LSJ : "As a vampire"

Hey there ! Can a Rock Cat using Potence "as a vampire" can play Taste of Vitae ?

"Orpheus" <orphe...@free.fr> wrote in message news:1127753456....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com > Can a Rock Cat using Potence "as a vampire" can play Taste of Vitae ? No. Taste of Vitae does not require Potence. -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Never Anonymous wrote: > "Orpheus" <orphe...@free.fr> wrote in message >>Can a Rock Cat using Potence "as a vampire" can play Taste of Vitae ? > > No. > Taste of Vitae does not require Potence. Correct. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Orpheus wrote: > Hey there ! > > Can a Rock Cat using Potence "as a vampire" can play Taste of Vitae ? I don't mean to sound snarky, but is it too much to do a little bit of research, or just common sense thinking, before posting questions like this? The answer in this case is just so unbelievably obvious that it's a waste of people time and bandwidth to have posts like this on our group. Sorry if I sound mean, but seriously now.

Orpheus wrote: > Hey there ! > > Can a Rock Cat using Potence "as a vampire" can play Taste of Vitae ? I don't mean to sound snarky, but is it too much to do a little bit of [ quoted text not captured ]

CthuluKitty wrote: >> I don't mean to sound snarky, but is it too much to do a little bit of > research, or just common sense thinking, before posting questions like > this? The answer in this case is just so unbelievably obvious that > it's a waste of people time and bandwidth to have posts like this on > our group. Sorry if I sound mean, but seriously now. You do, like, see the serious irony that comes from the fact that you double posted this, right? Just checking. -Peter

CthuluKitty wrote: > I don't mean to sound snarky, but is it too much to do a little bit of > research, or just common sense thinking, before posting questions like > this? The answer in this case is just so unbelievably obvious that > it's a waste of people time and bandwidth to have posts like this on > our group. Sorry if I sound mean, but seriously now. And it is also certainly possible that the person asking the question is not a naitive English speaker, in which case it is perfectly possible that that answer is not that unbelievably obvious. I'm pretty sure I couldn't have figured out the answer to that question if, like, the card was written in Spanish or something. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Just to reinforce Peter's assumption, I'd point out that only recently I discovered that the word "eventually" is often used in a context of certainty. The similar word in my native language, "eventualmente", is used in a pretty much different way, closer to "possibly" than it is to "eventually". So "eventually the card will be released" means that the card will be released for sure, it just happens that the actual date/period for the release is not set yet and implies that it will take some time. A quick (and non-accurate, now I know ;) translation to Portuguese using "eventualmente" would mean that the card can be released, but maybe it will not, regardless of how much time it would take. Language issues do happen. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo Giovanni Newsletter Editor (in absentia)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [ quoted text not captured ] As rude as I often am, I figure this tops it. In the days of 1.5 megabits PER SECOND downstream DSL... ...that's 1,500,000 bits per second... Do you really think Orpheus' question, comprising no more than 4000 bits total at the most, used a significant amount of bandwidth? Do you think the 4,000 bits used to respond did, either? Is it possible that other, newer players who are reading this group might NOT have been around enough to realize that an ally who can play Potence cards "as a vampire" cannot play disciplineless cards the same way, for very literal reasons? Looking forward to your to-be-published rulebook appendix, as clearly you have such a perfect grasp of all the minutiae and ramifications of the Rules that you can ensure nobody ever needs to ask this question again. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDOxrNtQZlu3o7QpERAny+AKDQO244/r9oEKLrcXSe4tDgxBFd1QCghD/y sCPl1s1QgHH2WLbGLZQlHLE= =/kPG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Regarding the double post: It's an error in the google newsreader I use. It seems if you accidentally double click the post button it posts twice. So sorry about that. I almost posted to explain that but I figured a triple post was even worse... > Looking forward to your to-be-published rulebook appendix, as clearly > you have such a perfect grasp of all the minutiae and ramifications of > the Rules that you can ensure nobody ever needs to ask this question again. No need for the sarcasm here. I realize my post was rude, and went out of my way to excuse myself (obviously not successfully). Some important questions do need to be asked, and I've often found clarifications posted on this group very helpful. I doubt I'll be going out of my way to publish a rules compendium. I have better things to publish when it gets right down to it. However, there are some questions that have fairly clear answers and other questions that have been asked before (often over and over and over again). It's fairly easy to search the archived database of rulings if ever a question comes up, and given the number of inane or repetitive questions posted here, it seems like noone thinks to do that. Hell, people would even get their answers more quickly if they searched than they do posting and waiting for a reply from the almighty LSJ. I can also understand how language barriers can be a problem, especially with cards with complex or confusing wording. Some cards, like the original printing of Rotschreck are downright confusing even to native English speakers. I'm not sure that this particular instance is such a case however. Sorry if I pissed anyone off. I hope some of my comments might have been somewhat constructive, as opposed to just plain rude.

