LSJ - marionneted again =)

Hi ! simple question i play spirit marionnette on my prey's vamp ( as usual), take control of him. This vampire has dominate, so i play GtU inferior to bleed for 3. A vamp of myprey untaps and block. I play Change of Target. under NRA, I cannot bleed again. And the action is not finished since it was canceled. So if i decide to take no actions from now on, will i keep control of the marionnette until the end of the game ?? =) reyda

[ quoted text not captured ] Card text reads "until the end of the next action", so any other methuselah's minion action would make you loose control of the Marionetted minion, I think. Now just use Ur m4d sKii1Z to deal a "nobody moves from now on" treaty with the other players, and you're done. ;) Francois

In message <a6n5ej$5rj$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >i play spirit marionnette on my prey's vamp ( as usual), take control of >him. >This vampire has dominate, so i play GtU inferior to bleed for 3. A vamp of >myprey untaps and block. I play Change of Target. Sure. >under NRA, I cannot bleed again. Correct. (Though NRA isn't relevant here, with the card text. Anything which is the "same action" (card text of Change of Target) is also the "same type of action" (NRA definition). [LSJ 20001122]) >And the action is not finished since it >was canceled. Not true: "Canceled" doesn't mean "never happened". It's more like "irrevocably terminated". [LSJ 20011204] <3C0D0D63...@white-wolf.com> Action finished, so you hand it back, so far as I can tell. >So if i decide to take no actions from now on, will i keep >control of the marionnette until the end of the game ?? =) As others have pointed out, Spirit Marionette doesn't rely on it being your vampire. (So if you do it with a Madness Network and then another Malkavian player on the table backs out on your deal and decides to act herself, you'd lose the vampire at the end of the next action.) -- James Coupe Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks, PGP 0x5D623D5D And the rich folks hate the poor folks. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 All of my folks hate all of your folks, 13D7E668C3695D623D5D It's American as apple pie.

[ quoted text not captured ] You lose it at the end of the next action, not necessarily your next action. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <a6n5ej$5rj$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> > writes: > >i play spirit marionnette on my prey's vamp ( as usual), take control of > >him. > >This vampire has dominate, so i play GtU inferior to bleed for 3. A vamp of > >myprey untaps and block. I play Change of Target. > > Sure. > > >under NRA, I cannot bleed again. > > Correct. (Though NRA isn't relevant here, with the card text. Anything > which is the "same action" (card text of Change of Target) is also the > "same type of action" (NRA definition). [LSJ 20001122]) Card text keeps him from performing another GtU. The minion could still bleed however, except for the NRA rule. > >And the action is not finished since it > >was canceled. > > Not true: > > "Canceled" doesn't mean "never happened". It's more like "irrevocably > terminated". [LSJ 20011204] > <3C0D0D63...@white-wolf.com> > > Action finished, so you hand it back, so far as I can tell. Could be, but there is a precedent with Force of Will/Change of Target\ that indicates otherwise. > >So if i decide to take no actions from now on, will i keep > >control of the marionnette until the end of the game ?? =) > > As others have pointed out, Spirit Marionette doesn't rely on it being > your vampire. (So if you do it with a Madness Network and then another > Malkavian player on the table backs out on your deal and decides to act > herself, you'd lose the vampire at the end of the next action.) Right. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3C8F3071...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >> Correct. (Though NRA isn't relevant here, with the card text. Anything >> which is the "same action" (card text of Change of Target) is also the >> "same type of action" (NRA definition). [LSJ 20001122]) > >Card text keeps him from performing another GtU. The minion could still >bleed however, except for the NRA rule. [RTR 19950905] suggests that same action includes "same, inherent cardless action" anyway, using similar text to the NRA rule. (But not being the NRA rule.) And so far as I can tell, a bleed is a bleed is a bleed. With [RTR 19950905] and [LSJ 20001122], it does tend to suggest that these two things of "same action" tend to fade towards NRA's definitions anyway. >> >And the action is not finished since it >> >was canceled. >> >> Not true: >> >> "Canceled" doesn't mean "never happened". It's more like "irrevocably >> terminated". [LSJ 20011204] >> <3C0D0D63...@white-wolf.com> >> >> Action finished, so you hand it back, so far as I can tell. > >Could be, but there is a precedent with Force of Will/Change of Target\ >that indicates otherwise. Force of Will states: "Damage occurs after the action or combat is resolved." There is no combat to resolve, because of Change of Target. And the action doesn't resolve. Fine. The action doesn't resolve - because it is irrevocably terminated ([LSJ 20011204]). This is also fine. (That is, I'm reading it as "Damage occurs after the action is resolved or after the combat is resolved" - which seems perfectly consistent with card text.) However, Spirit Marionette refers to the "end of the next action". An action which is irrevocably terminated would seem to end. So it seems to me that using Change of Target vs Force of Will as a template for a ruling isn't necessary, because they don't work using the same mechanics. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Card text keeps him from performing another GtU. The minion could still > bleed however, except for the NRA rule. Hello LSJ. I was wondering, as NRA seems to be played by most of the players, and now is really necessary for game balance, if it will be included in the Camarilla rules ? If not, why ? Yours, Orpheus

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3C8F3071...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >> Correct. (Though NRA isn't relevant here, with the card text. Anything > >> which is the "same action" (card text of Change of Target) is also the > >> "same type of action" (NRA definition). [LSJ 20001122]) > > > >Card text keeps him from performing another GtU. The minion could still > >bleed however, except for the NRA rule. > > [RTR 19950905] suggests that same action includes "same, inherent > cardless action" anyway, using similar text to the NRA rule. (But not > being the NRA rule.) A cardles bleed is the "same action" as a cardless bleed, sure. A GtU bleed is not a cardless bleed. The RTR indicats that the Govern is different than the cardless bleed is different than a Computer Hacking, even though they're all the same type (bleed) - they're different bleeds. The RTR cited mentions "you could equip with a different peice of equipment" to illustrate the point. > And so far as I can tell, a bleed is a bleed is a bleed. Not accoring to the RTR cited (for purposes of "same action" as opposed to "same type of action". NRA is concerned with the latter while Change of Target is concerned with the former). > With [RTR 19950905] and [LSJ 20001122], it does tend to suggest that > these two things of "same action" tend to fade towards NRA's definitions > anyway. Any "same action" is the "same type of action". That doesn't mean that any "same type of action" is the "same action". See also dogs and mammals. > >> >And the action is not finished since it > >> >was canceled. > >> > >> Not true: > >> > >> "Canceled" doesn't mean "never happened". It's more like "irrevocably > >> terminated". [LSJ 20011204] > >> <3C0D0D63...@white-wolf.com> > >> > >> Action finished, so you hand it back, so far as I can tell. > > > >Could be, but there is a precedent with Force of Will/Change of Target\ > >that indicates otherwise. > > Force of Will states: > > "Damage occurs after the action or combat is resolved." > > There is no combat to resolve, because of Change of Target. And the > action doesn't resolve. Fine. > > The action doesn't resolve - because it is irrevocably terminated ([LSJ > 20011204]). This is also fine. > > (That is, I'm reading it as "Damage occurs after the action is resolved > or after the combat is resolved" - which seems perfectly consistent with > card text.) > > However, Spirit Marionette refers to the "end of the next action". An > action which is irrevocably terminated would seem to end. So it seems > to me that using Change of Target vs Force of Will as a template for a > ruling isn't necessary, because they don't work using the same > mechanics. Distinguishing between "resolved" and "ended", eh? It could work, I suppose. I'll put it on the RT list. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Too kludgy and too complicated. [LSJ 03-OCT-2001] [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3C8F4D70...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >> Hello LSJ. I was wondering, as NRA seems to be played by most of the >> players, and now is really necessary for game balance, if it will be >> included in the Camarilla rules ? If not, why ? > >Too kludgy and too complicated. [LSJ 03-OCT-2001] If it's too kludgy and too complicated, is it any less so when explaining this to players at tournaments? [ quoted text not captured ]

