This stems from an old discussion I had that got brought up after the NAC this year.
Using the rulebook, tell me how to properly play any Striga card in the game. Why can't any minion I control play a card that requires Striga? The card text says that symbol on the left is not a discipline, so I do not follow the rules as if it was a discipline.
Flight used to do this properly as card text told me it requires a ready minion, but the HTTB Flight cards seem to have lost this text. Now unless I have a Striga master card in play that tells me how to play Striga cards, no rule exists that tells me how to play them.
Common sense is not a proper answer either, as a brand new player who looks at the card and uses the rules is currently unable to resolve the cards properly.
The fix could be to include Flight, Striga, and Maleficia in the rulebook as traits/non discipline powers/whatever that says you need to have the proper traits given as card text or through master cards(Striga, Maleficia) to play the cards.
Using the printed-rulebook, you can't tell how to properly play Imbued, either.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
Golden Rule of VTES:
Cardtext beats the book of rules.
In any case, the card tells you what you need to know.
1) It needs an infernal minion.
2) It works like a discipline, but it is NOT a discipline.
3) 2 of this card let you use the superior effects, 1 card lets to play inferior effects.
I do think that possibly [STR] and [MAL] should have had non-discipline style logos, like Flight and the Imbued 'disciplines' to make sure people knew visually that they are not proper disciplines. If they'd instead been put inside pentagons (point up for SUP, point down for inf) then it might have made people's brains hurt less.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> In any case, the card tells you what you need to know.
>
> 1) It needs an infernal minion.
> 2) It works like a discipline, but it is NOT a discipline.
> 3) 2 of this card let you use the superior effects, 1 card lets to play inferior effects.
>
Only if I have one of those master cards on a minion in play. Without one of the master cards there is a requirement indicated that does not exist in the game.
A brand new player will read this:
> Rulebook wrote:
> 1.6.1.3 Requirements for Playing Cards. Each library card has symbols on the attribute bar (the marble stripe on the left side) for the card type (except for master cards), the clan or Discipline (if any) required to play the card and the cost (if any) of playing that card. Some cards will have other requirements (such as capacity or title) stated in the card text. Only a minion who meets the requirements given on a minion card can play it, while only a Methuselah who controls a ready minion who meets the requirements of a master card can play it.
>
and
> Each of a vampire's Discipline symbols is in the shape of either a square or a diamond. A square-shaped Discipline symbol means that the vampire has one level of that Discipline, the basic level; he can use only the basic (plain text) effect listed on a card that requires that Discipline. A Discipline symbol within a diamond signifies that the vampire has an additional level of that Discpline, the superior level, and therefore may opt to use either the basic (plain text) or the superior (bold) effect listed on the card (but not both).
>
The little symbol in a square seems to be a discipline (remember: he doesn't know yet about the "special" status of Maleficia or Striga. If he does, then the whole topic is moot).
"Damn, I need to find some vampire who can play it". None has the discipline. Then, he finds a Maleficia card.
Name: Maleficia [mal]
Cardtype: Master
Master: trifle.
Put this card on an infernal vampire. This vampire may play cards that require Maleficia [mal] (not a Discipline). With two of these cards, he or she may play cards that require superior Maleficia [MAL]. Burn this card if this vampire is not infernal.
"Oh, this is how I can play Maleficia cards".
-
I don't think the rulebook should be updated to "the clan, Discipline (if any) or trait (such as flight [FLIGHT], Maleficia [mal] or Striga [str]) required to play the card" because it's not necessary as base rules, but it should be present in the Complete Rule Reference
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Pagan wrote:
> Only if I have one of those master cards on a minion in play. Without one of the master cards there is a requirement indicated that does not exist in the game.
>
The corner-case rules for Striga and Malefica are explained on vekn.net/index.php/card-lists/143-heirs-to-the-blood , much like for many years the rules for Imbued were not in the 'proper' rulebook.
They're Disciplines but not true Disciplines, so can't be chosen by various abilities that allow you to choose or fake a discipline - but otherwise function similarly.
Along similar lines, a card that had a Caitiff symbol on it as the requirement would be understood to require a Caitiff, even though Caitiff is not a proper clan.
(Inferior) Striga / Maleficia cards are playable by minion who can play (inferior) Striga / Maleficia cards. So far, only vampires with Striga / Maleficia can do such things, per Striga / Maleficia's cardtexts.
The link jamesatzephyr gave explains how to play such cards.
I think you're missing Pagan's point.
He knows how the cards are played but he doesn't know that from the rulebook.
Let's take Scobax as an example:
Scobax
Type: Reaction
Requires: Striga/Presence
Reduce a bleed against you by 1.
[str] The acting minion gets -1 stealth. [str] is not a Discipline.
[STR] As [str] above, and the action ends immediately (unsuccessfully) unless the acting minion burns 1 blood or life.
The rulebook tells us that is a discipline and follows the rules as quoted by Ankha above.
The rulebook does not tell him what Striga [str] or [STR] is so the card + rulebook does not tell him what to with this card.
His point is that a card + rulebook should tell you how it works e.g. like the rest of the cards he uses.
He's very clear that he knows that the Heirs to the Blood information on this website is NOT the rulebook
Whether or not you agree that it is necessary or not is a separate matter but that is what he is saying.
> Pagan wrote:
> Only if I have one of those master cards on a minion in play. Without one of the master cards there is a requirement indicated that does not exist in the game.
