > specific phrasing for "Out-of-Turn" cards. Perhaps we are all wrong about that one and you aren't supposed to "push" your own votes. > >Just because you can ignore the imbalance cause be playing OoTMs incorrectly > >doesn't make your argument valid. > > Major Boon gets errata that it cannot be played on one of your bleeds, > or possibly on a bleed against your prey. Are there any others? > Torpor/Minor Boon just fails to strike fear into my heart. Like I said, "just because _you_ can ignore the imbalance . . ." > >> In short, you are missing the entire basis of disagreement -- whether > >> the name "Out of Turn" is just a name or a rule written into a name. > > >No, I'm not. I'm saying that it is obvious to me that Out of Turn means > >not during your turn and that is why it is printed in bold type on the card. > > It's printed in bold type because the names and types of all cards > are printed on them that way. +1 Stealth is printed on lots of cards in > bold type, but it's just convention. It doesn't mean that the card can > be used to give you +1 Stealth. No, the +1 stealth in bold at the top of a card is there to show that both the superior and inferior versions of that card are at +1 stealth. See Govern the Unaligned for an exception. > The same way you have to read the rules to see what a bold +1 Stealth > means, you have to read the rules to see what a bold OOT means. And the rules clearly state that OoT means not during your turn. > >Well, it is obvious to this _gamer_ that Out of Turn means not during your turn > >not out of your phase. I've read enough rules and it was crystal clear to me > >the very first time that I read about Out of Turn Master cards in the original > >rules. We are talking gaming-language here, Scott. Just as other professions/ > >hobbies have terminology which means something other than the "proper English" > >translation, games have terms which mean certain "unEnglish" things. Out of > >Turn means not during your turn. Correct English has nothing to do with it. > > Again, this is simply the assertion that the name of the type of card > is a coded rule. From Magic and Jyhad I see lots of evidence that the exact > word used for a name or type of thing is just meant to sound good and be > easy to remember. It is not a coded rule, it is in the revised rules. > To give this post some content, look at the rule for additional strike > cards. It says you can play 1 card for additional strikes, which seems > clear enough, and then they add the word "only" to be extra clear. The > absence of the word "only" in the OOT's description has got to make you > wonder. No, read the revised rules. OoTMs are very clearly explained. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Would that be the idiomatic use of the phrase "out of turn" or a literal translation of "out of turn" based on the definition of "turn" given in the game? You have not specified which you mean, and I don't know which side of the fence you're on from this post. I'm serious. That's the problem. It's ambiguous. Put the thread in your killfile and move along. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3mgka8$q...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >truck yesterday that I know what I'm talking about. No, the size of your >penis has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to play Jyhad (unless >your wife is also playing). What would fighting solve? "Coed Naked Jyhad" t-shirts anyone? :-) >I don't see the term Close Quarters in the revised rules (you need a copy). Check 15.3 Special Combat Effects, subheading Close Quarters [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: >> _I'm_ assuming that the way the types of cards work are written in >> the rules. From that point of view, the booklet makes no mention of > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> not playing them on your turn and the corrected rules are unclear. >Aye, here's the rub! The booklet is in error. You need a copy of the >revised rules. Out of Turn is clearly explained in the revised rules. I >can send you a copy, if you'd like. Note that I clearly mention the _corrected_ rules and make a claim about their contents, indicating that I have not only read them, but am familiar enough with them that I know the correct name for them. This snippet is reproduced in full and has no mitigating context, aside from the obvious flamelike nature of my post. I offer this as proof that the above poster is not only ignoring parts of my posts, and thus merely flaming, but is doing a bad job of it. I hereby withdraw from this silly thread and claim a moral victory.

to settle this I would like to say as a former magic champion of las Vegas (now transcended to JyhAd MAN). OOT masters mean you Can Play them out of sequence. for if you take it as Out of TURN you could not play them on any TURN your TURN, your Prey's TURN, or you Prediters TURN. for every Meth. Has a TURN and as for the idoit's who say out of turn means not playable during your TURN are Screwed in the head cause they can't get over Major Boon. " You can't play that "OOT" XTC laced blood on my hunting vamp cause its My TURN!!!!!!!!!!"\ you fucking imbecels.!!!