> >> Hello LSJ. I was wondering, as NRA seems to be played by most of the > >> players, and now is really necessary for game balance, if it will be > >> included in the Camarilla rules ? If not, why ? > > > >Too kludgy and too complicated. [LSJ 03-OCT-2001] > > If it's too kludgy and too complicated, is it any less so when > explaining this to players at tournaments? My thoughts exactly... Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] Learning the game and learning to play at tournaments are two different things. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3C8F4D70...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >> Hello LSJ. I was wondering, as NRA seems to be played by most of the > >> players, and now is really necessary for game balance, if it will be > >> included in the Camarilla rules ? If not, why ? > > > >Too kludgy and too complicated. [LSJ 03-OCT-2001] > > If it's too kludgy and too complicated, is it any less so when > explaining this to players at tournaments? As always, constructive suggestions for a real solution are welcome. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3C8F569F...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >> >Too kludgy and too complicated. [LSJ 03-OCT-2001] >> >> If it's too kludgy and too complicated, is it any less so when >> explaining this to players at tournaments? > >As always, constructive suggestions for a real solution are welcome. One option, to alleviate explaining this to new players at tournaments, would be to, erm, have it in the rule book. A single side with the text of the rule, followed by half a dozen worked examples, doesn't seem that kludgy. And, indeed, with worked examples, it's a lot better than a judge doing it on the fly, in many instances. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > >>In message <3C8F4D70...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- >>wolf.com> writes: >> >>>>Hello LSJ. I was wondering, as NRA seems to be played by most of the >>>>players, and now is really necessary for game balance, if it will be >>>>included in the Camarilla rules ? If not, why ? >>>> >>>Too kludgy and too complicated. [LSJ 03-OCT-2001] >>> >>If it's too kludgy and too complicated, is it any less so when >>explaining this to players at tournaments? >> > > As always, constructive suggestions for a real solution are welcome. > > What about an 'almost NRA' rule in the official rules? Chapter 6.1 covers the standard types of actions, so if the 'by instance of card' is dropped the 'almost NRA' could be formulated something like: A minion may not perform an action of the same type more than once per turn. Nor may a minion perform the same action more than once per turn. It would not be NRA, but it would be as close as you can get with around two lines of text :) I'm aware that the very same questions that are already asked will be asked again - Can I perform the action needed to remove Pulled Fangs on two different vampires during the same turn? etc etc. I guess that for the rulesbook set of rules it might actually be easier to answer that question with: No, you may not perform the same action twice. At least if 'by instance of card' is removed. Sten During

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3C8F569F...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >> >Too kludgy and too complicated. [LSJ 03-OCT-2001] > >> > >> If it's too kludgy and too complicated, is it any less so when > >> explaining this to players at tournaments? > > > >As always, constructive suggestions for a real solution are welcome. > > One option, to alleviate explaining this to new players at tournaments, > would be to, erm, have it in the rule book. A "real" solution would involve a non-kludgy, non-complicated rule to be inserted in the rulebook. > A single side with the text of the rule, followed by half a dozen worked > examples, doesn't seem that kludgy. No matter how well the rule is explained, it is still kludgy. > And, indeed, with worked examples, > it's a lot better than a judge doing it on the fly, in many instances. It's already in the VEKN rules, so the judge need not explain it on the fly. If you're suggesting that the VEKN rules need more examples, then fine. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:3C8F5D12...@netg.se... > What about an 'almost NRA' rule in the official rules? Chapter 6.1 > covers the standard types of actions, so if the 'by instance of card' > is dropped the 'almost NRA' could be formulated something like: > > A minion may not perform an action of the same type more than once > per turn. Nor may a minion perform the same action more than once > per turn. Actually, it wouldn't bother me if that were the official NRA rule. Basic defined actions are already in the book, and beyond that, you couldn't take more than one action per named card. The only thing that this would really affect in the tournament environment (that I can think of off the top of my head) is Anarch Revolts (getting rid of them) and Haven Uncovered/Contract (multiple rush actions vs.). In the case of Anarch Revolt, it's not so good, because they're already somewhat powerful, and increasing the utility of one Delaying Tactics is not a great thing; but for HU/Contracts, well...it's not that big a deal. There aren't *that* many decks that depend on multi-rush. (Hi Dave!) Xian copying Cameron

Xian wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Uh, uh, we actually forbid multiple stomping on Anarch Revolt already based on our interpretation of the rules. That would as we see it be to perform more than one political action during one turn. Have we ruled wrong? Sten During

"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote: >"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Or possibly: A minion cannot play the same action card more than once per turn. Even with different action cards (or no card), a minion cannot bleed more than once each turn and cannot call a referedum more than once each turn. That would lift the restrictions on equipping different items in the same turn. The bleed/PA restriction is still slightly kludgy, but they are the two action types that are the problem cases in the first place. With hunt off of the list, you also free up a lot of rulings complications based on being stuck (untapped and prohibited from hunting by the NRA). The stuck ruling would not be removed (it would still apply to the bearer of Talbot's Chainsaw, for example), but it would come up a lot less frequently. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson

In message <3C8F5E05...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >> One option, to alleviate explaining this to new players at tournaments, >> would be to, erm, have it in the rule book. > >A "real" solution would involve a non-kludgy, non-complicated rule >to be inserted in the rulebook. Since NRA is the best we have, if it is necessary then this should, IMO, over-ride kludginess. I have no problems with kludgy rules being done away with when they are mostly cosmetic - e.g. Prince/Archbishop rushing. Had they been necessary, their kludginess would seem to be the lesser factor. >> A single side with the text of the rule, followed by half a dozen worked >> examples, doesn't seem that kludgy. > >No matter how well the rule is explained, it is still kludgy. One could say the same about rescue costing. >> And, indeed, with worked examples, >> it's a lot better than a judge doing it on the fly, in many instances. > >It's already in the VEKN rules, so the judge need not explain it >on the fly. If you're suggesting that the VEKN rules need more >examples, then fine. That would certainly be useful. [ quoted text not captured ]

