Direct bleeding must be restored!

Direct bleeding anyone at any time is the great equalizer. If you don't like what someone's doing (eg RtoI), then go and kill him. I can no longer do this with 7/7 RTR. Nuf said. Badger

badger wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] You can "directly" vote him to death (especially when others think the same way you do). Vote & Rush & Combat decks become more IMPORTANT with 7/7 rulings. Michael Beer

badger <bad...@buffnet.net> wrote: > Direct bleeding anyone at any time is the great equalizer. If you don't > like what someone's doing (eg RtoI), then go and kill him. I can no > longer do this with 7/7 RTR. Nuf said. "Bleed anyone" is not supported by the rulebook (the Jyhad, the corrected Jyhad, and the VTES rulebooks do not allow for cross- table bleed). The errata that gave the (D) symbol the power to freely direct a bleed at any player has been removed. But, of course, you can still bleed anyone (except yourself) if card text allows it (superior Cat Burglary, Kindred Spirits). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

badger wrote in message <35C64A53...@buffnet.net>... >Direct bleeding anyone at any time is the great equalizer. If you don't >like what someone's doing (eg RtoI), then go and kill him. I can no >longer do this with 7/7 RTR. Nuf said. Build a combat deck or a vote deck, and deal with him like a man. Bleed decks are already the most effecient way of ousting your prey - why should they get the additional bonus "I get to kill my predator if he annoys me?" -Mark Langsdorf Jyhad Archivist http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/

I don't even know why I'm bothering to post. It seems like any message that is anti-(6/23 & 7/7)-rulings is just brushed off. > > Direct bleeding anyone at any time is the great equalizer. If you don't > > like what someone's doing (eg RtoI), then go and kill him. I can no > > longer do this with 7/7 RTR. Nuf said. No, sorry. It's _not_ "Nuf said". > You can "directly" vote him to death (especially when others think the >same way you do). > Vote & Rush & Combat decks become more IMPORTANT with 7/7 rulings. Ok. And this is good how? I thought that one of biggest assets this game had was "balance". How is it balanced that any archetype is "more important" than another? _Why_ should any deck archetype be any more important than another? It shouldn't, but with the new rulings, they clearly are. Both Political and Bleed decks are now significantly weaker. However, I'm only going to discuss the Bleed deck here. Situation: You are playing a Bleed deck. Your predator is playing a Political deck and your prey is playing a Combat deck. A few turns into the game, your pred starts turning up the heat and calls KRC after KRC after KRC. Situation: Same as above, except that your predator is now a Combat deck and your prey is a Political deck. A few turns into the game, your pred starts attacking and torporizing your vamps. Pre 7/7 - To defend yourself, you could back bleed your predator to either inspire them to turn down the heat or oust them outright, thus giving yourself a little bit of breathing room. Post 7/7 - To defend yourself, you have to start including cards that are anti-vote and anti-combat. Not in and of itself a bad thing. Most Bleed decks already include cards like Obedience, Majesty and Delaying Tactics. However, before, the number of slots those took up in an average bleed deck was kinda low because they could also be coupled with the back bleeding strategy. Since the number was low, it didn't interfere much with the consistancy of the deck. Now, though, in order to mount any kind of defense against a Combat or Political deck, the number of those cards in your deck must increase significantly and as such, significantly water down the deck. When you also include defenses for bleed decks, such as Deflection, etc., the deck become almost unworkable. Basically, it comes down to either: Have a consistant deck, sacrificing any measurable defense against all 3 archetypes OR Have a measurable defense, sacrificing consistancy. A Combat deck can affect any methuselah at the table. If it's predator is breathing down their neck too hard, it can torpor one or more of the predator's vampires thus slowing the predator down. A Political deck can affect any methuselah at the table. It can vote to oust it's predator if it's predator is becoming too great a threat. Why is it that a Bleed deck should have the major disadvantage of never being able to directly affect a threatening predator? Well, I guess I shouldn't say "Never". There are those cards: 'Night Moves', 'Cat Burglary' and 'Kindred Spirits'. I almost forgot about those. Why? Because they are forgettable. Both 'Night Moves' and 'Cat Burglary' limit the bleed to 1 maximum, period, ever. A 1 bleed is going to affect your predator very little if at all. In the case of 'Kindred Spirits',why should I be limited to 1 clan if I want the ability to defend against a powerful predator. That seems rather limiting to me and I thought that another thing that people liked about the game was that it had near *unlimited* possibilities. Now, I can already hear the responses to this post: "LSJ is god and LSJ knows all and what LSJ says is law" or "Well, that's what it says in the rulebook and the rulebook is right". I've nothing to say to the former since sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalalalalalalala" serves no purpose or good. However, to the latter, I have this to say: If the designers of the game were infallable with all the aspects of the game, from the rulebook to the cards, then why errata any of the cards? Why change any of the rules? Since many of the cards/rules have been errata'd/changed (going so far as to outright change the card text), it is obvious that you don't think the desingers were infallable. Since the designers were apparently wrong about many of the cards/rules, couldn't they have been wrong about the (D) bleed issue as well? Or even the 1 PA/action? While I deplore many of the recent card changes, if both of these rulings were to be reversed, I'd be happy. But then, it's not like anything I say matters... Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [ quoted text not captured ]

cbo...@apdi.net wrote in message <6q77gc$h89$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >I don't even know why I'm bothering to post. It seems like any message >that is anti-(6/23 & 7/7)-rulings is just brushed off. <sarcasm> Yeah, I've noticed the great absence of responses to posts that are anti 6/23 & 7/7. The entire newsgroup seems to be filled with people posting against the 6/23 & 7/7 rulings and a couple of being going "What a twit." You never see any point by point, line by line responses to the arguments raised in the anti 7/7 posts. </sarcasm> Though ocassionally you do see some mild flames from some bad-tempered pro 7/7 people. =) >> > Direct bleeding anyone at any time is the great equalizer. If you don't >> > like what someone's doing (eg RtoI), then go and kill him. I can no >> > longer do this with 7/7 RTR. Nuf said. > >No, sorry. It's _not_ "Nuf said". Hey, he's arguing for your side. >> You can "directly" vote him to death (especially when others think the >>same way you do). Vote & Rush & Combat decks become more IMPORTANT >>with 7/7 rulings. > >Ok. And this is good how? I thought that one of biggest assets this game had >was "balance". How is it balanced that any archetype is "more important" >than another? _Why_ should any deck archetype be any more important than >another? It shouldn't, but with the new rulings, they clearly are. Both >Political and Bleed decks are now significantly weaker. However, I'm only >going to discuss the Bleed deck here. Well, bleed decks are inherently a stronger archetype. If a bleed deck succeeds in an action, its prey is closer to be ousted. In general, no one on the table other than its prey can interfere with that action. Contrast that with a vote deck. If a vote deck succeeds in an action, its prey might be closer to being ousted. Other people on the table can interfere with that action pretty trivially. Contrast that with a combat deck. If a combat deck succeeds in an action, its prey might be out a vampire. She still has as much pool as she did previously. Even if a combat deck torporizes all its prey's vampires, it still has to bleed out the pool without being bled out itself. And I thought you said that the Immortal Grapple rulings made combat decks weaker, too? If everyone got weakened, what's the problem? >Pre 7/7 - >To defend yourself, you could back bleed your predator to either inspire >them to turn down the heat or oust them outright, thus giving yourself a >little bit of breathing room. Yeah, that's always a thrill for a combat deck. You've walloped on your predator enough that you can take his maximum bleed for next turn. You've put enough of your prey's vampires in torpor that he won't block or deflect you any more and he's letting you bleed him. Sure, you're tapped out, but its not like you're gonna get bled out anyway. Oh, whoops, your prey gets to use his Govern the Unaligned not just to oust his prey, but anyone else on the table he doesn't like. Too bad for you. I've never seen anyone "back off" after their prey went upstream, except in the sense of "goes terminally defensive for the turn it takes the predator to kill them." >Post 7/7 - >To defend yourself, you have to start including cards that are anti-vote >and anti-combat. Not in and of itself a bad thing. Most Bleed decks Man, it must be horrible to be building a bleed deck and have to include defenses. How do you cope? Everyone has these problems. Balancing offense and defense is what makes Jyhad deck building interesting. >A Combat deck can affect any methuselah at the table. If it's predator >is breathing down their neck too hard, it can torpor one or more of the >predator's vampires thus slowing the predator down. A Political deck >can affect any methuselah at the table. It can vote to oust it's predator >if it's predator is becoming too great a threat. Why is it that a Bleed >deck should have the major disadvantage of never being able to directly >affect a threatening predator? Why should the bleed deck get to eliminate its prey's pool directly without interference from the table? [Snip a bunch of straw men] >While I deplore many of the recent card changes, if both of these rulings >were to be reversed, I'd be happy. But then, it's not like anything I say >matters... Well, since you said you were out of here a couple of weeks ago, I suppose what you say doesn't even matter to yourself. [ quoted text not captured ]

cbo...@apdi.net wrote: > > I don't even know why I'm bothering to post. It seems like any message > that is anti-(6/23 & 7/7)-rulings is just brushed off. Posts without coherent points are brushed off. It just seems that lately many of the anti-new-rulings posts have been not-so-coherent. > Situation: > You are playing a Bleed deck. Your predator is playing a Political deck and > your prey is playing a Combat deck. A few turns into the game, your pred > starts turning up the heat and calls KRC after KRC after KRC. > > Situation: Same as above, except that your predator is now a Combat deck and > your prey is a Political deck. A few turns into the game, your pred starts > attacking and torporizing your vamps. > > Pre 7/7 - > To defend yourself, you could back bleed your predator to either inspire > them to turn down the heat or oust them outright, thus giving yourself a > little bit of breathing room. This isn't really defending yourself. It's just plain unproductive. It's your predator's job to kill you. If you start bleeding her, it will be her job to kill you _faster_ to stay alive. If you oust your predator, you get no victory point, and you get a brand new predator, with 6 more pool, who will _also_ want to kill you. I have never seen random cross-table bleedings help anyone win a game. > Post 7/7 - > To defend yourself, you have to start including cards that are anti-vote > and anti-combat. Gasp! God forbid that you put defenses in your deck like everyone else! A deck without combat defense will die against a combat deck. A deck without vote defense will die against a vote deck. In a Rush deck, the bleed defense is "kill the bleeders". This works only in a very broad sense. You want to weaken your predator enough so that they don't kill you very fast, and you don't want to weaken them so much that they're ousted by _their_ predator. > Basically, it comes down to either: Have a consistant deck, sacrificing > any measurable defense against all 3 archetypes OR Have a measurable > defense, sacrificing consistancy. You're saying you want all of your decks to be One-Trick Ponies. You don't want to have to put in defenses because they make your deck less effective. But without _any_ defenses, your deck is _much_ less effective, since it can be easily thwarted. > A Combat deck can affect any methuselah at the table. If it's predator > is breathing down their neck too hard, it can torpor one or more of the > predator's vampires thus slowing the predator down. This is because that's what a combat deck does. It really doesn't work as effectively as you seem to think. It takes a great deal of finesse. You're talking about using a sledgehammer (big cross-table bleeds) to take care of your deck's inherent weaknesses. > A Political deck > can affect any methuselah at the table. It can vote to oust it's predator > if it's predator is becoming too great a threat. Why is it that a Bleed > deck should have the major disadvantage of never being able to directly > affect a threatening predator? A deck should never oust its predator. A deck which consistently has to bleed its predator to defend itself is flawed. > Now, I can already hear the responses to this post: > "LSJ is god and LSJ knows all and what LSJ says is law" > > or > > "Well, that's what it says in the rulebook and the rulebook is right". Or, my response: cross-table bleeding was never that effective anyway, and only served to perpetuate the "gang up on the guy who's winning" mentality which is indicative of many multiplayer games, but not this one. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