CthuluKitty wrote: > Regarding the double post: It's an error in the google newsreader I > use. It seems if you accidentally double click the post button it > posts twice. So sorry about that. I almost posted to explain that but > I figured a triple post was even worse... Oh, yeah, I was just being snarky. You gotta get a newsreader. Granted, I'm using google right now, but usually I use a nice newsreader. *Much* better. > However, there are > some questions that have fairly clear answers and other questions that > have been asked before (often over and over and over again). It's > fairly easy to search the archived database of rulings if ever a > question comes up, and given the number of inane or repetitive > questions posted here, it seems like noone thinks to do that. Sure. But, ya know, if you are new, you might not realize that you can do that. Or, it is often kinda easier to ask a dumb question and just get it answered by someone who knows ('cause searching for the answer is often less easy than one might think). Or, again, you might not even realize that the question is a dumb one. > Hell, > people would even get their answers more quickly if they searched than > they do posting and waiting for a reply from the almighty LSJ. I can > also understand how language barriers can be a problem, especially with > cards with complex or confusing wording. Some cards, like the original > printing of Rotschreck are downright confusing even to native English > speakers. I'm not sure that this particular instance is such a case > however. Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? In any case, it didn't really cause anyone any problem that it was asked, so I'm not seeing the issue. But that's me. -Peter

>>However, there are >>some questions that have fairly clear answers and other questions that >>have been asked before (often over and over and over again). It's >>fairly easy to search the archived database of rulings if ever a >>question comes up, and given the number of inane or repetitive >>questions posted here, it seems like noone thinks to do that. > > > Sure. But, ya know, if you are new, you might not realize that you can > do that. Or, it is often kinda easier to ask a dumb question and just > get it answered by someone who knows ('cause searching for the answer > is often less easy than one might think). Or, again, you might not even > realize that the question is a dumb one. And, also, there's a lot of questions that are really basic, and so it's hard to find a straight answer to somewhere. When I first started playing, it took me an embarassingly long amount of time to figure out what this S:CE everyone kept talking about was, and a search for "S:CE means" didn't really turn up that much. Or which cards you can play how many of. I'm sure it's written right there in the rules that each vampire can only play one of a given reaction card per action (In fact, it is right there in 1.6.3), but it's the kind of rule that's easy to not notice until it's important. As a case in point, Matt posted a game one time where he bounced a bleed to his prey, who bounced it back, and he had to take it because, while he had the Deflection in hand, he only had one minion with dominate. His predator thought that meant he was out of bounce, made a megableed, which got bounced to Matt's prey, which I think ousted him. I know I certainly wouldn't have thought twice about it.

crispy wrote: > When I first started > playing, it took me an embarassingly long amount of time to figure out > what this S:CE everyone kept talking about was, and a search for "S:CE > means" didn't really turn up that much. Heh heh. That's in the newsgroup FAQ :-) -Peter

CthuluKitty wrote: > I can > also understand how language barriers can be a problem, especially with > cards with complex or confusing wording. Some cards, like the original > printing of Rotschreck are downright confusing even to native English > speakers. I'm not sure that this particular instance is such a case > however. Neither do I, but also remember that language issues not only affect any given player's capacity to understand subtleties in a card text, but also limits their ability to search for the answer in an foreign-language-based newsgroup also. Usually a simple search for "[cardname] author:lsj" is enough, but sometimes it is not. I've tried a zillion times to tell fellow players to do a search in this newsgroup before asking some seemingly obvious questions on local mailing lists, but noticed that most are not proeficient enough to do that - getting responses like "I tried, couldn't find anything", and then I try a search for "[whatever situation] author:lsj" and find the clarification in less than 1 minute. This happens, and these players deserve a chance at an official answer as much as any other player does, regardless of their limited ability to understand and express themselves in another language. > Sorry if I pissed anyone off. I hope some of my comments might have > been somewhat constructive, as opposed to just plain rude. Myself, I saw your comment as a constructive one, rude or not. My concern is with the idea itself, not the way it was presented. best,

CthuluKitty wrote: > I can > also understand how language barriers can be a problem, especially with > cards with complex or confusing wording. Some cards, like the original > printing of Rotschreck are downright confusing even to native English > speakers. I'm not sure that this particular instance is such a case > however. Neither do I, but also remember that language issues not only affect any given player's capacity to understand subtleties in a card text, but also limits their ability to search for the answer in an foreign-language-based newsgroup also. Usually a simple search for "[cardname] author:lsj" is enough, but sometimes it is not. I've tried a zillion times to tell fellow players to do a search in this newsgroup before asking some seemingly obvious questions on local mailing lists, but noticed that most are not proeficient enough to do that - getting responses like "I tried, couldn't find anything", and then I try a search for "[whatever situation] author:lsj" and find the clarification in less than 1 minute. This happens, and these players deserve a chance at an official answer as much as any other player does, regardless of their limited ability to understand and express themselves in another language. > Sorry if I pissed anyone off. I hope some of my comments might have > been somewhat constructive, as opposed to just plain rude. Myself, I saw your comment as a constructive one, rude or not. My [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <dhh05i$i2c$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>, crispy <crisp...@gmail.com> writes: >And, also, there's a lot of questions that are really basic, and so >it's hard to find a straight answer to somewhere. When I first started >playing, it took me an embarassingly long amount of time to figure out >what this S:CE everyone kept talking about was, and a search for "S:CE >means" didn't really turn up that much. It's not "required" in this group - like it might be in, say, comp.lang.perl.misc - but if you're worried that people are going to jump on you for what looks like an obvious question then prefixing your question with: - 'I've tried searching on Google for "S:CE means" and "S:CE definition"' and - "I've looked in the FAQ but can't find it" will pretty much always mean you don't get jumped on. (Assuming you have done the things you say!) Showing you've made an effort -> good first impression. Not that most simple questions get jumped on anyway, but if you want an extra security blanket... -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Good to see I'm not the only double poster on this thread. ;) I really should get a newsreader though.

In message <1128057059....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, CthuluKitty <vtana...@riseup.net> writes: >Good to see I'm not the only double poster on this thread. ;) > >I really should get a newsreader though. Free Agent is often recommended, the (free) baby brother of Agent. http://www.forteinc.com/agent/features.php shows what you get (in the right-hand, FA column). Other people I know like Gravity, now freeware: http://cws.internet.com/file/11436.htm It's particularly good if you're fussy about your screen layout, as it has heaps of options. [ quoted text not captured ]