Xian wrote: > "Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message > > What about an 'almost NRA' rule in the official rules? Chapter 6.1 > > covers the standard types of actions, so if the 'by instance of card' > > is dropped the 'almost NRA' could be formulated something like: > > > > A minion may not perform an action of the same type more than once > > per turn. Nor may a minion perform the same action more than once > > per turn. > > Actually, it wouldn't bother me if that were the official NRA rule. Basic > defined actions are already in the book, and beyond that, you couldn't take > more than one action per named card. The only thing that this would really > affect in the tournament environment (that I can think of off the top of my > head) is Anarch Revolts (getting rid of them) and Haven Uncovered/Contract > (multiple rush actions vs.). In the case of Anarch Revolt, it's not so > good, because they're already somewhat powerful, and increasing the utility It would still be restricted by the proposed rule - it's still a "political action" type of action. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <3C8F5E05...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >> One option, to alleviate explaining this to new players at tournaments, > >> would be to, erm, have it in the rule book. > > > >A "real" solution would involve a non-kludgy, non-complicated rule > >to be inserted in the rulebook. > > Since NRA is the best we have, if it is necessary then this should, IMO, > over-ride kludginess. > > I have no problems with kludgy rules being done away with when they are > mostly cosmetic - e.g. Prince/Archbishop rushing. Had they been > necessary, their kludginess would seem to be the lesser factor. > > >> A single side with the text of the rule, followed by half a dozen worked > >> examples, doesn't seem that kludgy. > > > >No matter how well the rule is explained, it is still kludgy. > > One could say the same about rescue costing. Rescue costing is not kludgy at all. I think we're using "kludge" to mean different things. I'm using it to refer to a patch-fix that is almost painful in its patch-fix-ness. Not sure exactly what you're using the term as, after that rescue costing statement. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During wrote: > > What about an 'almost NRA' rule in the official rules? Chapter 6.1 > covers the standard types of actions, so if the 'by instance of card' > is dropped the 'almost NRA' could be formulated something like: > > A minion may not perform an action of the same type more than once > per turn. Nor may a minion perform the same action more than once > per turn. Replying to myself as I forgot an important addition: An action based on an actioncard is still considered to be the same action even if that card defines different effects. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C8F566A...@white-wolf.com... > Orpheus wrote: [James Coupe (I think) wrote] > > > If it's too kludgy and too complicated, is it any less so when > > > explaining this to players at tournaments? > > > > My thoughts exactly... > > Learning the game and learning to play at tournaments are two > different things. I'm unconvinced. Do there really exist groups who teach new players the rules *without* NRA because it's too complicated for them to learn right off the bat? Every new player I've ever taught (or seen taught) the game, it was taught to them with NRA in effect at all times. I've also seen some evidence that learning to play at tournaments is *not* that much different (in the sense of being harder) from learning to play in general, eg new players who win tournaments within a few months of learning the game. I haven't found the rule any harder to teach than the rest of the game rules. Not repeating actions is a pretty straightforward concept. The implementation takes some explaining and some examples to become clear, but that's no different from plenty of other things about the game (eg aggravated damage or the definition of a "hand strike"). Josh

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C8F3071...@white-wolf.com... > James Coupe wrote: > > > > In message <a6n5ej$5rj$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> > > writes: > > >i play spirit marionnette on my prey's vamp ( as usual), take control of > > >him. > > >This vampire has dominate, so i play GtU inferior to bleed for 3. A vamp of > > >myprey untaps and block. I play Change of Target. > > Action finished, so you hand it back, so far as I can tell. > > Could be, but there is a precedent with Force of Will/Change of Target\ > that indicates otherwise. I must be missing this precedent, can you point me to it? I found this: "> What effect does Change of Target have on Force of Will? > I play Force of Will. I am blocked. I play Change of Target. > > 3.) I untap as per Change of Target and untap the blocking minion. Even > though the action was cancelled, I take damage from Force of Will because it > had to be blocked to allow me to play Change of Target. Close enough. You untap per Change of Target. You take damage from Force of Will because that damage is not a part of the action's resolution. Likewise for an action with Daring the Dawn that gets blocked by an ally and subsequently canceled by a Change of Target. " [LSJ 09072000] But as I read it, that's saying that Change of Target does end an action for purposes of Force of Will, and so you take the "when action is resolved" damage after playing Change of Target. How does this contradict the interpretation that CoT ends the Marionetted vamp's bleed action, the action is therefore over, and the Marionetted vamp goes back? thanks, Josh now... we dance

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3C8F566A...@white-wolf.com... > > Orpheus wrote: > > [James Coupe (I think) wrote] > > > > > If it's too kludgy and too complicated, is it any less so when > > > > explaining this to players at tournaments? > > > > > > My thoughts exactly... > > > > Learning the game and learning to play at tournaments are two > > different things. > > I'm unconvinced. Do there really exist groups who teach > new players the rules *without* NRA because it's too > complicated for them to learn right off the bat? Every > new player I've ever taught (or seen taught) the game, > it was taught to them with NRA in effect at all times. Not everyone learns with a group of knowledgable players teaching them, of course. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Ah. Actually it was a Force of Will/Red Herring precedent (which would also override the ill-considered ruling you cite above): BEGIN QUOTE > >First of all, does the Red Herring still cause the Force of > >Will's agg damage to happen? Judge ruled "no", since the > >action was canceled, not blocked. Correct - but because the damage happens after the "action or combat" is resolved by card text (which never happens). END QUOTE [LSJ 11-JUN-2001] [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I instigated using NRA as a house rule in Cambridge, so that everyone is used to playing it if they go to tourneys (it also appeased the older players who used to use 4 Card Limits as a way of minimising the amount of power certain actions/card combos might have). Maybe it is worth putting in the rule book a little aside section noting about NRA, and mentioning that it is used in the official tournament rules. This way, players know about it when they come to a tournament, they have had the idea suggested that they might want to play using this rule, but officially it doesn't overwrite card texts or change the actual rules, if that is how people truly want to play, and the Rules Team don't need to officially cahnge it. Just my 10pence worth Andy VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge http://www.geocities.com/setitesuk