>
wrong. nowhere in the rulebook does it tell me is a discipline. if the only two cards I own are KoKo and Dread Gaze, I'll have no idea what is (all I know is that it's a requirement), but I'll assume it's a discipline similar to the thingy on my vampire's discipline bar.
and are discipline requirement symbols so I play them like all discipline requirement symbols in the game by following the rulebook. but the Golden Rule of VTES kicks in from the card text that they are not disciplines, which prevents me from playing them in any manner that specifies disciplines (effectively, any card that is not titled Striga or Maleficia).
> Haze wrote:
> wrong. nowhere in the rulebook does it tell me is a discipline. if the only two cards I own are KoKo and Dread Gaze, I'll have no idea what is (all I know is that it's a requirement), but I'll assume it's a discipline similar to the thingy on my vampire's discipline bar.
>
I was looking at the online rulebook and did not find the specific discipline symbols either. I wondered how I would know what these symbols stood for specifically (presence, potence, auspex), if I did not learn from others. I looked in a paper rulebook and found in the center a list of all the clan symbols and names, but no discipline symbols with the corresponding names. Then i saw one of those card inserts in a starter deck that shows all the symbols and the respective names. Would it be possible to add this into the rulebook on the VEKN site? Perhaps in the appendix? Is it needed?
> Haze wrote:
>
> > Pagan wrote:
> > Only if I have one of those master cards on a minion in play. Without one of the master cards there is a requirement indicated that does not exist in the game.
> >
> wrong. nowhere in the rulebook does it tell me is a discipline. if the only two cards I own are KoKo and Dread Gaze, I'll have no idea what is (all I know is that it's a requirement), but I'll assume it's a discipline similar to the thingy on my vampire's discipline bar.
>
> and are discipline requirement symbols so I play them like all discipline requirement symbols in the game by following the rulebook. but the Golden Rule of VTES kicks in from the card text that they are not disciplines, which prevents me from playing them in any manner that specifies disciplines (effectively, any card that is not titled Striga or Maleficia).
>
I'm reading a Jyhad rulebook. It lists and shows all disciplines on the back. Now I'm reading a Legacies of Blood rulebook. It has an image of Jeremey MacNeil on the back with all of the card components labeled, including disciplines.
Even though I don't know what Necromancy is from reading these books, I can assume that it's a discipline. I would also naturally assume Striga and Maleficia are disciplines with only this knowledge, which would be wrong.
Also, I have at least 30 small yellow cards with all of the disciplines and clans listed, named, and with the images shown on them.
Any deck can win, whether you're using stealth bleed, rush combat, or Soul Gem combos. It doesn't matter if your minions use Auspex, Thaumaturgy, or Melpominee. What matters is the Methuselah uses Presence. That is how deals are made. That is how games are won.
No, you misunderstand. I don't want...
> 1up20x6 wrote:
> I'm reading a Jyhad rulebook. It lists and shows all disciplines on the back. Now I'm reading a Legacies of Blood rulebook. It has an image of Jeremey MacNeil on the back with all of the card components labeled, including disciplines.
>
Any new player who tries to learn the game from the Jyhad rulebook is gonna have bigger things to worry about than Striga and Maleficia. it was so badly written.
since this whole discussion seems to assume all new VTES players lack a single iota of common sense, maybe showing them the Jeremy MacNeil example page from older rulebooks will confuse them further. they might wonder why their vampires are not all named Jeremy MacNeil.
> Even though I don't know what Necromancy is from reading these books, I can assume that it's a discipline. I would also naturally assume Striga and Maleficia are disciplines with only this knowledge, which would be wrong.
>
even though you don't know whether Striga is a discipline or not from reading the rulebook, you can PLAY any Striga card in the exact same fashion as those Necromancy cards! "how to play these cards?" was the topic brought up here, not magically knowing a piece of rules trivia about Striga -- a piece of trivia that is pointless if you don't have any Striga cards at your table to play with, and yet is printed on every single Striga card ANYWAY.
Even though I don't know what a Hunting Ground is from reading my rulebook, I can naturally assume that one vampire can gain blood from multiple Hunting Grounds each turn, which would be wrong. Until I find out that every single Hunting Ground ever printed says otherwise. The rulebook should've told me ahead of time so I wouldn't assume things about cards I'm about to read for the first time.
From the rulebook, I can also naturally assume I can play multiple Carrion Crows in a combat, just like all other combat cards. Oh wait, I can read the card and see that it overrides that rule from the rulebook. Why don't they tell me how to play Carrion Crows in the rulebook if it's so dang different?
> Also, I have at least 30 small yellow cards with all of the disciplines and clans listed, named, and with the images shown on them.
>
I have at least 30 small white reference cards that have disciplines and clans but don't have Abombwe listed on them. how the hell do I play an Abombwe card??????? JUDGE! OVER HERE!
> Haze wrote:
>
> > 1up20x6 wrote:
> > I'm reading a Jyhad rulebook. It lists and shows all disciplines on the back. Now I'm reading a Legacies of Blood rulebook. It has an image of Jeremey MacNeil on the back with all of the card components labeled, including disciplines.
> >
> Any new player who tries to learn the game from the Jyhad rulebook is gonna have bigger things to worry about than Striga and Maleficia. it was so badly written.
>
What a wonderfully interesting opinion that has nothing to do with this discussion.
> since this whole discussion seems to assume all new VTES players lack a single iota of common sense, maybe showing them the Jeremy MacNeil example page from older rulebooks will confuse them further. they might wonder why their vampires are not all named Jeremy MacNeil.
>
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, but I'm discussing the fact that a new player would have a lot of common sense and naturally assume that Striga and Maleficia are disciplines, which they are not.
> > Even though I don't know what Necromancy is from reading these books, I can assume that it's a discipline. I would also naturally assume Striga and Maleficia are disciplines with only this knowledge, which would be wrong.