In article <6q77gc$h89$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cbo...@apdi.net writes >> Vote & Rush & Combat decks become more IMPORTANT with 7/7 rulings. > >Ok. And this is good how? I thought that one of biggest assets this game had >was "balance". How is it balanced that any archetype is "more important" >than another? He didn't say that he thought that Vote and Rush become more important than bleed decks. He said that they become more important than they were before. eg Pre 7/7: Combat deck = weak Post 7/7: Combat deck = not so weak -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

So what's wrong with bleeding your predator or that smiling politician across the table? Direct bleeding ENHANCES the game because it gives ANOTHER defensive option, not THE defensive option. Boy, you zealots have to be told everything. Badger James Hamblin wrote: > > cbo...@apdi.net wrote: > > > > I don't even know why I'm bothering to post. It seems like any message > > that is anti-(6/23 & 7/7)-rulings is just brushed off. > > Posts without coherent points are brushed off. It just seems that > lately many of the anti-new-rulings posts have been not-so-coherent. > > > Situation: > > You are playing a Bleed deck. Your predator is playing a Political deck and > > your prey is playing a Combat deck. A few turns into the game, your pred > > starts turning up the heat and calls KRC after KRC after KRC. > > > > Situation: Same as above, except that your predator is now a Combat deck and > > your prey is a Political deck. A few turns into the game, your pred starts > > attacking and torporizing your vamps. > > > > Pre 7/7 - > > To defend yourself, you could back bleed your predator to either inspire > > them to turn down the heat or oust them outright, thus giving yourself a > > little bit of breathing room. > > This isn't really defending yourself. It's just plain unproductive. > It's your predator's job to kill you. If you start bleeding her, it > will be her job to kill you _faster_ to stay alive. If you oust your > predator, you get no victory point, and you get a brand new predator, > with 6 more pool, who will _also_ want to kill you. I have never seen > random cross-table bleedings help anyone win a game. > > > Post 7/7 - > > To defend yourself, you have to start including cards that are anti-vote > > and anti-combat. > > Gasp! God forbid that you put defenses in your deck like everyone > else! A deck without combat defense will die against a combat deck. A > deck without vote defense will die against a vote deck. > > In a Rush deck, the bleed defense is "kill the bleeders". This works > only in a very broad sense. You want to weaken your predator enough so > that they don't kill you very fast, and you don't want to weaken them so > much that they're ousted by _their_ predator. > > > Basically, it comes down to either: Have a consistant deck, sacrificing > > any measurable defense against all 3 archetypes OR Have a measurable > > defense, sacrificing consistancy. > > You're saying you want all of your decks to be One-Trick Ponies. You > don't want to have to put in defenses because they make your deck less > effective. But without _any_ defenses, your deck is _much_ less > effective, since it can be easily thwarted. > > > A Combat deck can affect any methuselah at the table. If it's predator > > is breathing down their neck too hard, it can torpor one or more of the > > predator's vampires thus slowing the predator down. > > This is because that's what a combat deck does. It really doesn't work > as effectively as you seem to think. It takes a great deal of finesse. > You're talking about using a sledgehammer (big cross-table bleeds) to > take care of your deck's inherent weaknesses. > > > A Political deck > > can affect any methuselah at the table. It can vote to oust it's predator > > if it's predator is becoming too great a threat. Why is it that a Bleed > > deck should have the major disadvantage of never being able to directly > > affect a threatening predator? > > A deck should never oust its predator. A deck which consistently has to > bleed its predator to defend itself is flawed. > > > Now, I can already hear the responses to this post: > > "LSJ is god and LSJ knows all and what LSJ says is law" > > > > or > > > > "Well, that's what it says in the rulebook and the rulebook is right". > [ quoted text not captured ]

badger wrote: > > So what's wrong with bleeding your predator or that smiling politician > across the table? Because such tactics cause the game to degenerate into a "gang up on the weak guy" free-for-all. Because bleeds are easier to make successful than votes or combats. Because such ability was not present in the original game, and there was no reason to introduce it. > Direct bleeding ENHANCES the game because it gives > ANOTHER defensive option, not THE defensive option. Cross-table bleeding is not really a defense. Why do people think that bleeding your predator is going to make him less aggressive? > Boy, you zealots have to be told everything. Uh huh. Whatever. [ quoted text not captured ]

badger wrote: > > So what's wrong with bleeding your predator or that smiling politician > across the table? Direct bleeding ENHANCES the game because it gives > ANOTHER defensive option, not THE defensive option. > > Boy, you zealots have to be told everything. > > Badger Whether or not there is anything "wrong" with it isn't the point. It just isn't supported by the rules. For what reason should we make such a drastic change to the design of the game? Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

James Hamblin wrote: > This isn't really defending yourself. It's just plain unproductive. > It's your predator's job to kill you. If you start bleeding her, it > will be her job to kill you _faster_ to stay alive. If you oust your > predator, you get no victory point, and you get a brand new predator, > with 6 more pool, who will _also_ want to kill you. I have never seen > random cross-table bleedings help anyone win a game. Random Cross bleeding doesn't, but well timed bleeds on a real threat do. Let me give you an example : I have an Assamite/Toreador Bruise Bleed deck that works quite nicely. It doesn't have strong intercept or much vote defense, but I was able to use my Social charms/Legal Manipulations to help take out a predator I couldn't handle with the cards in my hand. The next predator usually could be blocked and/or dealt with so I refocused on my prey. With the new rulings I will likely have to add Surprise Influence and a little rush to my deck, which in the long run will dilute my deck strategy....but necessary to become competitive with the new 7/7 rulings. I'm not necessarily whining about not having direct bleeds, but I'd rather have it back than dilute my deck. I have bled my predator out several times and in all cases; I continued to play to gain a victory point instead of dying at the hands of the previous predator. -- Ethan Burrow Prince of Austin

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Ethan Burrow wrote: > I have an Assamite/Toreador Bruise Bleed deck that works quite nicely. > It doesn't have strong intercept or much vote defense, but I was able to > use my Social charms/Legal Manipulations to help take out a predator I > couldn't handle with the cards in my hand. The next predator usually > could be blocked and/or dealt with so I refocused on my prey. Let's see. You are saying that your deck design has difficulty dealing with a single determined predator, and you would prefer not to have to do that. I would say it is a good thing for you that your own prey is not a determined back-bleeder, because then your deck would have to deal with *two* predators, when you cannot even handle one. > With the new rulings I will likely have to add Surprise Influence and a > little rush to my deck, which in the long run will dilute my deck > strategy....but necessary to become competitive with the new 7/7 > rulings. It will also give your predator a snowball's chance in hell to win the game. That's fair, I think. It will also give your Assamite/Toreador B&B deck a chance to win should you end up behind a bleed deck rather than in front of one. > I'm not necessarily whining about not having direct bleeds, but I'd > rather have it back than dilute my deck. I have bled my predator out > several times and in all cases; In all cases? This sounds like too much of a good think for you and too much of a bad thing for him. His only crime was that he is a better player than your grand-predator. Had he been a bad player, you would have left him alone, but he still would have lost. It was the same with my own back-bleeding dramatic upheaval deck. Whether the strategy worked or not, my predator was *always* ousted first. His fate was sealed the moment seating was picked. Do you think that's right? > I continued to play to gain a victory > point instead of dying at the hands of the previous predator. That's nice. But it's an awful good thing for you that the guy you eventually ousted did not start back-bleeding you to prevent this from happening. From what you have told me, it sounds as though your deck has no means of dealing with such a strategy. You have trouble dealing with ONE predator, much less two. But I don't think *anyone* can deal with two determined bleeders, and I don't think they should have to. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

Rather than fling stones I'll try to explain my point a bit better. Lupus Australis wrote: > On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Ethan Burrow wrote: > > > I have an Assamite/Toreador Bruise Bleed deck that works quite nicely. > > It doesn't have strong intercept or much vote defense, but I was able to > > use my Social charms/Legal Manipulations to help take out a predator I > > couldn't handle with the cards in my hand. The next predator usually > > could be blocked and/or dealt with so I refocused on my prey. > > Let's see. You are saying that your deck design has difficulty dealing > with a single determined predator, and you would prefer not to have to do > that. I would say it is a good thing for you that your own prey is not a > determined back-bleeder, because then your deck would have to deal with > *two* predators, when you cannot even handle one. My deck has problems dealing with a determined Stealth/Bleeder and a KRC Conserv/Agitation vote deck. I admit this. The skills I use are presence, quietus and celerity. No bleed bounce, no permanent votes really to speak of except for a primogen or two. I conciously decided not to add disrarming presence or attempt to play with telepathic misdirection because I'd rather focus on what my deck does. Fight and Bleed. This deck will not win tournaments, but it is fun to play. > > With the new rulings I will likely have to add Surprise Influence and a > > little rush to my deck, which in the long run will dilute my deck > > strategy....but necessary to become competitive with the new 7/7 > > rulings. > > It will also give your predator a snowball's chance in hell to win the > game. That's fair, I think. It will also give your Assamite/Toreador B&B > deck a chance to win should you end up behind a bleed deck rather than in > front of one. As long as the bleeder was blockable, I could generally send the minion to torpor. Why bother with an extra rush card, unless of course they were playing stealth bleed. > > I'm not necessarily whining about not having direct bleeds, but I'd > > rather have it back than dilute my deck. I have bled my predator out > > several times and in all cases; > > In all cases? This sounds like too much of a good think for you and too > much of a bad thing for him. His only crime was that he is a better > player than your grand-predator. Had he been a bad player, you would have > left him alone, but he still would have lost. That's one of the good arguments for removing (D) in my opinion, but I wanted to at least give an example of why directed bleed is beneficial to the Methuselah even though you grant 6 Pool to your new predator. > It was the same with my own back-bleeding dramatic upheaval deck. Whether > the strategy worked or not, my predator was *always* ousted first. His > fate was sealed the moment seating was picked. Do you think that's right? That's the case for pretty much every game we play once we know which decks are on the table. Playing a directed bleedable deck makes no difference. The predator of a good Animalism untap combat deck is pretty much doomed as well. And until there's errata to make them unique, the prey of a War Ghoul deck is almost as doomed. > > I continued to play to gain a victory > > point instead of dying at the hands of the previous predator. > > That's nice. But it's an awful good thing for you that the guy you > eventually ousted did not start back-bleeding you to prevent this from > happening. From what you have told me, it sounds as though your deck has > no means of dealing with such a strategy. You have trouble dealing with > ONE predator, much less two. Again, if the Predator uses heavy stealth and/or heavy voting, then yes I have a problem dealing with them. Otherwise I usually block and mess up their minion. > But I don't think *anyone* can deal with two determined bleeders, and I > don't think they should have to. I never bled back more than once, it was usually to weaken my predator enough to make him play defense rather than offense. I wasn't interested so much in ousting my predator so much as making him consider leaving some blockers up instead of coming my way. It was my intent to try and give an example of where directed bleed was not abused but used as a meta-game tactic. If I failed in that attempt, then please kindly flame me some more <g> [ quoted text not captured ]