In message <3C8F6470...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >Rescue costing is not kludgy at all. > >I think we're using "kludge" to mean different things. > >I'm using it to refer to a patch-fix that is almost painful in its >patch-fix-ness. > >Not sure exactly what you're using the term as, after that rescue >costing statement. With the Archbishop and Prince, and Paralyze (by extension), situation too, there have been a number of rules that have been done away with/altered where the necessary set-up and explanation and confusingness was quite a lot. However, had they been *necessary* rules, we wouldn't have changed them. One might see the current "One PA, including the card used to call the vote per referendum" rule as a half-way house - an overlaid fix (arguably derived from the original rules, but one which has been through several modifications before being used, thus meaning later expansions weren't designed with it in mind, IYSWIM) which isn't *that* complicated, but is mildly difficult and annoying to explain to people. In essence, the game has been stream-lined at a few points, except where necessary bulk provides balance. My emphasis is on the latter point. It is clear, from things like the Gangrel Infinite Loop deck and cohorts, that the basic game - without a restriction of the nature of NRA (but not necessarily NRA e.g. social pressure can work similarly well in small, relatively controlled group environments) - has a significant balance problem. Hence I prefer kludginess (a painful, but necessary, solution) to brokenness. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andy Brown wrote: > > I instigated using NRA as a house rule in Cambridge, so that everyone > is used to playing it if they go to tourneys (it also appeased the > older players who used to use 4 Card Limits as a way of minimising > the amount of power certain actions/card combos might have). > > Maybe it is worth putting in the rule book a little aside section > noting about NRA, and mentioning that it is used in the official > tournament rules. This way, players know about it when they come to > a tournament, they have had the idea suggested that they might want > to play using this rule, but officially it doesn't overwrite card > texts or change the actual rules, if that is how people truly want > to play, and the Rules Team don't need to officially cahnge it. > Well, we used to play with NRA enforced, or so we thought. It simply made good sense and we had heard about a 'No Action Twice' -rule that was suppsed to exist (yes, yes we could have looked it up on the net - if we had know where to look). However, we incorrectly assumed that 'same action' and 'same type of action' should be read as it seems obvious from a purely semantical point of view. So no multiple rush for example - not even an Ambush following a Bums Rush, after all in our world they were obviously the same type of actions. With the (future) rulesbook in your hand and a new playgroup you sit down and read the introduction to NRA as it stands today, and it will take a while before you will be able to convince your players that getting Palatial Estate and getting a Flack jacket is not ok, but rushing vampire A with Haven Uncovered and rushing vampire B with Haven Uncovered is ok. Rules or no rules, for most players it doesn't make sense, especially not for the player you just forbade to play Govern at superior followed by Govern at inferior :) The 'little aside section' just might prove to get lengthy if it's supposed to actually cover NRA, so a simpler version of it might just be a good way to enforce what (I strongly believe) is obviously only a matter of good sense for game-balance, in a way that is very easy to understand. Sten During

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C8F6B87...@white-wolf.com... [re precedent that Force of Will damage doesn't happen when the action is canceled by Red Herring or Change of Target] > Ah. Actually it was a Force of Will/Red Herring precedent > (which would also override the ill-considered ruling you > cite above): > > BEGIN QUOTE > > >First of all, does the Red Herring still cause the Force of > > >Will's agg damage to happen? Judge ruled "no", since the > > >action was canceled, not blocked. > > Correct - but because the damage happens after the "action or combat" > is resolved by card text (which never happens). > > END QUOTE [LSJ 11-JUN-2001] Thanks. I'm still confused, though. Why does canceling a Force of Will action with Red Herring or Change of Target not result in Force of Will's damage going off, when both RH and CoT are played "late enough" in an action for it to be considered "resolved" for purposes of NRA? They're both played "when blocked" which is where an action (as I understand it) is considered "resolved enough" for NRA to kick in. I don't see why FoW's damage has a tougher standard for its action being resolved than NRA does. :-) Josh gimme gimme shock treatment

[ quoted text not captured ] They cancel the action. Things left to do in that action aren't done. The NRA taint isn't one of those things - it's already happened by the time CoT/RH is played. FoW damage happens after. This is on the RT list for review. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C8F69CB...@white-wolf.com... > Not everyone learns with a group of knowledgable players > teaching them, of course. Good point. I forget that, since nearly all the VTES players I've ever known learned from some existing group. (Obviously that can't go on indefinitely as there must be at least one Player 0. :-) I would guess that more players get into VTES by hooking up with existing groups than on their own, but you're right that they shouldn't *have* to. For that, I like your suggestion of: "A minion cannot play the same action card more than once per turn. Even with different action cards (or no card), a minion cannot bleed more than once each turn and cannot call a referedum more than once each turn." Yes, the bleed/vote bit is kludgy, but the rule is pretty straightforward and shouldn't lead to confusion even in new players as to what a "same action" is. It would (besides equipping) allow an untapping minion to use the same Haven Uncovered rush (or innate rush) as many times per turn as he wanted, which might be a problem. That probably depends on how strong you think decks like Trey Morita's "Tariq eats the world" thing are. (It'd be, btw, a *lot* stronger if he didn't have to use Ambush, Bum's Rush, and Haven Uncovered to supplement Tariq's built-in rush.) So the "A minion cannot take the same action more than once a turn" rule would probably have better play- balance value than the "action card" rule. But it would definitely require more explanation as to what constitutes the same action. Josh reconstituted

In message <a6nsna$fap8f$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >Good point. I forget that, since nearly all the >VTES players I've ever known learned from some >existing group. (Obviously that can't go on >indefinitely as there must be at least one Player 0. >:-) I learned from a group who didn't know the rules properly, so effectively we learned together some arbitrary time after I joined. These two things are not (necessarily) related. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C8F75D7...@white-wolf.com... [re change of target, red herring] > They cancel the action. Things left to do in that action > aren't done. The NRA taint isn't one of those things - > it's already happened by the time CoT/RH is played. > FoW damage happens after. Thanks again. So "canceling the action" results in the action irrevocably terminating where it is, and anything that hasn't happened yet never will. The opacities have become clear. :-) > This is on the RT list for review. Eeeeeexcellent. Josh (all my plans are coming to fruition.)

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:24:18 +0100, Francois Gombault <fgom...@I.dont.like.spam.activia.net> wrote: > >Now just use Ur m4d sKii1Z to deal a "nobody moves from now on" treaty >with the other players, and you're done. ;) There just isn't enought 1337 M4d 5|<1LL5 nowadays. *Sigh* -- Tommy Engvik | to...@tragisk.com | www.tragisk.com

> Maybe it is worth putting in the rule book a little aside section > noting about NRA, and mentioning that it is used in the official > tournament rules. This way, players know about it when they come to > a tournament, they have had the idea suggested that they might want > to play using this rule, but officially it doesn't overwrite card > texts or change the actual rules, if that is how people truly want > to play, and the Rules Team don't need to officially cahnge it. That is a wonderful idea !! Put it in like an optional rule, that becomes non-optional during tournaments. That way, the people who want to play it will, and the pthers won't. But seriously, I don't see how this simple thing : NO REPEAT ACTION, including a) no minion can do twice the same type of actions in a turn and b) no same card can be used twice by the same minion during one turn, no matter which effect of the card is chosen (is my resumé correct ?) can be harder to explain and apply than all the new rules like : split discipline, dual discipline, burn option, infernal, or the old rules like the no 2 PA or how to burn a vampire (wounded, not wounded, drunk but still staning, whatever...) ? Anyway, I say for once a Setite had a good (non-corrupting ?) idea. Thanks Andy ! ;-) Orpheus