wa...@nevada.edu (SCALAR NORSE) wrote: > to settle this I would like to say as a former magic champion of las > Vegas (now transcended to JyhAd MAN). OOT masters mean you Can Play them > out of sequence. for if you take it as Out of TURN you could not play them on > any TURN your TURN, your Prey's TURN, or you Prediters TURN. for every > Meth. Has a TURN and as for the idoit's who say out of turn means not > playable during your TURN are Screwed in the head cause they can't get > over Major Boon. Peace be with you, As WotC has said, "This isn't Magic." We are not amused. > you fucking imbecels.!!! Nice to see the maturity level of Mt$ players hasn't changed since I quit playing to move on to a better game [Jyhad]. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3mi7aa$8...@news.nevada.edu>, wa...@nevada.edu (SCALAR NORSE) wrote: > to settle this I would like to say as a former magic champion of las > Vegas (now transcended to JyhAd MAN). OOT masters mean you Can Play them > out of sequence. for if you take it as Out of TURN you could not play them on > any TURN your TURN, your Prey's TURN, or you Prediters TURN. for every > Meth. Has a TURN and as for the idoit's who say out of turn means not > playable during your TURN are Screwed in the head cause they can't get > over Major Boon. > the fact that you are a "former magic champion" doesn't hold any water around here. jyhad is not magic (thank god) further more, you can take your attitude and your opinions (which by the way, are WRONG!) and stick em in your arse. out of turn means NOT ON YOUR TURN! it has nothing to do with phases. > > you fucking imbecels.!!! now isn't that convincing from the JyhAd MAN who spells predator's "Prediters". get a life- and start studying some more, i think you've played too much Mt$. harpua

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >wa...@nevada.edu (SCALAR NORSE) wrote: >> to settle this I would like to say as a former magic champion of las >> Vegas (now transcended to JyhAd MAN). OOT masters mean you Can Play them >> out of sequence. for if you take it as Out of TURN you could not play >Peace be with you, Always an even temper, impressive. >As WotC has said, "This isn't Magic." We are not amused. >> you fucking imbecels.!!! >Nice to see the maturity level of Mt$ players hasn't changed since I quit >playing to move on to a better game [Jyhad]. If I didn't know better, I'd swear he was just trying to detract from the argument by making one side (the side I'm on) look dumb(er?) :-P L.Scott

On 13 Apr 1995, SCALAR NORSE wrote: > > to settle this I would like to say as a former magic champion of las > Vegas (now transcended to JyhAd MAN). OOT masters mean you Can Play them > out of sequence. for if you take it as Out of TURN you could not play them on > any TURN your TURN, your Prey's TURN, or you Prediters TURN. for every > Meth. Has a TURN and as for the idoit's who say out of turn means not > playable during your TURN are Screwed in the head cause they can't get > over Major Boon. > > " You can't play that "OOT" XTC laced blood on my hunting vamp cause > its My TURN!!!!!!!!!!"\ > > > > > you fucking imbecels.!!! > That's funny, the revised rules seem quite clear that OoT masters can't be played on your own turn. I could go into a detailed, highly logical argument, using text taken from the rules, and commonly accepted defenitions of terms such as "turn", but it would only draw more response from the world of Mt$. In this forum the rule fixes are intended to balence the game, they are not set so "my combo with such and such card which cannot be beaten" is made legal. Why one would add "you fucking imbecels.!!!" and discredit an already infantile, poorly - developed argument, I do not know. It is fortunate that this group does have a high maturity level, and posts, such as this one are, indeed, a rare occurance. - tony, Prince of Iowa City

: That's funny, the revised rules seem quite clear that OoT masters can't : be played on your own turn. I could go into a detailed, highly logical : argument, using text taken from the rules, and commonly accepted : defenitions of terms such as "turn", but it would only draw more response : from the world of Mt$. In this forum the rule fixes are intended to : balence the game, they are not set so "my combo with such and such card : which cannot be beaten" is made legal. Why one would add "you fucking : imbecels.!!!" and discredit an already infantile, poorly - developed : argument, I do not know. It is fortunate that this group does have a : high maturity level, and posts, such as this one are, indeed, a rare : occurance. : - tony, Prince of Iowa City BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH CORN-BOY. Soon enough you fools will see your wrong. - SCALAR, Meth of U. S.

L. Scott Johnson writes [ quoted text not captured ] This argument that "the rules say you can do this, but they _don't_ say you can't do that" is being used more often than I can believe. Rulebooks never enumerate all the negatives of each possible rule. If a rulebook says that "units move through a series of contiguous hexes" they don't also say that "units are NOT moved by flicking them with your thumb and forefinger." Nor will they go on to say that "units are NOT moved by placing them on your butt and farting them across the board." The implication is _only_. -- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable) These opinions are mine; get your own.