<Big Snip - Stuff from Mark & Sorrow> > Well, since you said you were out of here a couple of weeks ago, >I suppose what you say doesn't even matter to yourself. That's a pretty snide remark. Personally, I'm glad Sorrow has decided to continue participating in the Newsgroup. While you may not agree with his points of arguement, at least he's maintained a civil tone throughout (which is more than I can say for many, including myself). Debate his points, but keep the cheap shots in your personal messages. Bernie Bresnahan Bern...@yahoo.com [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote in message <35C74112...@math.wisc.edu>... >cbo...@apdi.net wrote: >> >> I don't even know why I'm bothering to post. It seems like any message >> that is anti-(6/23 & 7/7)-rulings is just brushed off. > >Posts without coherent points are brushed off. It just seems that >lately many of the anti-new-rulings posts have been not-so-coherent. The brush-off seems to include any message which is anti-7/7. >> Situation: >> You are playing a Bleed deck. Your predator is playing a Political deck and >> your prey is playing a Combat deck. A few turns into the game, your pred >> starts turning up the heat and calls KRC after KRC after KRC. >> >> Situation: Same as above, except that your predator is now a Combat deck and >> your prey is a Political deck. A few turns into the game, your pred starts >> attacking and torporizing your vamps. >> >> Pre 7/7 - >> To defend yourself, you could back bleed your predator to either inspire >> them to turn down the heat or oust them outright, thus giving yourself a >> little bit of breathing room. > >This isn't really defending yourself. It's just plain unproductive. >It's your predator's job to kill you. If you start bleeding her, it >will be her job to kill you _faster_ to stay alive. If you oust your >predator, you get no victory point, and you get a brand new predator, >with 6 more pool, who will _also_ want to kill you. I have never seen >random cross-table bleedings help anyone win a game. That's why you don't Cross-Table bleed randomly. Most stealth/ bleed decks will not include much voting power. With the threat of (D) bleeds you can Politic a Political deck into reducing the level of agression. Cross-Table (D) bleeds typically will not do much to gather VP's for yourself, but is a viable defense in balancing out the play environment. Especially in the case of the ineffectual predators' predator. >> Post 7/7 - >> To defend yourself, you have to start including cards that are anti-vote >> and anti-combat. > >Gasp! God forbid that you put defenses in your deck like everyone >else! A deck without combat defense will die against a combat deck. A >deck without vote defense will die against a vote deck. Again, having the ability to cross table (D) bleed is a valid defence. ie.. If you don't target me with that vote, I won't bleed you for a lot.. >In a Rush deck, the bleed defense is "kill the bleeders". This works >only in a very broad sense. You want to weaken your predator enough so >that they don't kill you very fast, and you don't want to weaken them so >much that they're ousted by _their_ predator. > >> Basically, it comes down to either: Have a consistant deck, sacrificing >> any measurable defense against all 3 archetypes OR Have a measurable >> defense, sacrificing consistancy. > >You're saying you want all of your decks to be One-Trick Ponies. You >don't want to have to put in defenses because they make your deck less >effective. But without _any_ defenses, your deck is _much_ less >effective, since it can be easily thwarted. That's a moot point. All decks have trade-offs, or the game would lack the variety that we all love. I have yet to see one deck that is consistently 90%+ effective. You could conceive that a S&B Decks biggest defence is in the speed it can oust it's prey. >> A Combat deck can affect any methuselah at the table. If it's predator >> is breathing down their neck too hard, it can torpor one or more of the >> predator's vampires thus slowing the predator down. > >This is because that's what a combat deck does. It really doesn't work >as effectively as you seem to think. It takes a great deal of finesse. >You're talking about using a sledgehammer (big cross-table bleeds) to >take care of your deck's inherent weaknesses. > >> A Political deck >> can affect any methuselah at the table. It can vote to oust it's predator >> if it's predator is becoming too great a threat. Why is it that a Bleed >> deck should have the major disadvantage of never being able to directly >> affect a threatening predator? And a Combat deck that puts all his predator's vamps in torpor doesn't in effect oust it's predator? Granted, it's harder for the combat deck to typically pull this off. But a S&B deck that's focusing on someone else besides their prey won't gain any victory points. Last I looked, that's how you determine who's ahead in the game. >A deck should never oust its predator. A deck which consistently has to >bleed its predator to defend itself is flawed. > >> Now, I can already hear the responses to this post: >> "LSJ is god and LSJ knows all and what LSJ says is law" I believe that he made some choices which have merit, but not everything from 7/7 is necessarily for the better, >> or >> >> "Well, that's what it says in the rulebook and the rulebook is right". > >Or, my response: cross-table bleeding was never that effective anyway, >and only served to perpetuate the "gang up on the guy who's winning" >mentality which is indicative of many multiplayer games, but not this >one. A solid deck that takes no prisoners will always become a target of the many. Why should combat decks have all the fun? Bernie Bresnahan Bern...@yahoo.com >James Hamblin >ham...@math.wisc.edu

Robert Goudie wrote in message <35C7972D...@earthlink.net>... >badger wrote: >> >> So what's wrong with bleeding your predator or that smiling politician >> across the table? Direct bleeding ENHANCES the game because it gives >> ANOTHER defensive option, not THE defensive option. >> >> Badger > >Whether or not there is anything "wrong" with it isn't the point. It >just isn't supported by the rules. For what reason should we make such >a drastic change to the design of the game? Since when is the concept of (D) actions allowing cross-table activity considered a drastic change Bob? I've heard folks say that Cat Burglary is now fixed under the new (D) action rulings eliminating errata. Having looked at my V:TES printed C.B. it seems to me that it was fixed in the re-printing. So what exactly does this fix? It seems to me that changing the nature of (D) will simply create more confusion/chaos in an already complex play environ. The current nature of V:TES victory point system in and of itself should balance out Directed Actions. I get no victory points for ousting anyone else except my prey. Bernie Bresnahan Bern...@yahoo.com [ quoted text not captured ]

Bernie Bresnahan wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote in message <35C74112...@math.wisc.edu>... > >cbo...@apdi.net wrote: > >> > >> I don't even know why I'm bothering to post. It seems like any message > >> that is anti-(6/23 & 7/7)-rulings is just brushed off. > > > >Posts without coherent points are brushed off. It just seems that > >lately many of the anti-new-rulings posts have been not-so-coherent. > > The brush-off seems to include any message which is anti-7/7. What did I say that you didn't understand? Posts without coherent points are brushed off. Posts with coherent points are debated. If you view someone refuting your arguments as being "brushed off", then I think you're being offended too easily. > >This isn't really defending yourself. It's just plain unproductive. > >It's your predator's job to kill you. If you start bleeding her, it > >will be her job to kill you _faster_ to stay alive. If you oust your > >predator, you get no victory point, and you get a brand new predator, > >with 6 more pool, who will _also_ want to kill you. I have never seen > >random cross-table bleedings help anyone win a game. > > That's why you don't Cross-Table bleed randomly. I use the word "random" in a very broad sense. To me, any ct-bleed is "random". > Most stealth/ > bleed decks will not include much voting power. With the threat > of (D) bleeds you can Politic a Political deck into reducing the > level of agression. No, you can't. If you start bleeding me from across the table, I will have no choice but to attack you harder just to stay alive. Even if you are across the table, it's better to give your predator a victory point than allow you to oust me. > >Gasp! God forbid that you put defenses in your deck like everyone > >else! A deck without combat defense will die against a combat deck. A > >deck without vote defense will die against a vote deck. > > Again, having the ability to cross table (D) bleed is a valid defence. No, it's not. > ie.. If you don't target me with that vote, I won't bleed you for a lot.. OK, if you're not my prey, why would I be targetting you with a lot of damage from that vote anyway? > And a Combat deck that puts all his predator's vamps in torpor doesn't > in effect oust it's predator? This would be why a combat deck doesn't put all of it's predator's vampires in torpor. Simple, huh? > Granted, it's harder for the combat deck to typically pull this off. But a > S&B deck that's focusing on someone else besides their prey won't gain any > victory points. Last I looked, that's how you determine who's ahead in the > game. Well, I have been told repeatedly that the person who is ahead is the one with lots of pool and/or minions, and that person must be ganged up on and stopped at all costs. > >Or, my response: cross-table bleeding was never that effective anyway, > >and only served to perpetuate the "gang up on the guy who's winning" > >mentality which is indicative of many multiplayer games, but not this > >one. > > A solid deck that takes no prisoners will always become a target of the > many. Why should combat decks have all the fun? Combat decks do not directly remove a primary resource (pool) from the player being attacked. It may be "fun" to destroy a vampire from across the table, but, just like ct-bleeds, it's rarely productive. [ quoted text not captured ]

Salutations All, About points being brushed off: It's probably that people on both sides of the argument have stopped debating, and just started stating their points. Example: Cross-table bleed is a defence. Not it isn't. Yes it is <etc> I think people need to take a little distance - this isn't a _personal_ argument. > James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > Bernie Bresnahan wrote: > > >This isn't really defending yourself. It's just plain unproductive. > > >It's your predator's job to kill you. If you start bleeding her, it > > >will be her job to kill you _faster_ to stay alive. If you oust your > > >predator, you get no victory point, and you get a brand new predator, > > >with 6 more pool, who will _also_ want to kill you. I have never seen > > >random cross-table bleedings help anyone win a game. If I may intercede here, I think that there is a little miscommunication: Crosstable bleed _is_ a defence of /sorts/. Not in the traditional sense, that by defence means improving your own ability to repel an attack, but by reducing your opponents ability to attack. Clarification: by bleeding another player other than your prey, you reduce their primary resource (pool) and they have (should) devote more of their secondary resources (vampires) to defend their primary resource (pool). Therefore a crosstable bleed is, after a fashion, a defensive action as it depletes the targetted methuselah's offensive resources because they need a higher proportion of defensive resources. Naturally, this statement falls apart when you have a player who has a purely offensive deck - or a player who considers that the _only_ defense is a good offense. > > That's why you don't Cross-Table bleed randomly. > > I use the word "random" in a very broad sense. To me, any ct-bleed is > "random". Then you are misusing the word. Random does mean "without cause or reason" as in a "random victim". Perhaps you mean something else. ("extraneous"? as in bleeds extraneous to the primary purpose?) At this point, I should probably note that I am actually _not_ in favour of ct-bleeds, but I do understand the argument. I'll get to my reasons for not supporting ct-bleeding presently. > > > Most stealth/ > > bleed decks will not include much voting power. With the threat > > of (D) bleeds you can Politic a Political deck into reducing the > > level of agression. > > No, you can't. If you start bleeding me from across the table, I will > have no choice but to attack you harder just to stay alive. Even if you > are across the table, it's better to give your predator a victory point > than allow you to oust me. This is not necessarily true - it is a rare event to see a jyhad game degenerate into a ct melee (unless there are out of game reasons)(at least locally). The usual result of an exchange like this is that the opponents come to some sort of understanding - at least temporarily, while they build up for the next attack.. Given a playgroup (or even a reasonably communicative tournament), armstice can be reached. Reagardless of this, a true ct bleed (ie, not your predator) will result in retaliation of some description, and usually will not serve the acting methuselah well - unless it was a decisive blow (ie near oust or oust), in which case it does not serve the purpose of a warning, and only results in the strengthening of another methuselah (most likely prey). > > > >Gasp! God forbid that you put defenses in your deck like everyone > > >else! A deck without combat defense will die against a combat deck. A > > >deck without vote defense will die against a vote deck. This is true... to a degree. A deck with a sufficiently strong offense can make it a defense of sorts - through intimidation or other means. > > ie.. If you don't target me with that vote, I won't bleed you for a lot.. > > OK, if you're not my prey, why would I be targetting you with a lot of > damage from that vote anyway? Because you might be my grand prey, and I'm about to dispose of my current prey. Example: one of the standard KRC distributions : 3 to prey, 1 to grand prey. > > Granted, it's harder for the combat deck to typically pull this off. But a > > S&B deck that's focusing on someone else besides their prey won't gain any > > victory points. Last I looked, that's how you determine who's ahead in the > > game. > > Well, I have been told repeatedly that the person who is ahead is the > one with lots of pool and/or minions, and that person must be ganged up > on and stopped at all costs. Are you supporting this position or not? It seems to be a strange one... My take on the whole issue: There are three basic types of strategy (I'm not going to go into hybrids or implementation): Bleed, Combat and Vote. These strategies pursue the primary goal (removal of primary resource (pool)) through different means. Bleed directly targets the primary resource, as _can_ vote. The difference between these two strategies is the ability of other decks to interfere (other vote decks can directly interfere with voting, as compared to (D) bleed, which only the target (prey) may prevent). Combat is alone in its ability to _directly_ target secondary resources (vampires + minions). So while combat can target _only_ secondary resources, it has the trade off of being able to target _any_ methuselahs secondary resources. Bleed (and vote) which can directly target primary resources (pool) can only affect it's prey. To me, this is the balance - versatility versus power. Paradoxically, this means that combat decks may be the strongest defensively :) The Autarch. [ quoted text not captured ]