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C8F62FF...@white-wolf.com>... > Xian wrote: [snip Anarch Revolt] > It would still be restricted by the proposed rule - it's still a "political > action" type of action. Right. Don't know what I was thinking there. Good, though. Powering up Anarch Revolt is not such a good idea. :) Xian

sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote in message news:<a6nno8$ftvk0$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de>... Sneaky, posting with your "old" address. So have you taken up Peter's suggestion about using a "civilian" email address? :) > Or possibly: A minion cannot play the same action card more than once > per turn. Even with different action cards (or no card), a minion > cannot bleed more than once each turn and cannot call a referedum more > than once each turn. This is why they pay you, I'm guessing. > That would lift the restrictions on equipping different items in the > same turn. The bleed/PA restriction is still slightly kludgy, but they > are the two action types that are the problem cases in the first > place. Agreed, it is still slightly fit in there after the fact, but it is fairly elegant, all things given. And since there are few other direct ways of causing pool loss, I think that new players would see why this should be as it is stated. > With hunt off of the list, you also free up a lot of rulings > complications based on being stuck (untapped and prohibited from > hunting by the NRA). The stuck ruling would not be removed (it would > still apply to the bearer of Talbot's Chainsaw, for example), but it > would come up a lot less frequently. Interesting. Can you think of any other cases where it might come up? I can't think of any other good examples of "untapped and unable to, but must..." Then again, I don't have ELDB in front of me right now. Though I suppose it might be useful for future card concepts. Xian

xb...@qwest.net (Xian) wrote: >sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote in message > news:<a6nno8$ftvk0$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de>... > >Sneaky, posting with your "old" address. So have you taken up Peter's >suggestion about using a "civilian" email address? :) No. I've done this before. It was my suggestion. I did it in this case to avoid confusion, since the post included a fictional rule. >> Or possibly: A minion cannot play the same action card more than once >> per turn. Even with different action cards (or no card), a minion >> cannot bleed more than once each turn and cannot call a referedum more >> than once each turn. > >This is why they pay you, I'm guessing. :-) It has been pointed out that the rule should at least also include ability actions (Wynn) and possibly card-in-play actions (Haven Uncovered). Getting more complicated by the second... >> That would lift the restrictions on equipping different items in the >> same turn. The bleed/PA restriction is still slightly kludgy, but they >> are the two action types that are the problem cases in the first >> place. > >Agreed, it is still slightly fit in there after the fact, but it is >fairly elegant, all things given. And since there are few other >direct ways of causing pool loss, I think that new players would see >why this should be as it is stated. > >> With hunt off of the list, you also free up a lot of rulings >> complications based on being stuck (untapped and prohibited from >> hunting by the NRA). The stuck ruling would not be removed (it would >> still apply to the bearer of Talbot's Chainsaw, for example), but it >> would come up a lot less frequently. > >Interesting. Can you think of any other cases where it might come up? > I can't think of any other good examples of "untapped and unable to, >but must..." Then again, I don't have ELDB in front of me right now. >Though I suppose it might be useful for future card concepts. Alternate hunt actions with no legal targets (e.g., Legacy of Caine, Week of Nightmares). Must X and must Y situations (Lunatic Eruption w/ Spirit Marionette). Must bleed but can't bleed (Minor Boon w/ Spirit Marionette). [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote in message news:<a6nno8$ftvk0$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de>... > Or possibly: A minion cannot play the same action card more than once > per turn. Even with different action cards (or no card), a minion > cannot bleed more than once each turn and cannot call a referedum more > than once each turn. A minor point: It may be better to state "...a minion cannot *attempt* to bleed more than once each turn and cannot *attempt* to call a referendum more than once each turn." I think, this better anticipates questions like: "if a minion is blocked bleeding, can it bleed again?" * lehrbuch

In message <a6od55$g7vi4$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> writes: >It has been pointed out that the rule should at least also include >ability actions (Wynn) and possibly card-in-play actions (Haven >Uncovered). > >Getting more complicated by the second... Suggestion: Potentially change the application time to "attempt", rather than the resolution. This has interesting interactions with Mask etc., of course. (I've used "attempted" throughout below, where appropriate. Change as necessary.) Suggestion: Get rid of "types". Just say what you can and can't do in plain English. In most instances, a vampire will only be able to take an action once per turn. Some effects, however, can untap them or otherwise allow them to take an extra action. (e.g. Alexandra, Rutor's Hand, Force of Will) 1) Each of the actions in this rulebook can only be attempted once PER TURN by a minion - that is, bleed, vote, ally... - whether you use a card to provide the action or just use a "default" action. (e.g. you can't bleed twice in a turn with the same minion, even if one action is with Computer Hacking and the other is with the built-in bleed or a different bleed action card entirely) 2) A minion cannot attempt actions using the same named card more than once PER TURN. e.g. one minion cannot attempt Bum's Rush twice; you cannot use Rayzeel's Song twice, even if you use it at two different levels; Beast cannot attempt his built in rush more than once per turn. That seems fairly painless to me - the bulk of the text being made up from "e.g." However, it does alter the state of play with regards Haven Uncovered, Army of Rats et al. Is that a bad thing? I'm unsure. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:iWBceai0...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <a6od55$g7vi4$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de>, L. Scott Johnson > <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> writes: > >It has been pointed out that the rule should at least also include > >ability actions (Wynn) and possibly card-in-play actions (Haven > >Uncovered). > > > >Getting more complicated by the second... > > Suggestion: Potentially change the application time to "attempt", rather > than the resolution. This has interesting interactions with Mask etc., > of course. (I've used "attempted" throughout below, where appropriate. > Change as necessary.) It makes the rule a little less confusing, I think, in making the interaction with Mask more obvious. It does make Mask somewhat less useful, though, since after Masking you're liable to end up with one untainted but tapped vampire and one tainted but untapped vampire. > Suggestion: Get rid of "types". Just say what you can and can't do in > plain English. [snip proposed wording] I think this is a good solution to the "built-in action" problem (if it is a problem - I suspect it is, but it's hard to say for sure without testing the rule both ways). I'd buy it. :-) > However, it does alter the state of play with regards Haven Uncovered, > Army of Rats et al. > > Is that a bad thing? I'm unsure. I don't think it is. It's pretty rare for someone to even want to burn multiple copies of Army of Rats or attack multiple vampires with Haven Uncovered in a turn. I think this would be a very reasonably small change in how NRA works, given the reduction in complexity. Josh he's a metal man

In message <a6oinj$ftt7j$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >I think this is a good solution to the "built-in action" >problem (if it is a problem - I suspect it is, but it's >hard to say for sure without testing the rule both ways). Built in actions need to be limited in this way. Wynn would just obliterate tables otherwise - Potence, Protean, Fortitude, Rush. Manuevers, damage, Immortal Grapple, Damage prevention, repeat. [ quoted text not captured ]

"L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message news:a6od55$g7vi4$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de... [civilian email] > No. I've done this before. It was my suggestion. I did it in this case I know, I was mostly wondering if it was going to be common practice, though I suppose that most of your "conversation" on the newsgroup is almost always rules-oriented, or mostly so. > to avoid confusion, since the post included a fictional rule. Gotcha. That's what I figured, I was just being chatty. > It has been pointed out that the rule should at least also include > ability actions (Wynn) and possibly card-in-play actions (Haven > Uncovered). > > Getting more complicated by the second... True. Not vastly so, though. A minion cannot play the same action card more than once per turn or use any action granted by card text more than once per turn. Even with different action cards (or no card), a minion cannot bleed more than once each turn and cannot call a referedum more than once each turn. [other possibly restricted actions] > Alternate hunt actions with no legal targets (e.g., Legacy of Caine, > Week of Nightmares). > > Must X and must Y situations (Lunatic Eruption w/ Spirit Marionette). > > Must bleed but can't bleed (Minor Boon w/ Spirit Marionette). Thanks. :) Xian

ja...@zephyr.org.uk writes: >2) A minion cannot attempt actions using the same named card more than >once PER TURN. e.g. one minion cannot attempt Bum's Rush twice; you >cannot use Rayzeel's Song twice, even if you use it at two different >levels; Beast cannot attempt his built in rush more than once per turn. >That seems fairly painless to me - the bulk of the text being made up >from "e.g." >However, it does alter the state of play with regards Haven Uncovered, >Army of Rats et al. >Is that a bad thing? I'm unsure. I don't think repeat actions are a big problem apart from bleed and vote. If you just bar repeat votes and repeat bleeds you solve the game balance problem. Apart from that, I think the interest should be clarity and consistency of rules - who cares if you have minor changes re HU and AoR? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