> >
> even though you don't know whether Striga is a discipline or not from reading the rulebook, you can PLAY any Striga card in the exact same fashion as those Necromancy cards! "how to play these cards?" was the topic brought up here, not magically knowing a piece of rules trivia about Striga -- a piece of trivia that is pointless if you don't have any Striga cards at your table to play with, and yet is printed on every single Striga card ANYWAY.
>
There is a master who's name escapes me which counts as any discipline. A new player might try to use it to play Striga or Maleficia, which cannot be done.
> Even though I don't know what a Hunting Ground is from reading my rulebook, I can naturally assume that one vampire can gain blood from multiple Hunting Grounds each turn, which would be wrong. Until I find out that every single Hunting Ground ever printed says otherwise. The rulebook should've told me ahead of time so I wouldn't assume things about cards I'm about to read for the first time.
>
I'm sorry, are you being sarcastic? I can't be positive, but I think you are, so I'll respond as though you are.
As you said, all Hunting Grounds have the text. Not all Striga/Maleficia discipline cards do (in fact, aside from the masters, none of them do). The main point is that these are not disciplines when they seem as though they should be to a new player. You don't need to go into a 40-page description of every card that requires the disciplines in the rulebook, you simply need to write that they are pseudo-disciplines, and possibly explain how to play them for clarity.
> From the rulebook, I can also naturally assume I can play multiple Carrion Crows in a combat, just like all other combat cards. Oh wait, I can read the card and see that it overrides that rule from the rulebook. Why don't they tell me how to play Carrion Crows in the rulebook if it's so dang different?
>
Oh, how clever. You used yet another example that still does not in any way affect the topic at hand. You get a gold star!
Check my paragraph above - since you're trying to use the same point with two different cards, I don't really need to change my argument at all.
> > Also, I have at least 30 small yellow cards with all of the disciplines and clans listed, named, and with the images shown on them.
> >
> I have at least 30 small white reference cards that have disciplines and clans but don't have Abombwe listed on them. how the hell do I play an Abombwe card??????? JUDGE! OVER HERE!
>
If you have some form of brain injury that prevents you from forming long-term memory, I apologize in advance. Otherwise, I am confused as to why you cannot remember the point you had made in your last post, which had nothing to do with Striga/Maleficia, and instead dealt with the availability of the names of the disciplines.
> wrong. nowhere in the rulebook does it tell me is a discipline. if the only two cards I own are KoKo and Dread Gaze, I'll have no idea what is (all I know is that it's a requirement), but I'll assume it's a discipline similar to the [pot] thingy on my vampire's discipline bar.
>
1. You made a point (That a new player has no reasonable way of knowing what any given discipline is called)
2. I provided three examples (Jyhad rulebook, LoN rulebook, and the reference card)
3. I disproved your point
Nowhere did I mention the reference cards not containing Striga or Maleficia (Whether they should or not is irrelevant) and therefore new players not knowing how to play them. I merely disproved your rather weak argument, as shown above.
Any deck can win, whether you're using stealth bleed, rush combat, or Soul Gem combos. It doesn't matter if your minions use Auspex, Thaumaturgy, or Melpominee. What matters is the Methuselah uses Presence. That is how deals are made. That is how games are won.
No, you misunderstand. I don't want...
Haze,
SNIP
> Haze wrote:
>
> From the rulebook, I can also naturally assume I can play multiple Carrion Crows in a combat, just like all other combat cards. Oh wait, I can read the card and see that it overrides that rule from the rulebook. Why don't they tell me how to play Carrion Crows in the rulebook if it's so dang different?
>
I've only kept your one example as essentially they are all the same.
As I stated above the Rulebook + card should tell you what to do in any given situation.
The point of the Rules isn't to be fully comprehensive but they should be comprehensive enough to deal with any given card in isolation.
That's all Pagan is saying should be the case (it's less helpful that newer versions of the Rulebook don't have a list of disciplines and names which I assume from his first post he thought they still did and I certainly did) for Str and Mal [and Flight].
Carrion Crows + Rulebook (let's assume old version that tell you that this discipline is Ani + how to play cards requiring discpline + card text) clearly is consistent with Rulebook + Card = I know how this works,
Striga/Malefica don't exist anywhere as definitions apart from on those non-discipline master cards and in the short notes on the Heirs release.
I would find it useful to have a glossary in the rulebook which named the disciplines and non-disciplines like Striga/Malefica/Flight so new players to the game can understand what these are and how they interact with other cards in the game.
If you're going to have a section like this is the Rulebook I would like it to be complete:
Requirements for Playing Cards. Each library card has symbols on the attribute bar (the marble stripe on the left side) for the card type (except for master cards), the clan or Discipline (if any) required to play the card and the cost (if any) of playing that card. Some cards will have other requirements (such as capacity or title) stated in the card text. Only a minion who meets the requirements given on a minion card can play it, while only a Methuselah who controls a ready minion who meets the requirements of a master card can play it.
Additionally the Crypt section of the Rulebook links to the Special terms section which doesn't talk about Flight which is present on currently printed Crypt cards. This seems like an oversight as I can't see why Flight wouldn't be in the Rulebook.
> 1up20x6 wrote:
>
> > Haze wrote:
> >
> > > 1up20x6 wrote:
> > > I'm reading a Jyhad rulebook. It lists and shows all disciplines on the back. Now I'm reading a Legacies of Blood rulebook. It has an image of Jeremey MacNeil on the back with all of the card components labeled, including disciplines.
> > >
> > Any new player who tries to learn the game from the Jyhad rulebook is gonna have bigger things to worry about than Striga and Maleficia. it was so badly written.