the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > If I may intercede here, I think that there is a little miscommunication: > Crosstable bleed _is_ a defence of /sorts/. Not in the traditional sense, > that by defence means improving your own ability to repel an attack, but by > reducing your opponents ability to attack. Having less pool doesn't affect their minions' ability to attack. That's why cross-table attacking sometimes helps and cross-table bleeding rarely does. But saying "he's voting me out of existence" and "my defense for that is to bleed him" makes zero sense to me. The votes will pass just as well no matter what kind of pool he's got. > Therefore a crosstable bleed is, after a fashion, a defensive action as it > depletes the targetted methuselah's offensive resources because they need a > higher proportion of defensive resources. Except that, as has been stated and to my knowledge not refuted, a cross-table bleed cannot be defended against in the standard proactive manners. So ct-bleeding someone with that kind of bleed defense isn't going to do anything more than piss them off. > Naturally, this statement falls apart when you have a player who has a > purely offensive deck - or a player who considers that the _only_ defense > is a good offense. Let me clarify; there's a difference between "offense as defense" and a "proactive defense". A proactive defense seeks to kill/incapacitate those minions that might act against you before they can do so. This type of defense is used primarily by combat decks since they (a) have to devote so much deck space to combat cards and (b) usually don't have the right disciplines to have the more standard reactive defenses (bounce, reduction). So in a rush deck, you are good at one and only one thing: beating people up. While in theory this is a sufficient tactic to defend against bleed and vote, in practice this is really hard to pull off. > > I use the word "random" in a very broad sense. To me, any ct-bleed is > > "random". > > Then you are misusing the word. Random does mean "without cause or reason" > as in a "random victim". Perhaps you mean something else. ("extraneous"? as > in bleeds extraneous to the primary purpose?) "Without cause or reason" seems appropriate to me. It seems to have been agreed that ct-bleeds really don't help the person doing it. > > > >Gasp! God forbid that you put defenses in your deck like everyone > > > >else! A deck without combat defense will die against a combat deck. A > > > >deck without vote defense will die against a vote deck. > > This is true... to a degree. A deck with a sufficiently strong offense can > make it a defense of sorts - through intimidation or other means. Intimidation or "trash talking" is not a strategy. A rush deck defends against bleed decks by rushing the bleeders, not by _threatening_ to rush the bleeders. > > OK, if you're not my prey, why would I be targetting you with a lot of > > damage from that vote anyway? > > Because you might be my grand prey, and I'm about to dispose of my current > prey. Example: one of the standard KRC distributions : 3 to prey, 1 to grand > prey. One is not a lot of damage. > > Well, I have been told repeatedly that the person who is ahead is the > > one with lots of pool and/or minions, and that person must be ganged up > > on and stopped at all costs. > > Are you supporting this position or not? It seems to be a strange one... Hmm... sarcasm. No, I don't agree with this. Reasonable people who are trying to win don't go jumping all over one deck on the table. Very often there is collusion between a deck's predator and prey, but beyond that, an "entire table gang-up" is rare and almost always irrational. I had been told a couple of months ago that in one person's group when an Ivory Bow came into play the entire table went into a mad frenzy to destroy it. I just don't understand that kind of paranoia. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35CE3CDB...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes >I had been told a couple of months ago that in one person's group when >an Ivory Bow came into play the entire table went into a mad frenzy to >destroy it. I just don't understand that kind of paranoia. Similar thing noted in JOL Playtest8 - a huge mad frenzy of paranoia as the Bloodhunt vote was debated when the diablerie involved an Ivory Bow. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

> James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > >the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > If I may intercede here, I think that there is a little miscommunication: > > Crosstable bleed _is_ a defence of /sorts/. Not in the traditional sense, > > that by defence means improving your own ability to repel an attack, but by > > reducing your opponents ability to attack. > > Having less pool doesn't affect their minions' ability to attack. > That's why cross-table attacking sometimes helps and cross-table > bleeding rarely does. Absolutely true. Having less pool does not affect the _minions_ ability to attack. It decreases the _methuselahs_ desire to attack, as attacking requires tapping, and a tapped minion isn't as effective a blocker (barring untap decks or a hand of WWEF). This is the point I am trying to make. Let me qualify however that I do _not_ support ct-bleeds. > > But saying "he's voting me out of existence" and "my defense for that is > to bleed him" makes zero sense to me. The votes will pass just as well > no matter what kind of pool he's got. True - but again, voting requires tapping, and thus weakens your possible defense against opportunistic attacks by your predator. > > Therefore a crosstable bleed is, after a fashion, a defensive action as it > > depletes the targetted methuselah's offensive resources because they need a > > higher proportion of defensive resources. > > Except that, as has been stated and to my knowledge not refuted, a > cross-table bleed cannot be defended against in the standard proactive > manners. So ct-bleeding someone with that kind of bleed defense isn't > going to do anything more than piss them off. Untrue. What it will have achieved (if successful) is to have weakened that persons position - and, hopefully, they will have to devote more of their secondary resources to defense to compensate. Lack of defense, proactive or otherwise, won't affect the success of this tactic, since it is unexpected.Of course, it will also piss them off :) > > > Naturally, this statement falls apart when you have a player who has a > > purely offensive deck - or a player who considers that the _only_ defense > > is a good offense. > > Let me clarify; there's a difference between "offense as defense" and a > "proactive defense". A proactive defense seeks to kill/incapacitate > those minions that might act against you before they can do so. This I understand the terminology, but don't seem to be able to get my own point across. Taking the example of an aggressive S&B predator in a 3+ player game. In a proactive defense (combat deck) you attack his minions to remove his ability to harm you. In an "Offense as Defense" strategy deck (vote,S&B) you attack his pool so that he must focus more of his efforts on defense - unless he wishes to be ousted himself. > type of defense is used primarily by combat decks since they (a) have to > devote so much deck space to combat cards and (b) usually don't have the > right disciplines to have the more standard reactive defenses (bounce, > reduction). So in a rush deck, you are good at one and only one thing: > beating people up. While in theory this is a sufficient tactic to defend > against bleed and vote, in practice this is really hard to pull off. > > > > I use the word "random" in a very broad sense. To me, any ct-bleed is > > > "random". > > > > Then you are misusing the word. Random does mean "without cause or reason" > > as in a "random victim". Perhaps you mean something else. ("extraneous"? as > > in bleeds extraneous to the primary purpose?) > > "Without cause or reason" seems appropriate to me. It seems to have > been agreed that ct-bleeds really don't help the person doing it. This is the whole point - another camp doesn't hold this point of view, and their arguments are not without merit, nor can they be easily dismissed. They hold that the bleeds are chosen for a reason, and have a strategy behind them. They don't roll a die and then attack that methuselah, they attack a methuselah in order to weaken them, such that that methuselahs secondary resources (vamps and minions) must focus on defending their own primary resources (pool) rather than attacking others. Whether this philosophy holds true or not is largely dependent on the targetted player; some will react with renewed attack, other will hold off to protect their own pool. Again, it depends entirely on your own attitude. > > > > > >Gasp! God forbid that you put defenses in your deck like everyone > > > > >else! A deck without combat defense will die against a combat deck. A > > > > >deck without vote defense will die against a vote deck. > > > > This is true... to a degree. A deck with a sufficiently strong offense can > > make it a defense of sorts - through intimidation or other means. > > Intimidation or "trash talking" is not a strategy. A rush deck defends > against bleed decks by rushing the bleeders, not by _threatening_ to > rush the bleeders. You can't rush all the bleeders. You must divide your attentions between your prey and your predator, and if you subscribe to the "offense as defense" theory, other methuselahs who are beginning to develop an advantage. I suspect a particularly aggressive game ethic is beginning to develop in the tournament and playgroup environment (I can't really speak for USA, but I see consistent hints of it locally and online). In this envornment the "offense as defense" mentality is a disaster waiting to happen. However in the "Plateau" game where there is a phase of rapid strength build up, testing opponents, consolidating resources, and finally out-and-out attack at an opportune time, the ct-bleed "defense" can work, when a methuselah diverts all their attention to recovering from the unexpected loss. In the "Aggressive" game, attack starts, at the latest in turn 2, and continues till one victor stands alone amongst the fallen, often winning by the narrowest of margins. (I blame this play ethic for the current disfavour of gun (or other slow) decks. Probably the aggressive play ethic developed from the initial over success of S&B strategies) > > > > OK, if you're not my prey, why would I be targetting you with a lot of > > > damage from that vote anyway? > > > > Because you might be my grand prey, and I'm about to dispose of my current > > prey. Example: one of the standard KRC distributions : 3 to prey, 1 to grand > > prey. > > One is not a lot of damage. It is if it happens 3+ times, and you feel frustrated because not only can't you block it, your predator doesn't seem to do anything about it. > > > > Well, I have been told repeatedly that the person who is ahead is the > > > one with lots of pool and/or minions, and that person must be ganged up > > > on and stopped at all costs. > > > > Are you supporting this position or not? It seems to be a strange one... > > Hmm... sarcasm. No, I don't agree with this. Reasonable people who are > trying to win don't go jumping all over one deck on the table. Very > often there is collusion between a deck's predator and prey, but beyond > that, an "entire table gang-up" is rare and almost always irrational. Yes, but the expression on the meths face is priceless... (Et tu, James?:) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Bernie Bresnahan" <ber...@mich.com> wrote: > Since when is the concept of (D) actions allowing cross-table activity > considered a drastic change Bob? I've heard folks say that > Cat Burglary is now fixed under the new (D) action rulings eliminating > errata. Having looked at my V:TES printed C.B. it seems to me > that it was fixed in the re-printing. So what exactly does this fix? C.B. was not fixed in the reprinting (at least, not without further errata). As printed (under the pre-7/7 concept of "what makes a directed action directed?"), inferior C.B. is an undirected action (see: no (D) symbol, which used to be required for a card-bases action to be directed). > It seems to me that changing the nature of (D) will simply create more > confusion/chaos in an already complex play environ. So that the rules as they have always been printed will apply? Hardly confusing. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Then you are misusing the word. Random does mean "without cause or reason" > > as in a "random victim". Perhaps you mean something else. ("extraneous"? as > > in bleeds extraneous to the primary purpose?) > > "Without cause or reason" seems appropriate to me. It seems to have > been agreed that ct-bleeds really don't help the person doing it. I disagree, as do several others, so I don't see how you could have come to the "seems to have been agreed" clause. Unless by that you mean "all the pro-7/7 people agree". > > Because you might be my grand prey, and I'm about to dispose of my current > > prey. Example: one of the standard KRC distributions : 3 to prey, 1 to grand > > prey. > > One is not a lot of damage. Better example. Random damage from across the table. Voting Meth needs the vote to pass and the pred of the target will likely vote with it. The vote deck then subsequently plays cryptic rider so the vote deck can get his more important vote cast. Odds are this will happen again if the voting deck needs another vote to pass. > > > Well, I have been told repeatedly that the person who is ahead is the one > with lots of pool and/or minions, and that person must be ganged up > > > on and stopped at all costs. > > > > Are you supporting this position or not? It seems to be a strange one... > > Hmm... sarcasm. No, I don't agree with this. Reasonable people who are > trying to win don't go jumping all over one deck on the table. Very > often there is collusion between a deck's predator and prey, but beyond > that, an "entire table gang-up" is rare and almost always irrational. Try playing in our play group once in a while..... > I had been told a couple of months ago that in one person's group when > an Ivory Bow came into play the entire table went into a mad frenzy to > destroy it. I just don't understand that kind of paranoia. How about 5 war ghouls on the table. I'm serious, this happened once. [ quoted text not captured ]

