Okay, from what I've read, looks like we could have a decent-size game at
GenCon. Shall we pick an evening? My personal preference is Friday
night, shortly after midnight to avoid conflicts with events.
Also, let's have a role-call. I've seen Demos, I believe, plus LSJ.
Myself, obviously. Who else will be there? Harmon? Hamblin? Bueller?
MB
"The difference between the Enlightened and the terminally confused is
apparent only to the latter."
- The Enlightened One
I played a game of Jyhad the other week, and my friend managed to
grave-rob five vampires. However, when those Methuelahs were ousted,
all the graverobbed vampires suddenly left play with their owners.
This doesn't really seem right. My reasoning here is this: he
_gained_ control of them by graverobbing. Therefore, those minions
should be treated just as if he influenced them from his own crypt, and
shouldn't leave play when his prey is ousted.
I don't get this ruling of "all cards leave play when the owning
Methuselah leaves the game."
The way I see it is this: Methuselahs play cards and "bring them
into the Jyhad world." And once they're in the "Jyhad world," they're
there for the rest of the game unless burnt. It doesn't matter who
controls them, they're still in the game. And if a Methuselah is
ousted, he's just dead and that's it. It doesn't make sense that the
controlling Methuselah suddenly "forgets" that he was controlling five
vampires which he worked so hard to steal from another Methuselah...
The explaination I've heard for the ruling is this: the Methuselah
who brings a card into play somehow puts a "blood bond" on the card
which cannot be replaced. Even if a card is taken control of by another
Methuselah, the original Methuselah is still that card's "Sire" and when
that Meth. leaves the game, all his influence leaves with him, thus
explaining why cards leave the game no matter who controls them.
But this explaination is STUPID!!! That sounds more like a Magical
control than an actual control, and this is Jyhad, not Magic!!! It's
like trying to say that a vampire dies when his sire is burnt, and
that's just dumb.
If anyone has any better explainations, or if anyone agrees, or even
disagrees, please post.
Take care,
Jim
Do cards that read, "Requires a ready Prince or Justicar..." allow
for Inner Circle members as well? In other words, can an Inner Circle
Member do anything that a Prince or Justicar can do?
Thanks,
Jim
James A Ignatuk <igna...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
: I played a game of Jyhad the other week, and my friend managed to: grave-rob five vampires. However, when those Methuelahs were ousted,
: all the graverobbed vampires suddenly left play with their owners.: This doesn't really seem right. My reasoning here is this: he
: _gained_ control of them by graverobbing. Therefore, those minions
: should be treated just as if he influenced them from his own crypt, and
: shouldn't leave play when his prey is ousted.: I don't get this ruling of "all cards leave play when the owning
: Methuselah leaves the game."
The rule is there so that players who are ousted may move on if that is
their wish. I have been ousted very early from a nine player game while
some of the other players had control of my cards. It would not haver
been fun waiting up to five hours to get them back while not playing with
that deck again. It is a rule of convenience and if I was not leaving or
knew the other players well then I would let them keep them if all agreed.
Sam
James A Ignatuk wrote:
>
> I played a game of Jyhad the other week, and my friend managed to
> grave-rob five vampires. However, when those Methuelahs were ousted,
> all the graverobbed vampires suddenly left play with their owners.
>
> This doesn't really seem right. My reasoning here is this: he
> _gained_ control of them by graverobbing. Therefore, those minions
> should be treated just as if he influenced them from his own crypt, and
> shouldn't leave play when his prey is ousted.
>
Jim,
I couldn't agree more. I had a really nice Gangrel/Diablerie deck going
once and would up getting a lot of special equipment from the leeches
that I had diablerized. But that just put the pressure on the rest of
the Meth's in the game to oust the person that I had gotten the
equipment from so that I wouldn't have the special equipment anymore.
I had taken a bit of risk in committing the diablerie (i.e. being
blocked or burned in the ensuing bloodhunt) and thought that the
equipment should've stayed when the owning Methusaleh was ousted.
Just my 2 cents.
[ quoted text not captured ]
No. Inner Circle members are neither Princes nor Justicars.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
James A Ignatuk wrote:
> I don't get this ruling of "all cards leave play when the owning
> Methuselah leaves the game."
>> The way I see it is this: Methuselahs play cards and "bring them
> into the Jyhad world." And once they're in the "Jyhad world," they're
> there for the rest of the game unless burnt. It doesn't matter who
> controls them, they're still in the game. And if a Methuselah is
> ousted, he's just dead and that's it. It doesn't make sense that the
> controlling Methuselah suddenly "forgets" that he was controlling five
> vampires which he worked so hard to steal from another Methuselah...
>
> The explaination I've heard for the ruling is this: the Methuselah
> who brings a card into play somehow puts a "blood bond" on the card
> which cannot be replaced.
>> If anyone has any better explainations, or if anyone agrees, or even
> disagrees, please post.
The real explanation:
VtES is a Collectible card game. The golden rule of card ownership
means that the cards you bring to play with are the cards you leave
with. When you are ousted, the cards you brought are returned to you,
so that you may leave with them.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I wrote:
> > I don't get this ruling of "all cards leave play when the owning
> > Methuselah leaves the game."
Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad: 30-Jul-97 Re:
Toasting Vampires by VtES R...@regency.wizards
> The real explanation:
>
> VtES is a Collectible card game. The golden rule of card ownership
> means that the cards you bring to play with are the cards you leave
> with. When you are ousted, the cards you brought are returned to you,
> so that you may leave with them.
Alright, this seems to be a fair ruling... :) But do you think it'd
be fair if the cards remained in play until the end of the game? (If,
of course, the players all agreed to play that way...)
I think this would make the game cooler, because the "cards leave
with the Methusaleh" ruling really kills corruption decks, and stealing
equipment decks, or anything which takes advantage of gaining control of
stuff, etc...
Take care,
Jim
James A Ignatuk (igna...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: Alright, this seems to be a fair ruling... :) But do you think it'd: be fair if the cards remained in play until the end of the game? (If,
: of course, the players all agreed to play that way...)
: I think this would make the game cooler, because the "cards leave
: with the Methusaleh" ruling really kills corruption decks, and stealing
: equipment decks, or anything which takes advantage of gaining control of
: stuff, etc...
Of course that is a fair way to play, and the one that makes
the most sense. The Golden Rule of card ownership is fine in
the tournament setting when you are likely to leave and find
something else interesting to do after being ousted, but in
your own circles, why not play the way that makes the most
sense to game mechanics. AFAIK most people do play this way.
I know that I'd be hopelessly lost in a tournament setting,
because my play group decided long ago, back when there was
only the Jyhad, that ew liked the rules and cards the way they
were, and have only changed when necessary to incorporate
genuinely new rules and concepts introduced with the
expansions. Play the way you think is best, just be prepared
to be lost at tournies if you don't come prepared.
: Take care,
: Jim
Have fun,
Dave
Shaper wrote:
>
> Okay, from what I've read, looks like we could have a decent-size game at
> GenCon. Shall we pick an evening? My personal preference is Friday
> night, shortly after midnight to avoid conflicts with events.
>
> Also, let's have a role-call. I've seen Demos, I believe, plus LSJ.
> Myself, obviously. Who else will be there? Harmon? Hamblin? Bueller?
Sadly, GenCon's the weekend of the 29th-31st of August, right? That'll
be the end of my first week of classes at my new home, University of
Wisconsin. I think that it would be bad for me to take off that
weekend, after only having just arrived. Maybe next year.
James
--
James Hamblin
je...@cornell.edu
[soon to be:]
James Hamblin
Department of Mathematics
University of Wisconsin -- Madison
ham...@math.wisc.edu
LSJ (VtES Rep) wrote:
>
> James A Ignatuk wrote:
> > I don't get this ruling of "all cards leave play when the owning
> > Methuselah leaves the game."
> >> > The way I see it is this: Methuselahs play cards and "bring them
> > into the Jyhad world." And once they're in the "Jyhad world," they're
> > there for the rest of the game unless burnt. It doesn't matter who
> > controls them, they're still in the game. And if a Methuselah is
> > ousted, he's just dead and that's it. It doesn't make sense that the
> > controlling Methuselah suddenly "forgets" that he was controlling five
> > vampires which he worked so hard to steal from another Methuselah...
> >
> > The explaination I've heard for the ruling is this: the Methuselah
> > who brings a card into play somehow puts a "blood bond" on the card
> > which cannot be replaced.
> >
> > If anyone has any better explainations, or if anyone agrees, or even
> > disagrees, please post.
>> The real explanation:
>
> VtES is a Collectible card game. The golden rule of card ownership
> means that the cards you bring to play with are the cards you leave
> with. When you are ousted, the cards you brought are returned to you,
> so that you may leave with them.
>> --
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
> Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
> (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
Why don´t just use a card from the players remaining or if nobody has
vampire in question write a note as a proxie (I know WotC don´t like
this since it doesn´t sell card, but since vampire are so common and
unique in the game the proxie part would probably be rarely used). This
is just my humble opinion and I hope I don't get flames for the proxie
part (I don´t like it myself to be frank).
Thanks for reading
--
P. Highlander
There can be only one!
James Hamblin wrote:
>
> Shaper wrote:
> >
> > Okay, from what I've read, looks like we could have a decent-size game at
> > GenCon. Shall we pick an evening? My personal preference is Friday
> > night, shortly after midnight to avoid conflicts with events.
> >
> > Also, let's have a role-call. I've seen Demos, I believe, plus LSJ.
> > Myself, obviously. Who else will be there? Harmon? Hamblin? Bueller?
>
> Sadly, GenCon's the weekend of the 29th-31st of August, right? That'll
> be the end of my first week of classes at my new home, University of
> Wisconsin. I think that it would be bad for me to take off that
> weekend, after only having just arrived. Maybe next year.
No. It's next week: the 7th-10th
[ quoted text not captured ]
James A Ignatuk wrote:
> > VtES is a Collectible card game. The golden rule of card ownership
> > means that the cards you bring to play with are the cards you leave
> > with. When you are ousted, the cards you brought are returned to you,
> > so that you may leave with them.