> >
> What a wonderfully interesting opinion that has nothing to do with this discussion.
>
then why did you bring up the painfully out-of-date Jyhad rulebook? you said that it lists and shows "all disciplines" which is clearly false. the Jyhad rulebook does more harm than help for this hypothetical new player everybody's talking about.
> There is a master who's name escapes me which counts as any discipline. A new player might try to use it to play Striga or Maleficia, which cannot be done.
>
maybe the new player might try to use Agent of Power to gain one level of his made-up discipline, Poop, which he's never seen before.
this new player could possibly read their Striga/Maleficia cards which clearly say "is not a discipline" before deciding whether or not to illegally play Agent of Power. If he's never seen a Striga/Maleficia card, then he'll never think of trying to play it that way in the first place.
> As you said, all Hunting Grounds have the text. Not all Striga/Maleficia discipline cards do (in fact, aside from the masters, none of them do).
>
wrong wrong wrong.
every single card that requires or has this text.
why are you not reading the cards we are discussing?
> The main point is that these are not disciplines when they seem as though they should be to a new player. You don't need to go into a 40-page description of every card that requires the disciplines in the rulebook, you simply need to write that they are pseudo-disciplines, and possibly explain how to play them for clarity.
>
the cards themselves say they are not disciplines.
you play them like any other card with requirements.
if needed, one could go to this page for more clarification, and also learn about that Research Area doohicky that isn't explained in the rulebook either. because the only cards that interact with the Research Area are the ones that have cardtext about the Research Area.
> Oh, how clever. You used yet another example that still does not in any way affect the topic at hand. You get a gold star!
>
"Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence."
Since the topic at hand is "cards that have text on them that break the rules" I figured it was very relevant. I've seen people who've played the game since 94 make assumptions about cards because they didn't bother reading them fully. Just like how YOU made assumptions about Maleficia & Striga cards because you didn't read them.
> If you have some form of brain injury that prevents you from forming long-term memory, I apologize in advance. Otherwise, I am confused as to why you cannot remember the point you had made in your last post, which had nothing to do with Striga/Maleficia, and instead dealt with the availability of the names of the disciplines.
>
Woah, a passive-aggressive accusation of brain injury! Watch out, we're dealing with a real badass over here!
The point here is that the cards were designed so that players could play "match the icons" for requirements such as Clans and Disciplines, regardless of actually knowing the names of the icons.
The rulebook does not list all these icons found in the game, and maybe they should be added or maybe not, but that doesn't stop new players from quickly understanding how to play most of the cards in the game. Striga and Maleficia are completely intuitive when played normally by using the related master cards, and are confusing when trying to break the rules with specific cards such as Ian Forestal, Agent of Power, Inceptor, etc. Thankfully, every single Maleficia & Striga card has text to give us a ruling on this. (NOT A DISCIPLINE. IF IAN FORESTAL IS PLAYING THIS CARD, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200)
It's far more likely that a new player would be confused over Caitiff not counting as a clan, despite this being mentioned in exactly one line of the rulebook but nowhere on any cards. it's even worse because cards like Con Boon and The Embrace treat Caitiff differently. and they might also be confused by Flight having its own icon. It's not difficult to play the Flight cards, but you wouldn't know if it's a Discipline, Clan, or Trait without seeing it on a vampire, because its icon design is unique. These are examples where common sense AND the rulebook fails the new player.
I know the entire opening post was a bunch of rules lawyering, but it disguised itself with "think of the new players, because they can't use common sense here." Yeah, right.
> 1up20x6 wrote:
> As you said, all Hunting Grounds have the text. Not all Striga/Maleficia discipline cards do (in fact, aside from the masters, none of them do).
>
Barrenness
+1 stealth action.
[mal] Put this card on a vampire and untap this acting vampire. This vampire is sterile and his or her capacity decreased by 2 (to a minimum of 1). Maleficia is not a Discipline.
[MAL] Burn a vampire whose capacity is 1. Burn option.
Evil Eye
Do not replace until your untap phase.
[mal] [COMBAT] Cancel a strike played by the opposing minion as it is played (no cost is paid). The opposing minion cannot choose another strike and gets no strike instead. Maleficia is not a Discipline.
[MAL] [REACTION] Cancel an action card as it is played and tap the acting minion. Burn option.
Fractura
[cel] X is 0. Strike: dodge.
[str] This vampire gets X additional strikes each round. Those additional strikes can only be hand strikes. Striga is not a Discipline.
[STR] As [str] above, and this vampire gets +1 strength for remainder of this combat.
And so on. In fact, all cards which require Maleficia or Striga have this text. As do the cards which give Striga or Maleficia. So the first time a new player picks up and reads his Striga or Maleficia card that he wants to put in his deck he will clearly see that it is not a discipline.
Many things are not defined in the rulebook. Requirements such as Seraph or Flight have no definition in the rulebook. They don't need one. The only way they effect the game is by how they interact with other cards (most often by enabling said cards to be played).
The only traits which need to be defined in the rulebook are ones like Infernal, Anarch, or Red List which change how the rules of the game treat that vampire simply by being there.
@ Mael
>
> Mael wrote:
>
> > 1up20x6 wrote:
> > As you said, all Hunting Grounds have the text. Not all Striga/Maleficia discipline cards do (in fact, aside from the masters, none of them do).
> >
> Barrenness
> +1 stealth action.
> [mal] Put this card on a vampire and untap this acting vampire. This vampire is sterile and his or her capacity decreased by 2 (to a minimum of 1). Maleficia is not a Discipline.