In message <20020313190448...@mb-mq.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> writes: >Apart from that, I think the interest should >be clarity and consistency of rules - who cares if you have minor >changes re HU and AoR? The potential for one biggy - with Fortitude - and a few littluns doing rescuing, with a Haven Uncovered, repeatedly torporising a Famed minion springs to mind. I don't know how big a problem that would be, I'd need to give it more thought. [ quoted text not captured ]

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020313190448...@mb-mq.aol.com... > ja...@zephyr.org.uk writes: > > I don't think repeat actions are a big problem apart from bleed and > vote. If you just bar repeat votes and repeat bleeds you solve the > game balance problem. Apart from that, I think the interest should > be clarity and consistency of rules - who cares if you have minor > changes re HU and AoR? > Woot. Super Choir, here we come! ;)

ja...@zephyr.org.uk writes: >The potential for one biggy - with Fortitude - and a few littluns doing >rescuing, with a Haven Uncovered, repeatedly torporising a Famed minion >springs to mind. >I don't know how big a problem that would be, I'd need to give it more >thought. Maybe I'm missing something- that might argue that you need more than no repeat bleeds or votes - but wouldn't this be barred under your rule 2 as well as it would be now? Once fatty has used the HU to get into combat once he needs to do something else, right? Having made my earlier comment, I became very uncomfortable with a Freak-sup Govern cycle. So rule 2 looks good now. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams wrote: > I don't think repeat actions are a big problem apart from bleed and > vote. If you just bar repeat votes and repeat bleeds you solve the > game balance problem. Really? Do you think it's possible to make, say, "The Freaky Majestic Choir" deck? I guess you would know better than most anyone else. Fred

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C8F3001...@white-wolf.com>... > Reyda wrote: > > > > Hi ! > > simple question > > > > i play spirit marionnette on my prey's vamp ( as usual), take control of > > him. > > This vampire has dominate, so i play GtU inferior to bleed for 3. A vamp of > > myprey untaps and block. I play Change of Target. > > under NRA, I cannot bleed again. And the action is not finished since it > > was canceled. So if i decide to take no actions from now on, will i keep > > control of the marionnette until the end of the game ?? =) > > You lose it at the end of the next action, not necessarily your next action. So basicly I could play bleed COT Rave Daring the Dawn to burn the Marionetted Vampire? Emile

In message <20020314005829...@mb-fi.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> writes: >Maybe I'm missing something- that might argue that you need >more than no repeat bleeds or votes - but wouldn't this be barred >under your rule 2 as well as it would be now? Once fatty has >used the HU to get into combat once he needs to do something >else, right? Erk, sorry, I think I came back to your post after I read another post which was ignoring the cards in play options. My bad. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No. The Marionetted vampire must bleed. Just because it can no longer bleed doesn't mean it can take other actions. It is stuck and can take no action. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:DwWj8.31214$702.14237@sccrnsc02... > Woot. Super Choir, here we come! ;) Of course, if you can only play one action card per turn, it's not *as* bad, and *if* the rules were changed to "taint" a vampire with an action at the attempt, then Freaky Choir wouldn't be a problem. Though I was already thinking about this, as it's the only other direct way to cause pool loss that I can think of, not counting weird Serpentis stuff. :) Xian

Xian wrote: > > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:DwWj8.31214$702.14237@sccrnsc02... > > Woot. Super Choir, here we come! ;) > > Of course, if you can only play one action card per turn, it's not *as* bad, > and *if* the rules were changed to "taint" a vampire with an action at the > attempt, then Freaky Choir wouldn't be a problem. How would Freaky Choir that bad with the current taint mechanic? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <a6q4ol$ge8eq$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de>, Xian <xi...@waste.org> writes: >Of course, if you can only play one action card per turn, it's not *as* bad, >and *if* the rules were changed to "taint" a vampire with an action at the >attempt, then Freaky Choir wouldn't be a problem. > >Though I was already thinking about this, as it's the only other direct way >to cause pool loss that I can think of, not counting weird Serpentis stuff. One other bizarre option that isn't bleeds/votes (obviously): - Clio's Kiss (Lasombra having already played Political Struggle or something) Great, huh? Being able to play bring out vampires and playing potentially dozens of Army of Rats with them all is also scary. A deck that couldn't generate that many actions (lots of them) would just *die*, unless you were ousted by your next turn. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C9098C8...@white-wolf.com... > Xian wrote: > > Of course, if you can only play one action card per turn, it's not *as* bad, > > and *if* the rules were changed to "taint" a vampire with an action at the > > attempt, then Freaky Choir wouldn't be a problem. > > How would Freaky Choir that bad with the current taint mechanic? Not sure. It's still early (before 7am) here. Brain not fully engaged yet. Then again, it seems to be affecting your sentence structure, too. :) You're right though, Choir doesn't get any better...if blocked/Majesty (or Freak), you can't Choir again, just like now, and if unblocked, you can't Choir again. Never mind about the taint thing. Xian

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:yEA4Kyiu...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > One other bizarre option that isn't bleeds/votes (obviously): > > - Clio's Kiss (Lasombra having already played Political Struggle or > something) > > Great, huh? Scary. :) I'm liking the alternate version more and more, seeing as how there (so far) seem to be few ways of breaking it. > Being able to play bring out vampires and playing potentially dozens of > Army of Rats with them all is also scary. A deck that couldn't generate > that many actions (lots of them) would just *die*, unless you were > ousted by your next turn. I'm not understanding you there, James. A deck that can gain more than one pool per turn should be able to deal with that. Well, and one that can deal with weenie bleed as well, as that's presumably the second wave of offense for the deck. * Play a deck that has lots of Animalism * Bring out a bunch of vampires * All the vampires play Army of Rats * Cause one pool loss to your prey per turn total Are you looking at a Jyhad copy of AoR or something? Xian

In message <a6q69q$gf950$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de>, Xian <xi...@waste.org> writes: >> Being able to play bring out vampires and playing potentially dozens of >> Army of Rats with them all is also scary. A deck that couldn't generate >> that many actions (lots of them) would just *die*, unless you were >> ousted by your next turn. > >I'm not understanding you there, James. That's because the above was complete rubbish. I shouldn't post to Usenet when trying to understand archaic English tripos regulations on formatting essays. [ quoted text not captured ]