Eric Pettersen (pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu) wrote: : and forefinger." Nor will they go on to say that "units are NOT moved by : placing them on your butt and farting them across the board." heh heh heh. everyone loves a good obscenity now and again. (If rules lawyers want to, they can argue whether profanity and obscenity are the same thing, and what the difference is, and which means "swear" and which means "weird thing") Erik

-- I know that I am just a 'youngster' in this game and in this newsgroup, but I feel compelled to add my thoughts to this thread. I will begin by simply saying that my understanding of the situation leads me to believe that OoT Master Cards may not be played on one's own turn. The 'Oxford Dictionary' arguement is bogged down in semantics without an eye towards the larger picture. If OoT meant that the card could be played at any time in lue of the next master phase, then the card would have been called an Out of Sequence master card, or something similar. As I picture the situation, not only does the plain or simple reading of the text lead to an interpretation of "not during one's turn", but also some thoughts about game balance add credance to this interpretation. Here I defer to the previous posts by James, et. all. Basically, the situation can be summed up like this: both sides have a semantics arguement, but the not-on-your-turn camp has gone one step further by providing a philosophically strong defense for their case. What would be cool now would be an official ruling. ###################################################################### # Michael J. Reiffer |"To knock a thing down, especially if # # e-mail: mrei...@calvin.edu | it is cocked at an arrogant angle is # # Rakibu Arpati | a deep delight to the blood." # # | -George Santayana # ######################################################################

ad...@po.cwru.edu (Aaron Mandelbaum) wrote: > > mrei...@news.calvin.edu (Michael Reiffer) writes: > > I know that I am just a 'youngster' in this game and in this > >newsgroup, but I feel compelled to add my thoughts to this thread. I > >will begin by simply saying that my understanding of the situation leads > >me to believe that OoT Master Cards may not be played on one's own turn. > > [etc, etc, goes and restates the standard argument] > > This whole thing is silly. You *can't* tell from the name which they meant. > They *wouldn't* say Out-of-Sequence because it's long and nasty sounding, > and Out Of Turn can mean the same thing. The game balance questions that've > been brought up aren't terribly convincing. If Major Boon is the best you > can think of, that's a non-argument too. It's *still* less powerful than > other bleed bounce -- he still has the chance to block when you do the bleed > in the first place, and you take a pool, to boot. Peace Michael & Aaron, I tried to let this die, but . . . . Officially, you can _not_ play OoTM cards during your turn. There's what you wanted to know, Michael. I've already explained further to L. Scott Johnson, Aaron, my feelings on how DYT-OoTM [during your turn-out of turn] cards unbalance the game, MajBoon is just one example and it is a more complex situation than you are stating [it has to do with the fact that you have complete control over the bleed that you are trading off]. You'll not convince me that DYT-OoTM aren't unbalanced and I'll not try to convince you. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3muj2v$b...@uncle.calvin.edu>, Michael Reiffer <mrei...@news.calvin.edu> wrote: >providing a philosophically strong defense for their case. What would be >cool now would be an official ruling. The official ruling is that you can't play them on your own turn. This argument is more about what it *should* be than what it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

mrei...@news.calvin.edu (Michael Reiffer) writes: >-- > I know that I am just a 'youngster' in this game and in this >newsgroup, but I feel compelled to add my thoughts to this thread. I >will begin by simply saying that my understanding of the situation leads >me to believe that OoT Master Cards may not be played on one's own turn. [etc, etc, goes and restates the standard argument] This whole thing is silly. You *can't* tell from the name which they meant. They *wouldn't* say Out-of-Sequence because it's long and nasty sounding, and Out Of Turn can mean the same thing. The game balance questions that've been brought up aren't terribly convincing. If Major Boon is the best you can think of, that's a non-argument too. It's *still* less powerful than other bleed bounce -- he still has the chance to block when you do the bleed in the first place, and you take a pool, to boot. In short, there has been *NO* good argument presented for not-on-your-turn. The only reason I can think of why it'd be that way is because reactions are. -- Aaron Mandelbaum

Around here (Groningen, The Netherlands) we simply made our own House Rules(tm) stating you can play an OOT master only outside your own master phase. So in your master phase you cannot play OOT masters, and in any oother phase, either your turn or another Methusalahs, you may. Well, we've got more House Rules(tm) that do not agree with some of the sillier decisions that the design team and the netreps have taken so far, but I won't bore you ppl with them. //Doctor Jest. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | D.O.Kip | The Doctor. (Igor, HallOfFame, Kisc's Planetenlaan 76 | MUD and many more.) 9742 JC Groningen | Trinity. (Wherever Doctor isn't The Netherlands | allowed as name.) Europe | | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

In article <3n32si$q...@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu>, Danny Oscar Kip <do...@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu> wrote: >Well, we've got more House Rules(tm) that do not agree with some of >the sillier decisions that the design team and the netreps have taken >so far, but I won't bore you ppl with them. Note that for all intents and purposes, the Design Team and the netrep are one and the same. Tom Wylie is the only official netrep, and he doesn't make suggestions. Personally, I'd like to hear your house rules. [ quoted text not captured ]