> [MAL] Burn a vampire whose capacity is 1. Burn option.
>
> Evil Eye
> Do not replace until your untap phase.
> [mal] [COMBAT] Cancel a strike played by the opposing minion as it is played (no cost is paid). The opposing minion cannot choose another strike and gets no strike instead. Maleficia is not a Discipline.
> [MAL] [REACTION] Cancel an action card as it is played and tap the acting minion. Burn option.
>
> Fractura
> [cel] X is 0. Strike: dodge.
> [str] This vampire gets X additional strikes each round. Those additional strikes can only be hand strikes. Striga is not a Discipline.
> [STR] As [str] above, and this vampire gets +1 strength for remainder of this combat.
>
> And so on. In fact, all cards which require Maleficia or Striga have this text. As do the cards which give Striga or Maleficia. So the first time a new player picks up and reads his Striga or Maleficia card that he wants to put in his deck he will clearly see that it is not a discipline.
>
Huh, so it does. Sorry, I probably should've actually reread the cards first.
Nevertheless, this still creates the same problem - new players who own these cards know that Maleficia/Striga are not disciplines, but therefore have no idea how to play them. After all, all they know is you use the disciplines in the sidebar to play the card, and the card appears contradictory until looked at in retrospect.
> Many things are not defined in the rulebook. Requirements such as Seraph or Flight have no definition in the rulebook. They don't need one. The only way they effect the game is by how they interact with other cards (most often by enabling said cards to be played).
> The only traits which need to be defined in the rulebook are ones like Infernal, Anarch, or Red List which change how the rules of the game treat that vampire simply by being there.
>
I won't begin on whether or not requirements such as those belong in the rulebook because you're right, it would be ridiculous to include all of these definitions. But I do believe that these pseudo-disciplines should be for the aforementioned reasons.
@ Haze
Alright, I've actually slept recently and school is almost done for the year, so I'll be more reasonable and articulate in my argument this time.
> Haze wrote:
>
> > 1up20x6 wrote:
> >
> > > Haze wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1up20x6 wrote:
> > > > I'm reading a Jyhad rulebook. It lists and shows all disciplines on the back. Now I'm reading a Legacies of Blood rulebook. It has an image of Jeremey MacNeil on the back with all of the card components labeled, including disciplines.
> > > >
> > > Any new player who tries to learn the game from the Jyhad rulebook is gonna have bigger things to worry about than Striga and Maleficia. it was so badly written.
> > >
> > >
> > What a wonderfully interesting opinion that has nothing to do with this discussion.
> >
> then why did you bring up the painfully out-of-date Jyhad rulebook? you said that it lists and shows "all disciplines" which is clearly false. the Jyhad rulebook does more harm than help for this hypothetical new player everybody's talking about.
>
Two conversation topics had been brought up in this thread before I entered it: the pseudo-disciplines and whether or not players had reasonable access to the disciplines names. I was trying to present the existence of this access from the beginning and the updated existence from the LoB rulebook and the reference cards. I realize that I probably should've been more clear with this.
> > There is a master who's name escapes me which counts as any discipline. A new player might try to use it to play Striga or Maleficia, which cannot be done.
> >
> maybe the new player might try to use Agent of Power to gain one level of his made-up discipline, Poop, which he's never seen before.
> this new player could possibly read their Striga/Maleficia cards which clearly say "is not a discipline" before deciding whether or not to illegally play Agent of Power. If he's never seen a Striga/Maleficia card, then he'll never think of trying to play it that way in the first place.
>
Yes, I probably should've reread the cards before trying to defend my position. Nevertheless, I'm now backing up the similar argument said above, "new players who own these cards know that Maleficia/Striga are not disciplines, but therefore have no idea how to play them. After all, all they know is you use the disciplines in the sidebar to play the card, and the card appears contradictory until looked at in retrospect."
> > As you said, all Hunting Grounds have the text. Not all Striga/Maleficia discipline cards do (in fact, aside from the masters, none of them do).
> >
> wrong wrong wrong.
> every single card that requires or has this text.
> why are you not reading the cards we are discussing?
>
A lack of time, mostly.
> > The main point is that these are not disciplines when they seem as though they should be to a new player. You don't need to go into a 40-page description of every card that requires the disciplines in the rulebook, you simply need to write that they are pseudo-disciplines, and possibly explain how to play them for clarity.
> >
> the cards themselves say they are not disciplines.
> you play them like any other card with requirements.
> if needed, one could go to this page for more clarification, and also learn about that Research Area doohicky that isn't explained in the rulebook either. because the only cards that interact with the Research Area are the ones that have cardtext about the Research Area.
>
The only problem here is the tautology of the situation - the requirements to play the cards are unknown to anyone who doesn't already have the means to play the cards.
> > Oh, how clever. You used yet another example that still does not in any way affect the topic at hand. You get a gold star!
> >
> "Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence."
>
> Since the topic at hand is "cards that have text on them that break the rules" I figured it was very relevant. I've seen people who've played the game since 94 make assumptions about cards because they didn't bother reading them fully. Just like how YOU made assumptions about Maleficia & Striga cards because you didn't read them.
>
Pretty accurate, yes. I'll retract my pointless statements such as that one.
> > If you have some form of brain injury that prevents you from forming long-term memory, I apologize in advance. Otherwise, I am confused as to why you cannot remember the point you had made in your last post, which had nothing to do with Striga/Maleficia, and instead dealt with the availability of the names of the disciplines.
> >
> Woah, a passive-aggressive accusation of brain injury! Watch out, we're dealing with a real badass over here!