>> Alright, this seems to be a fair ruling... :) But do you think it'd
> be fair if the cards remained in play until the end of the game? (If,
> of course, the players all agreed to play that way...)
> I think this would make the game cooler, because the "cards leave
> with the Methusaleh" ruling really kills corruption decks, and stealing
> equipment decks, or anything which takes advantage of gaining control of
> stuff, etc...
Sure. This is probably the most common house rule.
(But don't expect it at any tournaments :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <33E1D7...@regency.wizards.com>, "LSJ (VtES Rep)"
<vte...@regency.wizards.com> writes
>James A Ignatuk wrote:>> > VtES is a Collectible card game. The golden rule of card ownership
>> > means that the cards you bring to play with are the cards you leave
>> > with. When you are ousted, the cards you brought are returned to you,
>> > so that you may leave with them.
>>
>> Alright, this seems to be a fair ruling... :) But do you think it'd
>> be fair if the cards remained in play until the end of the game? (If,
>> of course, the players all agreed to play that way...)
>> I think this would make the game cooler, because the "cards leave
>> with the Methusaleh" ruling really kills corruption decks, and stealing
>> equipment decks, or anything which takes advantage of gaining control of
>> stuff, etc...>
>Sure. This is probably the most common house rule.
>(But don't expect it at any tournaments :-)
>
I was thinking about this and it seems to me that it should be the other
way round to how it is at the moment.
If I play a Setite-deck, or a Graverobbing deck, or a Chimerstry-Magpie
deck, when I oust my prey (assuming I stole my cards off them), I lose
the cards and have also wasted a lot of my deck on getting them (all the
Graverobbings, Blessing of Durga Syns and Corruptions and so on are in
my ash heap) and I probably can't get them back. thus, my deck falls
over in a heap.
Surely, once I've nicked someone's stuff, I should be able to keep it.
I've invested time and effort in Corrupting someone's vampires (perhaps
more than they did getting them out). And if a Methuselah is being
severely stamped on, it's not like they're going to have chance to see
how their <INSERT NAME OF STOLEN CARD HERE> is doing.
If you use the crappy Sabbat rules (the only good part is Camarilla
membership has its privileges and even that gets the fact that NC vamps
can't be primogens wrong - believe me, if Ravnos ask for a position on
the Primogen council, don't argue) then when you withdraw, your cards
stay in play. However, surely when you withdraw you remove all of your
influence from the Jyhad and are going to want that <INSERT NAME OF
STOLEN CARD HERE> back, for when you next participate. Presumably,
that's what you'd be doing during the turn that you have to wait whilst
your not being bled or entering combat or whatever.
So, shouldn't it be the other way round - cards leave with you when you
withdraw, but stay in play when you are ousted?
Any comments?
--
James Coupe (remove .nospam to reply)
Through the darkness of future past,
the magician longs to see,
one chants out between two worlds,
`Fire walk with me`
In article <Yns=Thu00YU...@andrew.cmu.edu>, James A Ignatuk <igna...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> I wrote:
> > > I don't get this ruling of "all cards leave play when the owning
> > > Methuselah leaves the game."
>> Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad: 30-Jul-97 Re:
> Toasting Vampires by VtES R...@regency.wizards
> > The real explanation:
> >> > VtES is a Collectible card game. The golden rule of card ownership
> > means that the cards you bring to play with are the cards you leave
> > with. When you are ousted, the cards you brought are returned to you,
> > so that you may leave with them.
>
>
> Alright, this seems to be a fair ruling... :) But do you think it'd
> be fair if the cards remained in play until the end of the game? (If,
> of course, the players all agreed to play that way...)
> I think this would make the game cooler, because the "cards leave
> with the Methusaleh" ruling really kills corruption decks, and stealing
> equipment decks, or anything which takes advantage of gaining control of
> stuff, etc...
Personally, I like to play with the cards sticking around, if the
player who owns the cards doesn't have to go anywhere. Of course, they
frequently want to start a different game, or go have lunch/dinner/breakfast
and as such will need to take the cards with them. In that case, use a proxy,
or substitute another card of the same type from another one of your decks.
However, WORK THIS OUT BEFOREHAND! Do not attempt to proxy in a card
when you have ousted your prey, because your new prey will have every right to
deny you. Changing the rules when they benefit you is cheating, changing them
before the game starts is enhancing the flavor of the game.
> Take care,
> Jim
Frank
Hardrock Llewynyth <hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
: admittedly, there will be people who have to leave and take theid cards;
: but there is no reason proxies cannot be used. indeed, most people who
: play the game have pretty extensive collections so finding another copy of
: the card to use shouldn't be too difficult.
At last a reasonable alternative to the debate. This sort of kills my
arguments (which have most likely faded quickly away, what with me
being a very rare contributer to this list )and I guess it is a good way
of doing things. However, I think that the rule should be decided at the
beginning of the game to get rid of any possibility of disputes.
Sam