the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > Therefore a crosstable bleed is, after a fashion, a defensive action as it > > > depletes the targetted methuselah's offensive resources because they need a > > > higher proportion of defensive resources. > > > > Except that, as has been stated and to my knowledge not refuted, a > > cross-table bleed cannot be defended against in the standard proactive > > manners. Do you agree with this first statement? This is mainly the point; since it cannot be defended against, it makes bleeding too versatile. Plus, of course, the original intent of the game was to have no ct-bleeding... > I understand the terminology, but don't seem to be able to get my own point > across. Taking the example of an aggressive S&B predator in a 3+ player game. > In a proactive defense (combat deck) you attack his minions to remove his > ability to harm you. In an "Offense as Defense" strategy deck (vote,S&B) you > attack his pool so that he must focus more of his efforts on defense - unless > he wishes to be ousted himself. I don't see this. I understand what you're saying, but I don't see it happening in any actual games. If I was in a game, playing a combat deck, and someone from across the table bled me, I would jump back across the table to "punish" them. Otherwise I'm making myself "vulnerable" (in a sense) for them to do it again. If I'm playing with intercept or bounce, then I'll block or bounce. > > "Without cause or reason" seems appropriate to me. It seems to have > > been agreed that ct-bleeds really don't help the person doing it. > > This is the whole point - another camp doesn't hold this point of view, and > their arguments are not without merit, nor can they be easily dismissed. Wait. You think that ct-bleeds _do_ help the person doing them? It seems to me that you're the first person on this thread to say that. Most everyone else has been saying "yeah, it doesn't help that much, so why don't we keep it anyway" to which my response is: it makes bleeds too versatile. And even if you think they _do_ have a general usefulness, then the argument is that much stronger. > They don't roll a die and then attack that methuselah, they attack a > methuselah in order to weaken them, such that that methuselahs secondary > resources (vamps and minions) must focus on defending their own primary > resources (pool) rather than attacking others. Except that that person is across the table, and shouldn't be "punished" for playing well. Especially when that punishment can only reliably come from a bleed deck, and such punishment directly affects the pool. > > Intimidation or "trash talking" is not a strategy. A rush deck defends > > against bleed decks by rushing the bleeders, not by _threatening_ to > > rush the bleeders. > > You can't rush all the bleeders. You must divide your attentions between your > prey and your predator, and if you subscribe to the "offense as defense" > theory, other methuselahs who are beginning to develop an advantage. Sorry to disappoint you, but in a rush deck I can't waste my time hopping around the table trying to keep everyone on an even keel. If someone across the table is doing well, fine. I'll deal with them once they become a real threat instead of an imaginary one. In the meantime I'm holding on by the skin of my teeth to keep alive and oust my prey. Let his predator and prey deal with him. > I suspect a particularly aggressive game ethic is beginning to develop in the > tournament and playgroup environment (I can't really speak for USA, but I see > consistent hints of it locally and online). In this envornment the "offense > as defense" mentality is a disaster waiting to happen. In a group where all the players are trying to win, why would they not play aggressively? It seems that here is our dilemma; you seem to play with slow build-up decks. But why sit around building up when you can be killing your prey? > In the > "Aggressive" game, attack starts, at the latest in turn 2, and continues till > one victor stands alone amongst the fallen, often winning by the narrowest of > margins. (I blame this play ethic for the current disfavour of gun (or other > slow) decks. Probably the aggressive play ethic developed from the initial > over success of S&B strategies) I think aggressive play evolves when everyone decides that they're trying to win. Spending lots of time "consolidating resources" doesn't make you win unless everyone's doing that. I think aggressiveness versus nonaggressiveness has more to do with attitude and nothing to do with gun decks. Slow build-up decks die because they spend lots of time sitting around putting equipment on their minions and hunting and so on. Adrian Sullivan's GenCon deck is possibly an exception, but he has lots of cards in his deck designed to make people ignore him and beat each other up while he takes time to set up. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35CF09D4...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > I understand the terminology, but don't seem to be able to get my own point > > across. Taking the example of an aggressive S&B predator in a 3+ player game. > > In a proactive defense (combat deck) you attack his minions to remove his > > ability to harm you. In an "Offense as Defense" strategy deck (vote,S&B) you > > attack his pool so that he must focus more of his efforts on defense - unless > > he wishes to be ousted himself. > > I don't see this. I understand what you're saying, but I don't see it > happening in any actual games. If I was in a game, playing a combat > deck, and someone from across the table bled me, I would jump back > across the table to "punish" them. Otherwise I'm making myself > "vulnerable" (in a sense) for them to do it again. If I'm playing with > intercept or bounce, then I'll block or bounce. This is very true. If a bleed deck comes at me from across the table simply because I'm doing well, they are making a major gamble. At best for them, I block the bleed with a non-combat deck. At worst, I will most likely have to take a stealth'd bleed. But on my next turn, you can bet that the best vampire he has is a gonner (or whoever blocks said rush). > > They don't roll a die and then attack that methuselah, they attack a > > methuselah in order to weaken them, such that that methuselahs secondary > > resources (vamps and minions) must focus on defending their own primary > > resources (pool) rather than attacking others. > > Except that that person is across the table, and shouldn't be "punished" > for playing well. Especially when that punishment can only reliably > come from a bleed deck, and such punishment directly affects the pool. The problem with allowing ct-bleeds is that they have a kingmaker effect on the game. The best player gets ganged up on until it the other players think the game is even. Why not tune your decks to the point where yours are more competitive with the better player? And do you know what Richard Garfield said once about Jyhad/VtES? He said that he really liked what he had done because it had taken the kingmaker element out of a multiplayer game. If I recall correctly, this quote was in the Duelist issue that had the first Jyhad FAQ (yeah, really old). >> I suspect a particularly aggressive game ethic is beginning to develop in the >> tournament and playgroup environment (I can't really speak for USA, but I see >> consistent hints of it locally and online). In this envornment the "offense >> as defense" mentality is a disaster waiting to happen. I would caution against using the term ethic as ethics imply that there is a right and wrong (or at least more right and more wrong). A better term would be game style. > In a group where all the players are trying to win, why would they not > play aggressively? It seems that here is our dilemma; you seem to play > with slow build-up decks. But why sit around building up when you can > be killing your prey? Weenie decks are easier to be at least semi-effective because of their quickness. A deck that uses larger vampires is harder to construct because you have a lot more to worry about (vampire fragility, number of actions you'll be able to take, having enough vampires to block and to act, etc.) If your slow build up decks are _always_ losing to aggressive weenie speed decks, then you need to reword your deck. And even when you do, it is very difficult to get more wins against a speed deck. > > In the > > "Aggressive" game, attack starts, at the latest in turn 2, and continues till > > one victor stands alone amongst the fallen, often winning by the narrowest of > > margins. (I blame this play ethic for the current disfavour of gun (or other > > slow) decks. Probably the aggressive play ethic developed from the initial > > over success of S&B strategies) > > I think aggressive play evolves when everyone decides that they're > trying to win. Spending lots of time "consolidating resources" doesn't > make you win unless everyone's doing that. I think aggressiveness > versus nonaggressiveness has more to do with attitude and nothing to do > with gun decks. My dislike of gun decks has more to do with how fragile they are. They're easy to steal, destroy, or take by diablerie. > Slow build-up decks die because they spend lots of time sitting around > putting equipment on their minions and hunting and so on. Adrian > Sullivan's GenCon deck is possibly an exception, but he has lots of > cards in his deck designed to make people ignore him and beat each other > up while he takes time to set up. I recently put together the ol' Alexandra and Toreador Grand Ball deck for use in my playgroup. The first game, I never drew a TGB, and got wiped out by combat (had rushed to make the deck and left out combat defense). In the second try, I got a TGB out quickly, and there was no intercept on the table. One of the best cards to help out a slow deck is Millicent Smith. She's a great deterrent. If you're having trouble against speed decks, put in a couple (and a couple intercept permanents if you don't have them), and you'll increase the survival rate of your slow decks. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP Rules Survey Website - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35CF00C9...@avatartech.com>, Ethan Burrow <e...@avatartech.com> wrote: > James Hamblin wrote: > > "Without cause or reason" seems appropriate to me. It seems to have > > been agreed that ct-bleeds really don't help the person doing it. > I disagree, as do several others, so I don't see how you could have come to > the "seems to have been agreed" clause. Unless by that you mean "all the > pro-7/7 people agree". Actually, no. I remember at least one anti-7/7 person defending ct-bleeds with James' statement, and none of the other anti-7/7 people seemed to disagree vocally. > Better example. Random damage from across the table. Voting Meth needs the vote > to pass and the pred of the target will likely vote with it. The vote deck then > subsequently plays cryptic rider so the vote deck can get his more important vote > cast. Odds are this will happen again if the voting deck needs another vote to > pass. This is not random damage from across the table. This is the vote deck using cards designated for the purpose to get his votes to pass. If the vote deck has no way to pass his votes without vote help or Cryptic Riders, then he's screwed. He may as well just sit there while his predator kills him. > > Hmm... sarcasm. No, I don't agree with this. Reasonable people who are > > trying to win don't go jumping all over one deck on the table. Very > > often there is collusion between a deck's predator and prey, but beyond > > that, an "entire table gang-up" is rare and almost always irrational. > > Try playing in our play group once in a while..... No thanks. Before we knew that you could only bleed your prey without a card (this is in '94 mind you), it was common that someone would have everyone else bleeding them simply because they got a nice card out. The targetted person was doomed in that game and not because his predator was really good. The better player or the better deck hardly won. Does that seem right to you? > > I had been told a couple of months ago that in one person's group when > > an Ivory Bow came into play the entire table went into a mad frenzy to > > destroy it. I just don't understand that kind of paranoia. > > How about 5 war ghouls on the table. I'm serious, this happened once. Ewwwww. Even one is frightening unless you have a way to kill it. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP Rules Survey Website - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