>
You're right, that was quite uncalled for. I'll try to keep things more argumentative and relevant in the future.
> The point here is that the cards were designed so that players could play "match the icons" for requirements such as Clans and Disciplines, regardless of actually knowing the names of the icons.
>
> The rulebook does not list all these icons found in the game, and maybe they should be added or maybe not, but that doesn't stop new players from quickly understanding how to play most of the cards in the game. Striga and Maleficia are completely intuitive when played normally by using the related master cards, and are confusing when trying to break the rules with specific cards such as Ian Forestal, Agent of Power, Inceptor, etc. Thankfully, every single Maleficia & Striga card has text to give us a ruling on this. (NOT A DISCIPLINE. IF IAN FORESTAL IS PLAYING THIS CARD, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200)
>
(My emphasis added)
This is the problem - the cards are completely unintuitive to players who don't already know how to play them. New players can't easily figure out what these strange non-disciplines are while players who already know how to play them see them as intuitive, and therefore not needing explanation.
> It's far more likely that a new player would be confused over Caitiff not counting as a clan, despite this being mentioned in exactly one line of the rulebook but nowhere on any cards. it's even worse because cards like Con Boon and The Embrace treat Caitiff differently. and they might also be confused by Flight having its own icon. It's not difficult to play the Flight cards, but you wouldn't know if it's a Discipline, Clan, or Trait without seeing it on a vampire, because its icon design is unique. These are examples where common sense AND the rulebook fails the new player.
>
A very good point about Caitiff, but I feel that the pseudo-disciplines are, while not equally confusing, at least on a similar level until the specific Master cards are seen. As for Flight, I honestly still have no idea what it was, although judging from your explanation, I imagine it's a discipline (I used to think it was a trait).
> I know the entire opening post was a bunch of rules lawyering, but it disguised itself with "think of the new players, because they can't use common sense here." Yeah, right.
>
I think that the problem now is not so much common sense, but the tautological argument given above, as well as the fact that simply adding the definitions to the rulebook (which has already been proven to need a redesign) would take minimal effort and could help someone in the future.
Any deck can win, whether you're using stealth bleed, rush combat, or Soul Gem combos. It doesn't matter if your minions use Auspex, Thaumaturgy, or Melpominee. What matters is the Methuselah uses Presence. That is how deals are made. That is how games are won.
No, you misunderstand. I don't want...
> Requirements such as Seraph or Flight have no definition in the rulebook. They don't need one.
>
Flight originally told you how to treat the skill until changes in LoB. All the Bloodlines and at least one LoB Flight cards specifically stated on the card how to use them 'Requires a minion with flight.'
> Pagan wrote:
>
> > Requirements such as Seraph or Flight have no definition in the rulebook. They don't need one.
> >
> Flight originally told you how to treat the skill until changes in LoB. All the Bloodlines and at least one LoB Flight cards specifically stated on the card how to use them 'Requires a minion with flight.'
>
Yes, but not any more.
(Patrol: vtes.pl/card/43303 vtes.pl/card/395512, Pounce: vtes.pl/card/43309 vtes.pl/card/395517 And of course non-reprint cards from HttB: See Roll: vtes.pl/card/43501)
I'm not sure what you're trying to show by talking about old card text that has been changed.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
He's trying to state that the old cards were more consistent and actually told you how they functioned.
A new version of say Pounce doesn't tell you what it requires, the reference bar doesn't link to anything and that seems a little stupid.
All the disciplines and traits should be in an Appendix to the Rulebook. This is especially true of traits as the Rulebook doesn't cover them so Rulebook + card does not tell you how it functions.
The Rulebook specifically covers Clan and Discipline requirements of cards (but not Trait) so I don't know how you can expect it to be complete without something to tell you how to use Scobax etc.
Any card saying 'Str is not a discipline' just tells you how to NOT use it not how to use it.
It was a relatively weak (poorly designed) playtest fix.
Separate Note: Which set was the last set to Include Rules + Summary card in the starters?
1.5. Overview of Crypt Cards
>
> Each of a vampire's Discipline symbols is in the shape of either a square or a diamond. A square-shaped Discipline symbol means that the vampire has one level of that Discipline, the basic level; he can use only the basic (plain text) effect listed on a card that requires that Discipline. A Discipline symbol within a diamond signifies that the vampire has an additional level of that Discpline, the superior level, and therefore may opt to use either the basic (plain text) or the superior (bold) effect listed on the card (but not both).
>
This would indicate that Striga and Maleficia are in fact disciplines. Treat them as disciplines when you play them. However, all Maleficia and Striga cards have card text stating they are not disciplines. That text does not change the requirements to play the card.
1.6.3. Minion Cards
>
> In many cases, a minion card will have a Discipline symbol, a clan symbol and/or a blood cost; in these cases, the card can only be played by a vampire who meets the requirements.
>
There are other requirements for cards that are not stated by the rules, such as sect, titles etc. Why can't Chandler Hungerford play the Second Tradition? I can ignore "Requires a Prince or Justicar" because the rulebook doesn't tell me how to play a card that says that.
The card text " is not a discipline" does not remove the requirement that the vampire must have in order to play the card. The text is there to prevent Ian Forestal from having and to prevent "Agent of Power" or "Spontaneous Power" from granting . It prevents Pherydima from stealing with "Absorb the Mind."
Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.
> Squidalot wrote:
> sure but the rulebook tells you about titles and princes and justicars.
>
> it doesn't tell you about Maleficia, Striga, Flight or other traits.
>
Are you referring to the rulebook link to the left? because that rulebook doesn't mention Potence, or Celerity, or any other disciplines. Yet the rules describe how to play a card that requires a discipline, even if you have no idea what they are called.