"L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message news:a6nno8$ftvk0$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de... (snip) > Or possibly: A minion cannot play the same action card more than once > per turn. Even with different action cards (or no card), a minion > cannot bleed more than once each turn and cannot call a referedum more > than once each turn. > > That would lift the restrictions on equipping different items in the > same turn. The bleed/PA restriction is still slightly kludgy, but they > are the two action types that are the problem cases in the first > place. > > With hunt off of the list, you also free up a lot of rulings > complications based on being stuck EXCELLENT !!! who is this Scott Johnson from Math science education ? he should be the new netrep ;) jokes aside, this would be a fine thing to add to the rulebook. But consider adding "built in actions" like Wynn's or Dominique's to the list. and what about Hwang ? ;) reyda

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:W1Hh2f2u...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <a6oinj$ftt7j$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin > <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: > >I think this is a good solution to the "built-in action" > >problem (if it is a problem - I suspect it is, but it's > >hard to say for sure without testing the rule both ways). > > Built in actions need to be limited in this way. > > Wynn would just obliterate tables otherwise - Potence, Protean, > Fortitude, Rush. Manuevers, damage, Immortal Grapple, Damage > prevention, repeat. Yes, that was my thought too. I was just being conservative in my assessment in the absence of experimental data. :-) I do think Tariq is probably much more of a problem than Wynn, because (a) he can Disguise out a Flamethrower to vastly reduce the size of the combo needed each combat, and (b) he can diablerize without risking a bloodhunt. Oh yeah, and (c) he's not restricted to only attacking predator and prey's vampires. Josh problem solved

[ quoted text not captured ] No, you're right. I'd already backed off from that assertion. (Freaky sup Govern) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message news:a6q4ol$ge8eq$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de... > > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:DwWj8.31214$702.14237@sccrnsc02... > > Woot. Super Choir, here we come! ;) > > Of course, if you can only play one action card per turn, it's not *as* bad, > and *if* the rules were changed to "taint" a vampire with an action at the > attempt, then Freaky Choir wouldn't be a problem. > Yeah, I was just talking about where Curt said why not just restrict political actions and bleeds. I guess he later relented when he thought about superior GtU.

> > I'm unconvinced. Do there really exist groups who teach > > new players the rules *without* NRA because it's too > > complicated for them to learn right off the bat? Every > > new player I've ever taught (or seen taught) the game, > > it was taught to them with NRA in effect at all times. > Not everyone learns with a group of knowledgable players > teaching them, of course. True. But if a new player picking up the game on his/her own (ie, not introduced or tutored by an experienced group of players) can understand and figure out the rules for aggro damage, then s/he should be able to understand the NRA with very, very little difficulty. Sorrow --- If you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth.

Sorrow wrote: > > > > I'm unconvinced. Do there really exist groups who teach > > > new players the rules *without* NRA because it's too > > > complicated for them to learn right off the bat? Every > > > new player I've ever taught (or seen taught) the game, > > > it was taught to them with NRA in effect at all times. > > Not everyone learns with a group of knowledgable players > > teaching them, of course. > > True. But if a new player picking up the game on his/her own > (ie, not introduced or tutored by an experienced group of players) > can understand and figure out the rules for aggro damage, then > s/he should be able to understand the NRA with very, very little > difficulty. Not true. The aggro rules are easier than the current VEKN NRA rules to a person who hasn't learned any of the "alternative" damage rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson wrote: >Or possibly: A minion cannot play the same action card more than once >per turn. Even with different action cards (or no card), a minion >cannot bleed more than once each turn and cannot call a referedum more >than once each turn. I would be a bit sad, however, if my Nossies, after untapping due to Mask of 1000 Faces, were to lose their freedom of action. If we replaced the words "play the same action card" with "take an action requiring the same action card", might this be open to interpretations in line with current rulings? Or is this already getting too complicated? "... take an action requiring the same card" (as opposed to "action card") would extend the restricion to actions allowed by cards in play like Haven Uncovered (as in NRA), but then I suppose this would necessitate the clarfication of whether "each instance of a card in play" is a separate action, which is an addional complication. -- John Whelan

> > True. But if a new player picking up the game on his/her own > > (ie, not introduced or tutored by an experienced group of players) > > can understand and figure out the rules for aggro damage, then > > s/he should be able to understand the NRA with very, very little > > difficulty. > Not true. The aggro rules are easier than the current VEKN NRA > rules to a person who hasn't learned any of the "alternative" > damage rules. Is this just allegorical (right word?) data? Or have you spoken to alot of new, self taught players to know for sure? Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

Sorrow wrote: > > > > True. But if a new player picking up the game on his/her own > > > (ie, not introduced or tutored by an experienced group of players) > > > can understand and figure out the rules for aggro damage, then > > > s/he should be able to understand the NRA with very, very little > > > difficulty. > > Not true. The aggro rules are easier than the current VEKN NRA > > rules to a person who hasn't learned any of the "alternative" > > damage rules. > > Is this just allegorical (right word?) data? Or have you spoken to alot > of new, self taught players to know for sure? Probably about the same as the original assertion, I think. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote in news:3C8F5D12...@netg.se: > > LSJ wrote: > >> As always, constructive suggestions for a real solution are welcome. >> >> > > What about an 'almost NRA' rule in the official rules? Chapter 6.1 > covers the standard types of actions, so if the 'by instance of card' > is dropped the 'almost NRA' could be formulated something like: > > A minion may not perform an action of the same type more than once > per turn. Nor may a minion perform the same action more than once > per turn. > I'd say the 'almost NRA' idea is a good one, since any sort of NRA is better then no NRA at all (which is what we have now). Now, in the spirit of keeping the 'almost NRA' rule as simple as possible, I'd suggest just putting the same-type NRA in the rulesbook. Then include the current same-action NRA and definition in the tournament rules. You still end up with two sets of rules, but the rulesbook rule would work as a stepping stone for starting players, and would solve many balance problems by itself. It's not a complete rule, but it doesn't have to be. Flux

Sorrow wrote: > > Not true. The aggro rules are easier than the current VEKN NRA > > rules to a person who hasn't learned any of the "alternative" > > damage rules. > > Is this just allegorical (right word?) data? Or have you spoken to alot > of new, self taught players to know for sure? Perhaps you mean "anecdotal". Then again, "anecdotal" data is pretty much what you get from talking to a lot of new self-taught players.