> James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Except that, as has been stated and to my knowledge not refuted, a > > > cross-table bleed cannot be defended against in the standard proactive > > > manners. > > Do you agree with this first statement? This is mainly the point; since > it cannot be defended against, it makes bleeding too versatile. Plus, > of course, the original intent of the game was to have no ct-bleeding... Absolutely. I agree - ct bleeding should not be part of the game for multiple reasons: * The power of directly affecting the primary resources of a methuselah should not be combined with the versatility of choosing your target * It makes dominate and S&B decks in particular overly strong * It can generate a kingmaker effect * It weakens specific cards like Cat burglary and Night moves and most importantly * It isn't part of the original rules and never has been, AND it disrupts the predator-prey dynamic. BUT: I'm arguing the point, because I see where some of the ct-bleed people are arguing from, and since none of them see to be supporting their arguments, I'd have a go - so at least we can work out some consensus of _why_ it is wrong rather than dismissing the arguments without consideration. It also allows other people who support them to jump on at any point and take over from me (please do, if you're lurking) > > > I understand the terminology, but don't seem to be able to get my own point > > across. Taking the example of an aggressive S&B predator in a 3+ player game. > > In a proactive defense (combat deck) you attack his minions to remove his > > ability to harm you. In an "Offense as Defense" strategy deck (vote,S&B) you > > attack his pool so that he must focus more of his efforts on defense - unless > > he wishes to be ousted himself. > > I don't see this. I understand what you're saying, but I don't see it > happening in any actual games. If I was in a game, playing a combat > deck, and someone from across the table bled me, I would jump back > across the table to "punish" them. Otherwise I'm making myself > "vulnerable" (in a sense) for them to do it again. If I'm playing with > intercept or bounce, then I'll block or bounce. Even if the ct-bleed had been for 4 or 5 , and you were now below 10 pool and hadd an agreesive predator? One who might oust you unless you focus your efforts on him? This is what a ct-bleed is supposed to do - whether it succeeds or not is a matter of play environment. > > > "Without cause or reason" seems appropriate to me. It seems to have > > > been agreed that ct-bleeds really don't help the person doing it. > > > > This is the whole point - another camp doesn't hold this point of view, and > > their arguments are not without merit, nor can they be easily dismissed. > > Wait. You think that ct-bleeds _do_ help the person doing them? It I'm undecided. Regardless, I still want them to go away - I don't like ct-bleeds for a number of other reasons, as described above. > seems to me that you're the first person on this thread to say that. > Most everyone else has been saying "yeah, it doesn't help that much, so > why don't we keep it anyway" to which my response is: it makes bleeds > too versatile. And even if you think they _do_ have a general > usefulness, then the argument is that much stronger. The "why don't we keep them anyway" is not part of my argument. I want to see it decided one way or another, and given my druthers, I'd see them gone. The reason I want them gone is because even "If they don't help that much" they can be abused to unfairly target an individual who is unable to defend against them. > > > They don't roll a die and then attack that methuselah, they attack a > > methuselah in order to weaken them, such that that methuselahs secondary > > resources (vamps and minions) must focus on defending their own primary > > resources (pool) rather than attacking others. > > Except that that person is across the table, and shouldn't be "punished" > for playing well. Especially when that punishment can only reliably > come from a bleed deck, and such punishment directly affects the pool. My general feeling too. But I don't want to see ct-bleeds dismissed without consideration. And being the Devils Advocate sucks :( (You get the job next time James :) > > > > Intimidation or "trash talking" is not a strategy. A rush deck defends > > > against bleed decks by rushing the bleeders, not by _threatening_ to > > > rush the bleeders. > > > > You can't rush all the bleeders. You must divide your attentions between your > > prey and your predator, and if you subscribe to the "offense as defense" > > theory, other methuselahs who are beginning to develop an advantage. > > Sorry to disappoint you, but in a rush deck I can't waste my time > hopping around the table trying to keep everyone on an even keel. If > someone across the table is doing well, fine. I'll deal with them once > they become a real threat instead of an imaginary one. In the meantime > I'm holding on by the skin of my teeth to keep alive and oust my prey. > Let his predator and prey deal with him. Hang on, didn't you just say above (or was it someone else replying to the thread?) that if they bled you, you would block, bounce or trash their best vampire next turn? However, with a bleed deck (which is far less card intensive than a combat deck, given the lack of int-decks nowadays) the action to cross the table and bleed someone is realtively simple - and can, at tleast in their reasoning, slow down a successful player. (Note that I'm not talking about if this is fair or constructive, just that it _can_ (could pre 7/7) be done) > >>I suspect a particularly aggressive game ethic is beginning to develop in the >>tournament and playgroup environment (I can't really speak for USA, but I see >> consistent hints of it locally and online). In this envornment the "offense >> as defense" mentality is a disaster waiting to happen. > > In a group where all the players are trying to win, why would they not > play aggressively? It seems that here is our dilemma; you seem to play > with slow build-up decks. But why sit around building up when you can > be killing your prey? Exactly our dilemma - unfortunately the game environment doesn't allow slow build up/king-hit decks - which is a tragedy because not only does it not permit many play styles but also devalues a lot of otherwise good cards. Why sit around when you could be destroying your prey? Well - this is probably a little counter intuitive, but why should you give your prey a chance to respond. If you wait while a prey gradually invests more and more of their primary resource into secondary resources, and then find a way in which you can suddenly remove all of his remaining pool (and or secondary resources), you avoid the situation where your prey can respond and or rebuild. > > > In the >> "Aggressive" game, attack starts, at the latest in turn 2, and continues till >> one victor stands alone amongst the fallen, often winning by the narrowest of > > margins. (I blame this play ethic for the current disfavour of gun (or other > > slow) decks. Probably the aggressive play ethic developed from the initial > > over success of S&B strategies) > > I think aggressive play evolves when everyone decides that they're > trying to win. Spending lots of time "consolidating resources" doesn't > make you win unless everyone's doing that. I think aggressiveness > versus nonaggressiveness has more to do with attitude and nothing to do > with gun decks. I must be being particularly obtuse. Aggressiveness vs. No-aggressiveness has nothing to do with disfavour of gun decks, they are just a casualty by the road side in the conflict. > > Slow build-up decks die because they spend lots of time sitting around > putting equipment on their minions and hunting and so on. Adrian > Sullivan's GenCon deck is possibly an exception, but he has lots of > cards in his deck designed to make people ignore him and beat each other > up while he takes time to set up. Yes. And? Generically, most slow decks aim to do this via Millicent, Pentex, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > I don't see this. I understand what you're saying, but I don't see it > > happening in any actual games. If I was in a game, playing a combat > > deck, and someone from across the table bled me, I would jump back > > across the table to "punish" them. Otherwise I'm making myself > > "vulnerable" (in a sense) for them to do it again. If I'm playing with > > intercept or bounce, then I'll block or bounce. > > Even if the ct-bleed had been for 4 or 5 , and you were now below 10 pool and > hadd an agreesive predator? Yes! Because if I was at around 10 pool and you just came from across the table to bleed me for 5, I'm dead anyway. I might as well try to extract some enjoyment out of my demise to punish you for your insolence. > The "why don't we keep them anyway" is not part of my argument. I want to see > it decided one way or another, and given my druthers, I'd see them gone. The > reason I want them gone is because even "If they don't help that much" they > can be abused to unfairly target an individual who is unable to defend > against them. OK, then we agree. > > Except that that person is across the table, and shouldn't be "punished" > > for playing well. Especially when that punishment can only reliably > > come from a bleed deck, and such punishment directly affects the pool. > > My general feeling too. But I don't want to see ct-bleeds dismissed without > consideration. And being the Devils Advocate sucks :( (You get the job next > time James :) Well, hey. You're keeping me honest; and it takes a great amount of debating skill to argue a point you don't agree with. > > Sorry to disappoint you, but in a rush deck I can't waste my time > > hopping around the table trying to keep everyone on an even keel. If > > someone across the table is doing well, fine. I'll deal with them once > > they become a real threat instead of an imaginary one. In the meantime > > I'm holding on by the skin of my teeth to keep alive and oust my prey. > > Let his predator and prey deal with him. > > Hang on, didn't you just say above (or was it someone else replying to the > thread?) that if they bled you, you would block, bounce or trash their best > vampire next turn? Yep. Maybe that's just because I'm quick to anger. But what I _won't_ do is go hop on somebody because they just played a good card, or gained some pool. That's not my responsibility unless it affects me directly. But if you come across the table to poke at my beehive, you're going to get stung. I guess I'm just spiteful. > > In a group where all the players are trying to win, why would they not > > play aggressively? It seems that here is our dilemma; you seem to play > > with slow build-up decks. But why sit around building up when you can > > be killing your prey? > > Exactly our dilemma - unfortunately the game environment doesn't allow slow > build up/king-hit decks - which is a tragedy because not only does it not > permit many play styles but also devalues a lot of otherwise good cards. I think that has a lot to do with the metagame. If weenie decks are dominating your play environment, make a killer intercept deck that will stop them cold. > Why sit around when you could be destroying your prey? Well - this is > probably a little counter intuitive, but why should you give your prey a > chance to respond. If you wait while a prey gradually invests more and more > of their primary resource into secondary resources, and then find a way in > which you can suddenly remove all of his remaining pool (and or secondary > resources), you avoid the situation where your prey can respond and or > rebuild. Actually, with a rush deck, the optimum strategy is to destroy each vampire as it comes out to prevent them from acting at all. One out-of-the-ordinary strategy that has killed me more than once goes as follows: You get out vampire X. Vampire X is torporized. Then you bring out another copy of X, contesting. Then when the non-torpor copy of X comes into play two turns down the road, it happens during untap, so that the combat deck doesn't get a chance to kill it before it acts. Pretty sneaky, huh? [ quoted text not captured ]