There are other keywords and traits such as "Gehenna" or "Investment" or "Government" or "Inquisition" that don't have explanations in the rulebook. This is because they are defined by the cards.
The rulebook does not need to address Striga/Maleficia, nor Flight. You see a minion card with a requirement on it, you look for a vampire that can play it, or vise-versa: you see a vampire and you look at what minion cards she can play. Some minion cards let minions play additional cards (such as Master: Discipline cards, or Striga for examples.)
These issues do not need to be addressed in the rulebook. Perhaps, something more in-depth like a reference guide or a "wiki" would be more appropriate.
Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.
As a side note, I believe Striga and Malefica would have been way better served as requiring infernal instead of being no-discipline. The main difference would have been some infernal !tremere would have been able to infernal pact them out. It don't seem too much of a stretch.
> Ohlmann wrote:
> As a side note, I believe Striga and Malefica would have been way better served as requiring infernal instead of being no-discipline. The main difference would have been some infernal !tremere would have been able to infernal pact them out. It don't seem too much of a stretch.
>
There was more a concern about the Great Beast.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Just out of curiosity, and admitting that I don't know the Striga and Maleficia cards very well, would it be a problem for the Great Beast to be able to choose one or both of those traits?
I mean, we are talking about the Devil incarnate, apparently, so it certainly would make sense.
> direwolf wrote:
> These issues do not need to be addressed in the rulebook. Perhaps, something more in-depth like a reference guide or a "wiki" would be more appropriate.
>
Okay, Direwolf, this is why it should be addressed in the rulebook. The rulebook as currently written is incorrect:
> Requirements for Playing Cards. Each library card has symbols on the attribute bar (the marble stripe on the left side) for the card type (except for master cards), the clan or Discipline (if any) required to play the card and the cost (if any) of playing that card. Some cards will have other requirements (such as capacity or title) stated in the card text. Only a minion who meets the requirements given on a minion card can play it, while only a Methuselah who controls a ready minion who meets the requirements of a master card can play it.
>
According to the rulebook, the only symbols that appear in the attribute bar are symbols identifying card type, clan, discipline, cost, or burn option (described in the next paragraph).
Since the symbols for Maleficia, Striga, and Flight appear in the attribute bar and do not fall under the given categories, the rulebook is incomplete and incorrect.
Now, if the symbols didn't appear in the attribute bar, it would be a different story.
Isn't this nitpicking on an extraordinary scale? Are players TRULY unable to figure out how to play the cards they are complaining about? So the answer then is to rewrite the rulebook so that every symbol and every keyword need not be defined via the rulebook, and are able to be defined by the cards, so the player base doesn't have to have fruitless discussions like this multiple times per year.
You should be able to figure out how to play a game with a rulebook and the pieces provided.
Given that Mal, Str, Flight, et.al., are all sufficiently explained on the game pieces, there doesn't seem to be any non-OCD need to put them in the rulebook.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
Why are people so uncomfortable with the idea of having a complete and correct rulebook?
Kevin, I've seen you post in a previous thread that you would like the rulebook to be improved upon, so I'm surprised by this response.
> AaronC wrote:
> Why are people so uncomfortable with the idea of having a complete and correct rulebook?
>
thinking the same thing : the rulebook may need a revision...
oh, and to troll a bit : a good portion of the last expansion was dedicated to striga and maleficia, and they rarely see play. Too bad.
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
Essentially I think the game needs to simplify and one way to do this is to clean up the rulebook and include references for all discplines, traits etc in the back.
Government/Transient/Innconu etc should just go as have no relevance in game except to not be Gehenna
> direwolf wrote:
> Are you referring to the rulebook link to the left? because that rulebook doesn't mention Potence, or Celerity, or any other disciplines.
>
That is because the rulebook on the site is incomplete compared to the ones distributed in starters. Those come with a separate cheat card containing symbols for disciplines and card types at least (maybe also clans? I don't remember). Just because it is not stappled to the main booklet does not make it less part of the rules.
Fun fact: the online rulebook lists neither vampiric disciplines nor clans but it does list the Imbued virtues and creeds.
> Squidalot wrote:
> Government/Transient/Innconu etc should just go as have no relevance in game except to not be Gehenna
>
One of the main advantages to having "keywords" and other traits is forward compatibility.
In an ever-changing collectible card game, designers have to take into consideration the cards that have come before it.
Keywords and traits are building blocks to be used to design cards with a common concept. They may work together or against each other.
Imagine how much ink and card space we could have saved if we had a keyword for "you may not play action modifiers to further increase this bleed."
Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.
> direwolf wrote:
> Imagine how much ink and card space we could have saved if we had a keyword for "you may not play action modifiers to further increase this bleed."
>
In that case, it is not so much a keyword problem but a rule delimitation problem: when the exception (unstackable bleed boosts) is more frequent than the rule itself (stackable bleed boosts), it means the exception should become the rule, although that is hardly doable without reprinting cards.
> AaronC wrote:
> Why are people so uncomfortable with the idea of having a complete and correct rulebook? Kevin, I've seen you post in a previous thread that you would like the rulebook to be improved upon, so I'm surprised by this response.
>
Because you either misread what I wrote or you made the incorrect assumption that me not wishing to change the rulebook on one issue means that I don't wish to change the rulebook on other issues.
I do wish to change the rulebook on several issues, if not do a complete clarification on each and every section.
I do not wish to add into the rulebook concepts which are completely card-based and self-contained enough to be played off the cards themselves, such as is being argued for in this thread.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> KevinM wrote:
> I do not wish to add into the rulebook concepts which are completely card-based and self-contained enough to be played off the cards themselves, such as is being argued for in this thread.