> > > Not true. The aggro rules are easier than the current VEKN NRA > > > rules to a person who hasn't learned any of the "alternative" > > > damage rules. > > Is this just allegorical (right word?) data? Or have you spoken to alot > > of new, self taught players to know for sure? > Probably about the same as the original assertion, I think. Again, not true. In dealing with new players, in general, they were quite confused with what was printed in the rulebook for the aggro rules. And those were confused had to come to me for clarification. This is actual experience. So if something as confusing as aggro damage is in the rule book, something like the NRA shouldn't be that big of a deal. Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

John Whelan writes: >I would be a bit sad, however, if my Nossies, after untapping due to Mask of >1000 Faces, were to lose their freedom of action. If we replaced the words >"play the same action card" with "take an action requiring the same action >card", might this be open to interpretations in line with current rulings? Or >is this already getting too complicated? I think this should be handled by text on the Mask. It's such a weird card; I don't think it's a good idea to write the rules to cover for one card which has always been a PitA ruleswise. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:49:43 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> said: vtesrep> Sorrow wrote: >> >> > > I'm unconvinced. Do there really exist groups who teach >> > > new players the rules *without* NRA because it's too >> > > complicated for them to learn right off the bat? Every >> > > new player I've ever taught (or seen taught) the game, >> > > it was taught to them with NRA in effect at all times. >> > Not everyone learns with a group of knowledgable players >> > teaching them, of course. >> >> True. But if a new player picking up the game on his/her own >> (ie, not introduced or tutored by an experienced group of players) >> can understand and figure out the rules for aggro damage, then >> s/he should be able to understand the NRA with very, very little >> difficulty. vtesrep> Not true. The aggro rules are easier than the current VEKN NRA vtesrep> rules to a person who hasn't learned any of the "alternative" vtesrep> damage rules. Umm, no offense, but I would contest this... Iäve found the aggro rules one of the most confusing things to explain to newbies in the game. Maybe I just suck at explaining them, but they are *not* all that simple to get clear (mostly because they rely on the abstract "wounded" concept, which isn't directly visible in any card mechanics). OTOH, the NRA rules have caused zero to none confusion to newbies. Your mileage may vary ;) //Orava

[ quoted text not captured ] Maybe. But the current topic is not about having the rule explained to a newbie but about the newbie reading the rules. Wounded is also described in that rules section. > OTOH, the NRA rules have caused zero to none confusion to newbies. > > Your mileage may vary ;) ? Quite. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3C91D8CC...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >> Umm, no offense, but I would contest this... Iäve found the aggro >> rules one of the most confusing things to explain to newbies in the >> game. Maybe I just suck at explaining them, but they are *not* all >> that simple to get clear (mostly because they rely on the abstract >> "wounded" concept, which isn't directly visible in any card >> mechanics). > >Maybe. But the current topic is not about having the rule explained to >a newbie but about the newbie reading the rules. Wounded is also >described in that rules section. Wounded is possibly the most excellent thing in the world for describing it. Two vampires start combat with one another. They're both un-wounded. If a vampire takes so much normal damage that he runs out of blood for healing and then some more, he's wounded. The first point of aggravated damage an un-wounded vampire takes wounds him. Any points of aggravated damage an already wounded vampire takes make him burn a blood to prevent destruction for each one. (This isn't the same as healing normal damage, but it can look like it, except for the first point of aggravated damage to an un-wounded vampire, for which he burns no blood.) Wounded vampires go to torpor, and a vampire already in torpor is wounded. Not a lot else to be said. [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >Maybe. But the current topic is not about having the rule explained to >a newbie but about the newbie reading the rules. Wounded is also >described in that rules section. Do the rules describe when a vampire becomes unwounded? I couldn't find it. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams wrote: > > vte...@white-wolf.com writes: > > >Maybe. But the current topic is not about having the rule explained to > >a newbie but about the newbie reading the rules. Wounded is also > >described in that rules section. > > Do the rules describe when a vampire becomes unwounded? > I couldn't find it. I've never met anyone or heard of anyone who didn't instinctively know that it happened when the vampire left torpor. [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >> Do the rules describe when a vampire becomes unwounded? >> I couldn't find it. >I've never met anyone or heard of anyone who didn't instinctively know that >it happened when the vampire left torpor. It *is* logical. But the original Jyhad rules (with the weird Basilia + Undead Persistance problem) would follow from the current rules if vampires became unwounded after every strike resolution. Since that was the old rule, I wasn't sure if they had been modified to be more logical or just rephrased. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20020315162808...@mb-mv.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> writes: >Do the rules describe when a vampire becomes unwounded? [2.3] "Torpor is a special area for wounded vampires." [6.4.6] "A wounded vampire is one that has taken damage that he failed to heal or one that is in torpor or on his way to torpor." Especially 6.4.6. When a vampire ceases to meet those conditions, he isn't wounded. [ quoted text not captured ]

> It *is* logical. But the original Jyhad rules (with the weird Basilia + > Undead Persistance problem) would follow from the current rules > if vampires became unwounded after every strike resolution. Since that > was the old rule, I wasn't sure if they had been modified to be more logical > or just rephrased. Wait...what Basilia + Undead Persistance problem? Also, on Aggravated damage, I just tell new players that every point of damage makes you either burn a blood or go to torpor. Regular damage makes you burn blood and then go to torpor when you can't. Agg damage makes you go to torpor and then burn blood when you can't. All that's different is the order. After that they pretty much understand that each 1 point does 1 thing and they only have to remember the (pretty intuitive) order in which it happens. Much simpler than memorizing a list of 4 or 5 scenarios, which some other agg explanations seem to require.

On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:58:45 GMT, LSJ wrote: >> Do the rules describe when a vampire becomes unwounded? >> I couldn't find it. > >I've never met anyone or heard of anyone who didn't >instinctively know that it happened when the vampire left torpor. Eh? I'm one of those newish players that don't feel comfortable with this - I had to keep asking how aggravated damage worked in the last tournament. My understanding is that wounds never happen - either the vampire heals them immediately or they go to torpor. A vampire sent to torpor for lack of blood doesn't keep his wounds does he? NRA is messier than it could be and should be but the basic concept is comparatively easy to grasp. That's what Curt's telling you and he's right. And the issues of detail don't seem to arise as often in my experience (which is lots of combat, especially with Gangrels). My impression is that you're just trying to avoid a major rewrite/re-edit of the rules - either because you don't fancy the job or because you have some nostalgia for the original Jyhad rulebook. I think a spring clean is long overdue - the timing rules are too sketchy and the game has now accumulated a lot of baggage (like NRA) which should be properly integrated. Continuing to manage things by reference to cobwebbed piles of rules team rulings is crazy. The new Camarilla set is the obvious time to junk all that stuff and start afresh with an improved rulebook. Use something like the Comprehensive Rules for MtG as a template. Andrew

"Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message news:80bafd85.0203...@posting.google.com... > > Also, on Aggravated damage, I just tell new players that every point > of damage makes you either burn a blood or go to torpor. Regular > damage makes you burn blood and then go to torpor when you can't. Agg > damage makes you go to torpor and then burn blood when you can't. All > that's different is the order. > That's exactly the way I explain it as well, and it's really only different from the "actual" case in ways that don't really come into play. Despite the fact that the vampire doesn't technically go immediately to torpor when he is wounded, assuming that he does gives a good approximation when dealing damage, and Undead Persistance is one of the only cases where you really need to worry about being "wounded".

firstco...@aol.com writes: >Wait...what Basilia + Undead Persistance problem? Ah, ye fortunate ones that missed the very first aggro rules. In a not-so-distant land long ago, each strike resolution the first aggro sent you to torpor and only additional aggro required burning blood. So, if a vampire were operating under undead Persistence and its opponent could only do 1 agg per strike (like Basilia without Lucky blow) then that vampire took *nothing* from any strike - just repeated and redundant "go to torpor" requirements. Really silly; I'm glad they fixed it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <38261FF6D42635AF.8F22BC3C...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >A vampire sent >to torpor for lack of blood doesn't keep his wounds does he? 6.4.6] "A wounded vampire is one that... is in torpor" [ quoted text not captured ]