> James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > > I don't see this. I understand what you're saying, but I don't see it > > > happening in any actual games. If I was in a game, playing a combat > > > deck, and someone from across the table bled me, I would jump back > > > across the table to "punish" them. Otherwise I'm making myself > > > "vulnerable" (in a sense) for them to do it again. If I'm playing with > > > intercept or bounce, then I'll block or bounce. > > > >Even if the ct-bleed had been for 4 - 5 , and you were now below 10 pool and > > hadd an agreesive predator? > > Yes! Because if I was at around 10 pool and you just came from across > the table to bleed me for 5, I'm dead anyway. I might as well try to > extract some enjoyment out of my demise to punish you for your > insolence. This would probably be my reaction too, and I think, to me, it finally puts to rest that ct-bleeding has any merit whatsoever (promptly gets sacked by the devil :). Rather than weakening or forcing a re-focus of secondary resource distribution (to a higher defense, and thus a weaker attack), a ct-bleed (with the rationale that it will prompt a reallocation of resources) does not achieve it's aim, it more than likely provokes a reaction from the targetted methuselah to attack you. Thus a ct-bleed serves little defensive purpose, and results in a collapse of the predator-prey dynamic. Does _anyone_ have _anything_ else to add to this argument? > > > The "why don't we keep them anyway" is not part of my arg. I want to see > > it decided one way or another, and given my druthers, I'd see them gone. The > > reason I want them gone is because even "If they don't help that much" they > > can be abused to unfairly target an individual who is unable to defend > > against them. > > OK, then we agree. Yep. and since no-one else seems to be willing to support the argument (at least in this thread) (Unless you want to have a go, C.Chew?) I think we can summarise and post to the newsgroup for archiving. > > > > Except that that person is across the table, and shouldn't be "punished" > > > for playing well. Especially when that punishment can only reliably > > > come from a bleed deck, and such punishment directly affects the pool. > > > > My general feeling too. But I don't want to see ct-bleeds dismissed without > > consideration. And being the Devils Advocate sucks :( (You get the job next > > time James :) > > Well, hey. You're keeping me honest; and it takes a great amount of > debating skill to argue a point you don't agree with. Nah, I'm just argumentative :), and since no one else wanted to take the ball and run, I had a go. > > Hang on, didn't you just say above (or was it someone else replying to the > > thread?) that if they bled you, you would block, bounce or trash their best > > vampire next turn? > > Yep. Maybe that's just because I'm quick to anger. But what I _won't_ > do is go hop on somebody because they just played a good card, or gained > some pool. That's not my responsibility unless it affects me directly. This is the point: often ct-bleeds are abused to target a successful player whose actions do not directly target you, rather than one who has managed to accumulate an "unfair" (subject to player definition) advantage. > But if you come across the table to poke at my beehive, you're going to > get stung. I guess I'm just spiteful. This is the problem with ct-bleeds - an unprovoked attack will often not have the desired goal of increasing defence, but generate a cross table reaction in turn. Which is a Bad-thing (TM), as it results a general sniping war, and everyone may as well go and play Mt$, with red LB decks. > > > > In a group where all the players are trying to win, why would they not > > > play aggressively? It seems that here is our dilemma; you seem to play > > > with slow build-up decks. But why sit around building up when you can > > > be killing your prey? > > > > Exactly our dilemma - unfortunately the game environment doesn't allow slow > > build up/king-hit decks - which is a tragedy because not only does it not > > permit many play styles but also devalues a lot of otherwise good cards. > > I think that has a lot to do with the metagame. If weenie decks are > dominating your play environment, make a killer intercept deck that will > stop them cold. But you can't rely on the metagame to change Tournament play - a point which I think you made yourself more than once in defending the RtI changes, James. (btw: I agre with the RtI change - and _most_ of 7/7). Besides which, intercept doesn't win VPs. > Actually, with a rush deck, the optimum strategy is to destroy each > vampire as it comes out to prevent them from acting at all. One Yes, but rush is a difficult strategy to build into a slow deck. > out-of-the-ordinary strategy that has killed me more than once goes as > follows: > You get out vampire X. Vampire X is torporized. Then you bring out > another copy of X, contesting. Then when the non-torpor copy of X comes > into play two turns down the road, it happens during untap, so that the > combat deck doesn't get a chance to kill it before it acts. Nice, Difficult to pull off, but Nice. Of course, Tremere Int-Combat could probably handle it. > Pretty sneaky, huh? Yup. You'd get points for Pure Style, too :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qorpr$aak$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > out-of-the-ordinary strategy that has killed me more than once goes as > > follows: > > You get out vampire X. Vampire X is torporized. Then you bring out > > another copy of X, contesting. Then when the non-torpor copy of X comes > > into play two turns down the road, it happens during untap, so that the > > combat deck doesn't get a chance to kill it before it acts. Hey, I thought you aren't allowed to contest your own vampires? LSJ, can you shed some light on the matter? -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna [ quoted text not captured ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > You get out vampire X. Vampire X is torporized. Then you bring out > > > another copy of X, contesting. Then when the non-torpor copy of X comes > > > into play two turns down the road, it happens during untap, so that the > > > combat deck doesn't get a chance to kill it before it acts. > > Hey, I thought you aren't allowed to contest your own vampires? > LSJ, can you shed some light on the matter? You can. Errata/correction to the VTES rulebook: From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Subject: [VtES][PR] Full Rulebook Date: 28 Sep 1995 09:18:37 +0100 Section 15, Contested Cards Third paragraph should say "You can't bring out more than one of the same unique card into your active region without contesting them." -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > Yes! Because if I was at around 10 pool and you just came from across > > the table to bleed me for 5, I'm dead anyway. I might as well try to > > extract some enjoyment out of my demise to punish you for your > > insolence. > > This would probably be my reaction too, and I think, to me, it finally puts > to rest that ct-bleeding has any merit whatsoever (promptly gets sacked by > the devil :). Rather than weakening or forcing a re-focus of secondary > resource distribution (to a higher defense, and thus a weaker attack), a > ct-bleed (with the rationale that it will prompt a reallocation of resources) > does not achieve it's aim, it more than likely provokes a reaction from the > targetted methuselah to attack you. Thus a ct-bleed serves little defensive > purpose, and results in a collapse of the predator-prey dynamic. Does > _anyone_ have _anything_ else to add to this argument? Well since you ask. :-) The only _valid_ (i.e. truly beneficial to the C-T bleeder) C-T bleed I can think of is when the C-Ter's grandpredator is effectively knocked out (all minions torporized for instance) but isn't low enough on pool to be immediately ousted. Without a C-T bleed into the grandpredator that makes him immediately oustable, the C-T bleeder's predator (with no effective predator of his own) would otherwise be able to go over the top on offense on the following turn. There will be no effective retribution to this type of C-T bleed either. Just an observation from a neutral party. --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Ethan Burrow wrote: > Rather than fling stones I'll try to explain my point a bit better. > > Lupus Australis wrote: [snip} > > Let's see. You are saying that your deck design has difficulty dealing > > with a single determined predator, and you would prefer not to have to do > > that. I would say it is a good thing for you that your own prey is not a > > determined back-bleeder, because then your deck would have to deal with > > *two* predators, when you cannot even handle one. > > My deck has problems dealing with a determined Stealth/Bleeder and a KRC > Conserv/Agitation vote deck. I admit this. The skills I use are presence, > quietus and celerity. No bleed bounce, no permanent votes really to speak of > except for a primogen or two. I conciously decided not to add disrarming > presence or attempt to play with telepathic misdirection because I'd rather > focus on what my deck does. Fight and Bleed. > > This deck will not win tournaments, but it is fun to play. Well, I was not trying to put down your deck. Not all decks can hope to handle all situations, and not all "fun decks" or creative experiments will be as competitive as we might like. I too have a tendency to play decks that I think are fun, as opposed to decks that I think will win tournaments. Nonetheless, the problem clearly is your deck's lack of efficiency relative to certain other voter/bleeder decks, at least in certain cases. If you were the more efficient predator, you would not need to back bleed, as you would be fairly confident of ousting your own prey before you yourself were ousted. Back-bleeding in this case is an almost sure-fire way to make sure your predator gets ousted for having a more competitive deck than you. I personally think that this is not good for the game, and that it would be better to find other solutions to your deck's weaknesses. > > It will also give your predator a snowball's chance in hell to win the > > game. That's fair, I think. It will also give your Assamite/Toreador B&B > > deck a chance to win should you end up behind a bleed deck rather than in > > front of one. > > As long as the bleeder was blockable, I could generally send the minion to > torpor. Why bother with an extra rush card, unless of course they were > playing stealth bleed. Your motive for back-bleeding was, I thought, that you could not handle your predator's bleeds. You will be just as vulnerable from bleeds from your prey, if he should choose to bleed you. Indeed, you will be even more vulnerable, as you will have to use resources (intercept, wakes, untapped minions, etc) to block actions of your prey that had been reserved for defence against your predator. So even if you succeed in blocking, you may still be severely hurt. > > > I'm not necessarily whining about not having direct bleeds, but I'd > > > rather have it back than dilute my deck. I have bled my predator out > > > several times and in all cases; > > > > In all cases? This sounds like too much of a good think for you and too > > much of a bad thing for him. His only crime was that he is a better > > player than your grand-predator. Had he been a bad player, you would have > > left him alone, but he still would have lost. > > That's one of the good arguments for removing (D) in my opinion, but I wanted > to at least give an example of why directed bleed is beneficial to the > Methuselah even though you grant 6 Pool to your new predator. I agree that it can be beneficial to you. What I'm arguing is that the benefit to you is that the benefit to the perpetrator far far less than the detriment to the victem. This is something that allows weak players, weak decks, or weak strategies, to knock the stronger players out of the game because they don't like the way things are going. If you have ever been at the receiving end of this strategy, I doubt you would feel the same about it. > > It was the same with my own back-bleeding dramatic upheaval deck. Whether > > the strategy worked or not, my predator was *always* ousted first. His > > fate was sealed the moment seating was picked. Do you think that's right? > > That's the case for pretty much every game we play once we know which decks > are on the table. Playing a directed bleedable deck makes no difference. I think it makes a big difference, and I think you are comparing mountains to molehills. It is one thing to be screwed by random seating and the luck of the draw, and another thing to be doomed because another player chooses you to be doomed. My deck did not have to pick on my predator. It could have picked on my grand-predator just as easily, and he, having to cope with, in effect, two predators, would have been just as doomed. > The > predator of a good Animalism untap combat deck is pretty much doomed as well. This is not even remotely true. I'm sure your "animalism untap" decks would have an awful hard time with my deep stealth nossies, expecially when they play shepherd's innocence with forgotten labyrinth. And how do they cope with heavy duty combat? > And until there's errata to make them unique, the prey of a War Ghoul > deck is almost as doomed. Again, not even remotely true. The War Ghouls may be overpowered relative to other allies, but they are not unstoppable. There must be a dozen highly effective ally hosers that are rarely played because allys are just not considered a threat. I can think of many ways to cope with War Ghouls, such as Kindred Segregation, Far Mastery, Majesty, Bomb, Cryptic Mission, any serious combat deck, any ranged combat deck, any deck with lots of Skin of Steel and inferior fortitude. My Garou deck would probably handle them, as it is packed with dodges that are routinely used as his initial strike, and he likes to carry Bang Nakh. There's that ally hosing thaumaturgy card. > > > I continued to play to gain a victory > > > point instead of dying at the hands of the previous predator. > > > > That's nice. But it's an awful good thing for you that the guy you > > eventually ousted did not start back-bleeding you to prevent this from > > happening. From what you have told me, it sounds as though your deck has > > no means of dealing with such a strategy. You have trouble dealing with > > ONE predator, much less two. > Again, if the Predator uses heavy stealth and/or heavy voting, then yes > I have a problem dealing with them. Otherwise I usually block and mess > up their minion. Well there is no reason why your deck *should* be able to deal with all predators in every circumstance. No deck is a sure thing. It does not follow that you should be able to automatically oust your predator when things aren't looking too good for you. > > But I don't think *anyone* can deal with two determined bleeders, and I > > don't think they should have to. > > I never bled back more than once, it was usually to weaken my predator enough > to make him play defense rather than offense. I wasn't interested so much in > ousting my predator so much as making him consider leaving some blockers up > instead of coming my way. That's fine, but, judging from what you said earlier, the effect was generally devastating...a far greater effect, in my opinion, than your casual effort warranted. Your action also says: "Don't bleed me, because I have the power to oust you." It is not an idle threat. > It was my intent to try and give an example of where directed bleed was not > abused but used as a meta-game tactic. If I failed in that attempt, then > please kindly flame me some more <g> I never meant my observations to be taken as a flame. Just trying to get you to see another way of looking at things. I'm sure you were, as you say, trying to gain benefit for yourself (rather than, say, being spiteful). I can say the same for my own back-bleed deck. What bothers me in both instances, however, is that while in neither case are you given overwhelming power to win, you *are* given overwhelming power to make someone else lose. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > > Hey, I thought you aren't allowed to contest your own vampires? > > LSJ, can you shed some light on the matter? > > You can. Errata/correction to the VTES rulebook: > > From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu > Subject: [VtES][PR] Full Rulebook > Date: 28 Sep 1995 09:18:37 +0100 > > Section 15, Contested Cards > Third paragraph should say "You can't bring out more than one of the > same unique card into your active region without contesting them." In the event that someone actually wanted to do this, how much blood would they spend? What if I am self-contesting Lupo, and my preditor brings out a Lupo of his own? Who pays how much? Lastly, after I let go of one of my Lupo-copies, my prey brings one out as well. Now how much do we pay? -davey!

"davey! hathorn" <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Section 15, Contested Cards > > Third paragraph should say "You can't bring out more than one of the > > same unique card into your active region without contesting them." > > In the event that someone actually wanted to do this, how much blood > would they spend? What if I am self-contesting Lupo, and my preditor > brings out a Lupo of his own? Who pays how much? Lastly, after I let > go of one of my Lupo-copies, my prey brings one out as well. Now how > much do we pay? The cost to contest any card is one pool. During your you either pay this cost or yield the card. The decision to pay the cost or yield is made individually for each card you are contesting. If you have two cards which you are contesting (two of the same - Lupo, for example - or two different), then you can either pay two pool to continue contesting both of them, pay one to contest one and yield the other, or pay nothing and yield both. Same for your prey - she pays one pool for each card she is contesting, regardless of how many other copies of that card other Methuselahs have (also contested). If you are self-contesting (two copies of) Lupo and your predator is contesting (one copy of) Lupo as well, the you would have to burn two pool during your untap to keep contesting both copies, or pay one pool and yield one copy, or pay nothing and yield both copies. Your predator (if Lupo is still being contested) would have to burn one pool during her untap to continue contesting or pay nothing and yield. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch [ quoted text not captured ]

I agree whole heartedly with Badger!!! It's crazy to get rid of this wonderful action. How nice it is to get back at someone fora wrong doing. Or use it just to start some FUN with someone. JMS

Please!!! Do Methuselahs exist in a vacuum? Are they restricted to only going after a single other methuselah in the world of darkness? Should they only focus in one direction? NO. The Jyhad is a blood war. Let it all hang out. You should be able to bleed anyone you want as they are contesting with you for dominance of the game. I think too many of you play tournaments where getting points is more of a concern than winning the game. "Gee, I'd better not worry about my predator and that other guy across from me. I just wanna get my victory point for ousting my prey and stay in as long as I can so I can get some more points." Boring. I'd rather win the whole game, than ousting my prey. Afterall, tournaments are where the game is played for the most part. Badger