>
Like disciplines? At the very least it makes sense that they're in the rule book — disputing this seems odd to me.
Key-worded traits such as black hand, seraph and even bahari etc should at the very least be added to the "Rules Glossary" or "Word of Darkness Glossary" — as it stands new players have to search the web for what black hand means and that's just backwards. They should be able to simply check the rules / glossary.
Disciplines and their icons are an important and appealing part of the game, not listing them in the rules make no sense what so ever.
It also makes a lot of sense for anything else with an icon to be listed in an "other icons" section — with it's own mini-glossary. Again, it's just means there's one place / download new (and old) players could refer to instead of having to break out their google-fu.
It's not like the rules are being changed — they're just being completed.
I don't see what the big deal is.
Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook
> Ke. wrote:
>
> > KevinM wrote:
> > I do not wish to add into the rulebook concepts which are completely card-based and self-contained enough to be played off the cards themselves, such as is being argued for in this thread.
> >
> Like disciplines?
>
No, actually not like disciplines at all, because you can't figure out how to use disciplines without the rulebook, whereas you CAN figure out how to use Mal/Str with a rulebook and the cards themselves.
> Ke. wrote:
> At the very least it makes sense that they're in the rule book — disputing this seems odd to me.
>
If you accept the maxim that the rulebook need not contain every rule about a game if the cards themselves contain enough information, then you agree with me. If you don't, then your side makes more sense.
The two sides will never agree, so maybe we should just mercifully end the thread?
> Ke. wrote:
> Key-worded traits such as black hand, seraph and even bahari etc should at the very least be added to the "Rules Glossary" or "Word of Darkness Glossary" — as it stands new players have to search the web for what black hand means and that's just backwards.
>
No, they don't, since the cards themselves have enough information to be self-contained and used on their own, without anything being in the rulebook.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
the only reason i see to have either of these "not-disciplines" in the rulebook is if more cards are printed that require them. seeing the symbol on a card that requires it would lead someone who isn't familiar with them to wonder "who has this skill?" it says its not a discipline on cards that need it, but nothing else. it easy enough to remedy by asking someone, i just think future cards should have stronger reminder text.
but i also think that if the game gets picked back up, symbols should be used for things other than just disciplines and flight. if a minion can do something as a d action, having the [D] : this minion may"blahblahblah" and cutting out the "as a [d] action"part. or if the minion can gain an effect by burning a blood have [blood] [reaction] : this minion may give any minion +1 intercept or [blood] [combat] :this minion may treat agg as normal this round of combat.
i think wizards owns the tap symbol, so thats probably out, but still, simplicity like symbols makes the game less windy with wording (even if it also makes it like reading algebra with too many symbols)
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> or if the minion can gain an effect by burning a blood have [blood] [reaction] : this minion may give any minion +1 intercept or [blood] [combat] :this minion may treat agg as normal this round of combat.
>
Well, conviction costs (and paradox costs) are written this way. Maybe there are not enough cards using a blood cost in card text to require a symbol.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
very true for library cards, but there are @ least 40 crypt cards that have "may burn a blood to" "can burn a blood to" or "...burn 1 blood (make something happen" and thats not counting the blounts or humo/greenesleaves (or vamps that allow other vamps to burn a blood for something, like som caitiff/pander or jack drake). and my secret library searches didn't show me jalan, lambach, or qawiyya so i'm sure i didn't try all the combinations there are.
i'm not sure if it would make things easier, but it takes away words, streamlines rules, and makes potential reprints look more organized.
william biltmore could read:
Camarilla. [1blood]:+1 bleed or +1 stealth. only usable once each action.
it would allow things to be easier to read. i'm not saying its the absolute best thing to happen in game design since Garfeild invented turning a card sideways and copy-writing it, but its an idea. mtg has convoluted rules involving the cost before the colin, and i'm not even saying to adopt that inso much as to say a blood symbol follow by a colon should mean "this minion can/may burn this amount of blood for this effect with these limitations."
just a thought though, and its not needed on library cards, since so few of them would be relevant to the concept at the moment
As a side note, burning blood and blood cost are actually pretty different. I am not sold that the difference warrant to be keeped at all cost, but whithout a real new edition, (experienced) people will resist that kind of change.
I remember when I was just browsing cards and said "Striga, what is this", then went to google and typed "striga white wolf wiki" and got this wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php?title=Striga
Briefly I just thought it's a built in ability/pseudo-discipline of all infernal. That's all, went on with life.
But after running into Maleficia, I was like wait they don't just get 2 free pseudo-disciplines.
Then came here and now this makes sense:
You have to put the master cards on infernal vampires to enable their Striga/Malefcia
And I guess thats all.
> rezwits wrote:
> I remember when I was just browsing cards and said "Striga, what is this", then went to google and typed "striga white wolf wiki" and got this wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php?title=Striga
>
> Briefly I just thought it's a built in ability/pseudo-discipline of all infernal. That's all, went on with life.
>
> But after running into Maleficia, I was like wait they don't just get 2 free pseudo-disciplines.
>
> Then came here and now this makes sense:
>
> You have to put the master cards on infernal vampires to enable their Striga/Malefcia
>
> And I guess thats all.
>
More or less. Oddly, since its not actually a "discipline" in vtes, things like mundane, blood weakens, veil of darkness , and slow withering have no effect on it.
The infernal requirement makes it so you have to combo some thimgs to work.
For example, if you give Drago the textbook damnation and one striga, he can, literally, punch for 4,000,000,000. For free.
But its alot of setup........