> Please!!! You're welcome. What can I do for you? :) > > Do Methuselahs exist in a vacuum? Are they restricted to only going > after a single other methuselah in the world of darkness? Should they > only focus in one direction? > > NO. The Jyhad is a blood war. Let it all hang out. You should be able > to bleed anyone you want as they are contesting with you for dominance > of the game. Au contraire, mein freund. The game of Jyhad or V:tES does specify a particular target for each methuselah. Even in the RPG, (take CbN as an example) most methuselahs have one particular enemy. In the CCG, this is altered slightly to allow for multiplayer games by having a prey and a predator - one person you are supposed to attack, and one you are supposed to defend from. If you do not accept this premise, we are not playing the same game, and can't discuss the relative merits of rules, and I'll stop badgering you :) If you do accept the notion of prey and predator, then ct-bleeding cannot be a part of the game because of a number of reasons, pre-eminent among are the following: * ct-bleeds do _not_ aid the acting methuselah. This is an established fact. At best they create a situation where you weaken another methuselah who is anot your prey (and who has little to no chance of defending), which will result in retaliation of some form or another. At worst you will oust another methuselah, granting pool and VPs to another methuselah who will soon be your prey or predator * ct-bleeds disrupt the game dynamic. The predator-prey relationship creates a unique game unlike other CCGs. ct-bleeds disrupt the cycle, to no discernable advantage. In fact, it usually creates a disadvantage to one or more methuselahs. *ct-bleeds directly target the pool of another methuselah. This should not be allowed because bleeds are the most powerful (direct) means of winning the game, and should not have the versatility of other strategies that have less direct ousting power *and finally, ct-bleeds are _not_ part of the original or revised game. > > I think too many of you play tournaments where getting points is more of > a concern than winning the game. "Gee, I'd better not worry about my > predator and that other guy across from me. I just wanna get my victory > point for ousting my prey and stay in as long as I can so I can get some > more points." Boring. No, you do worry about your predator. But ct-bleeds against your predator do _not_ assist your defence - if anything they weaken your position, because your predator must cease defending and go all out on attack, because he/she cannot hope to defend against two opponents. And if anything, I doubt this is "boring". It is a tense, stress filled situation where you are racing to oust your prey before your predator can target oust you. > I'd rather win the whole game, than ousting my prey. Afterall, You can only win the game _by_ ousting your prey. > tournaments are where the game is played for the most part. I doubt it. I'd think it highly likely that far more game are played in playgroups than official tournaments. And furthermore, I'm not quite sure what this statement has to do with your argument... The Autarch [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6r0aoh$ufq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <the_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: >* ct-bleeds do _not_ aid the acting methuselah. Sure they do. Why else would the acting methuselah do one? It is not for you to say what "aid" means. >This is an established fact. No, it's an established opinion. >At best they create a situation where you weaken another >methuselah who is not your prey Which may, long term, give me victory. -- Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not much like Earth.

badger (bad...@buffnet.net) wrote: : Please!!! : Do Methuselahs exist in a vacuum? Are they restricted to only going : after a single other methuselah in the world of darkness? Should they : only focus in one direction? Is the World of Darkness a relevant argument regarding balance in the VTES card game? No. : NO. The Jyhad is a blood war. Let it all hang out. You should be able : to bleed anyone you want as they are contesting with you for dominance : of the game. So you think that cardless bleeds should be directable at anyone, not just your prey? : I think too many of you play tournaments where getting points is more of : a concern than winning the game. "Gee, I'd better not worry about my : predator and that other guy across from me. I just wanna get my victory : point for ousting my prey and stay in as long as I can so I can get some : more points." Boring. : I'd rather win the whole game, than ousting my prey. Afterall, : tournaments are where the game is played for the most part. Winning the whole game is great. And worrying about the people other than your prey is fine. You just shouldn't be able to cross table bleed them, because it creates too much cross table interaction with too little effort. Josh jyhad reactionary

> >* ct-bleeds do _not_ aid the acting methuselah. > > Sure they do. Why else would the acting methuselah do one? Because the acting methuselah is a f#@%ing moron. As I said before, after playing at GenCon, I changed my mind on (D) bleeds. In a 4-player game, it's complete folly to bounce bleeds to or direct bleed your grand-prey. However, the guy across the table did this (well, he didn't direct bleeds at me, but only because he couldn't, due to the new rule). He bounced bleeds to *me* instead of to his prey. Did this help him? No. He even admitted that. The only reason he did it is because I won the first round, which he was in. His weak excuse that "as soon as you get a vote, you're going to come after me" didn't even hold up, as he bounced one bleed to me just before being ousted (and he knew he was ousted). > >This is an established fact. > > No, it's an established opinion. > Unfortunately, it's definitely a fact that a cross-table bleed usually does not help the methuselah that does it. In fact, that was one of my strongest arguments in favour (I assumed, of course, that no one would use ctb unless it would help them... so why take away the option). After seeing how the world outside my play circle works (well, I've seen the world outside my play circle before, but I had never seen this type of idiocy before), I must reluctantly admit that ctb's are probably a bad idea. It's not cool when someone else who is not playing to win can destroy your deck. > >At best they create a situation where you weaken another > >methuselah who is not your prey > > Which may, long term, give me victory. > Or it may, long term, allow you to screw the guy you don't like, or the guy who you think looks like a prick, or the guy who doesn't speak English very well and so can't play these games of diplomacy. If there were some requirement of human-level intelligence for playing Jyhad, then ctb's would be good. But when people will team up on you for no reason whatsoever... well, that's just not a fun game, so apparently the new restrictions are necessary. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6r1j8t$gac$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > the guy across the table did this (well, he didn't direct bleeds at me, but > only because he couldn't, due to the new rule). He bounced bleeds to *me* > instead of to his prey. Did this help him? No. He even admitted that. This is the Voluntary Minion Effect. All he's doing is helping his prey and his predator. > Unfortunately, it's definitely a fact that a cross-table bleed usually does > not help the methuselah that does it. In fact, that was one of my strongest > arguments in favour (I assumed, of course, that no one would use ctb unless > it would help them... so why take away the option). The Minion Effect is not good. These are the types of examples we need more of in support of the new rulings. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

badger wrote: > > Please!!! > > Do Methuselahs exist in a vacuum? Are they restricted to only going > after a single other methuselah in the world of darkness? Should they > only focus in one direction? > > NO. The Jyhad is a blood war. Let it all hang out. You should be able > to bleed anyone you want as they are contesting with you for dominance > of the game. Richard Garfield intended Jyhad to not have too much interaction (because those kinds of game pretty much suck!) and decided to only allows bleeds of your prey. His WoD tidbit was that while all the Methuselahs were at war with each other each still had a particular public enemy number one that they focussed on. Since non-directable bleeds is the original intention of the game, I find arguments in favor of omni-directable bleeds about as meaningful as a thread about why having 3 Master Phase Actions per turn would make the game better. > I think too many of you play tournaments where getting points is more of > a concern than winning the game. "Gee, I'd better not worry about my > predator and that other guy across from me. I just wanna get my victory > point for ousting my prey and stay in as long as I can so I can get some > more points." Boring. What are you talking about? The "points" you mention are Victory Points! You get victory points by taking out prey. You get to the finals by getting lots of VPs and not by trying to make it to the time-limit just so you can gain a half-VP. > I'd rather win the whole game, than ousting my prey. Afterall, > tournaments are where the game is played for the most part. Right. Win the whole game by ousting the most prey. -- Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <199808131945...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Savaje1 <sav...@aol.com> writes >I agree whole heartedly with Badger!!! It's crazy to get rid of this wonderful >action. How nice it is to get back at someone fora wrong doing. Or use it >just to start some FUN with someone. > *sigh* How likely is it that someone will hit you cross-table with a rush? A rush deck has enough problems of its own to hit someone cross-table without provocation. How likely is it that someone will hit you cross-table with a vote? Well, vote decks have their own problems with No Vote Pushing (which I whole-heartedly support) meaning that if they *can* get a vote passed, they'll be much better off using it on prey, predator and, possibly, grand-prey. Unless provoked, there is very little reason for cross- table votes. How likely is that someone will bleed you cross-table? Well, a bleed deck is going to be better off ousting your prey with your cards and getting the blood and the victory points. Unless provoked, there is very little reason for cross-table bleeds. Unfortunately, the biggest provocation on the table is *another* cross- table bleed from a spiteful player, who would rather oust you than their prey, simple because you're playing well, have a good deck, have a lot of VPs so far (in a tournament). Like I said, a cross-table rush is VERY risky any of the time. You can't afford the vamps. A cross-table vote is now a lot less likely if you can't empty your hand of vote cards for it. A cross-table bleed is the only action that can be reliably pulled off. Cross-table bleeds beget cross-table bleeds. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6r0lk2$54...@fido.engr.sgi.com>, James Buster <bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com> writes >In article <6r0aoh$ufq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <the_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>* ct-bleeds do _not_ aid the acting methuselah. > >Sure they do. Why else would the acting methuselah do one? >It is not for you to say what "aid" means. > *sigh* If you're saying that they *do* aid a Methuselah then you are also giving you own definition of what "aid" means. >>This is an established fact. > >No, it's an established opinion. > And one which is supported by a lot of very influential players and, most importantly, the official rulings. >>At best they create a situation where you weaken another >>methuselah who is not your prey > >Which may, long term, give me victory. By taking pressure away from your prey, giving him more chance to mobilise defences because he's had a nice turn and still has some pool and/or alive vampires, making it harder for you to oust him, making it harder for you to get round the table to claim those victory points you've set up. And if your prey is in such a shattered position so as not to be able to mobilise any defences no matter how much time he's given, why not just finish him and move yourself into a better position to actually attack the person you want to CT bleed - where you don't HAVE to use your cards to do it because they're now your prey, or closer to being so. And that crippled Methuselah in between you isn't a usable buffer because that Methuselah ct from you can just as easily ct bleed you as you can him. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Or it may, long term, allow you to screw the guy you don't like, or the guy >who you think looks like a prick, or the guy who doesn't speak English very >well and so can't play these games of diplomacy. If there were some >requirement of human-level intelligence for playing Jyhad, then ctb's would >be good. But when people will team up on you for no reason whatsoever... >well, that's just not a fun game, so apparently the new restrictions are >necessary. Not to mention the possibilities of collusion. Perhaps this guy bouncing bleeds to you figured he was already out of the tournament, and was helping out a buddy? -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

In article <6r1n9f$n3l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@shout.net writes >> Unfortunately, it's definitely a fact that a cross-table bleed usually does >> not help the methuselah that does it. In fact, that was one of my strongest >> arguments in favour (I assumed, of course, that no one would use ctb unless >> it would help them... so why take away the option). > >The Minion Effect is not good. > >These are the types of examples we need more of in support of the new >rulings. Seconded. I've had things like this happen exactly as described - not to me, but a case of "I'll bounce to my grand-prey... hehe" The rest of the table responded "WTF?" As Chris says, requirements on IQ and common sense do not, as yet, form part of the requirements for playing Jyhad (only owning cards), so howgely schnowpid things like that happen. [ quoted text not captured ]

> bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster) wrote: > > <the_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >* ct-bleeds do _not_ aid the acting methuselah. > > Sure they do. Why else would the acting methuselah do one? Because they are of the (I beleive mistaken) belief that a ct-bleed will aid them. > It is not for you to say what "aid" means. Please read the entire article (and /or thread). Please respond to the arguments rather than posting a one sentence reply "No it isn't". And yes, I believe I can say what aid means. Common dictionary definitions such as : To aid something menas to make it easier or more likely to happen (Collins Cobuild). In this context, it means to aid the methuselahs purpose, which is to oust their prey. a ct-bleed will _never_ assist this _unless_ the table dynamic of predator and prey is already totally disrupted. > > >This is an established fact. > > No, it's an established opinion. I'm not going to get involved in a "No it Isn't" "Yes it is" "Tisn't" "tis" discussion. If you have a point to make, make it. Furthermore, it is a fact - if you accept the premise of the game: that is and adversarial predator-prey relationship. If you don't accept this, you are not playing Jyhad, and we cannot discuss relative merits of strategy. > > >At best they create a situation where you weaken another > >methuselah who is not your prey > > Which may, long term, give me victory. Unlikely. In fact, it is probably better to say improbable. Any ct-bleed will not serve your current goal (which should be to oust your prey) and is more than likely to assist someone else towards achieving their goal, thus strengthening an individual that you will eventually have to face as predator or prey. The Autarch [ quoted text not captured ]

In article, ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk says... >How likely is it that someone will hit you cross-table with a rush? A >rush deck has enough problems of its own to hit someone cross-table >without provocation. A cross-table rush can be very handy indeed. Rushing a Methuselah before he becomes your predator or prey in can be a smart move. Sometimes rushing that voter before he or she casts another vote that will buttress one's prey or predator can mean the difference between survival and being ousted. >How likely is it that someone will hit you cross-table with a vote? >Well, vote decks have their own problems with No Vote Pushing (which I >whole-heartedly support) meaning that if they *can* get a vote passed, >they'll be much better off using it on prey, predator and, possibly, >grand-prey. Unless provoked, there is very little reason for cross- >table votes. How many have been in a game and been vicitimized by voters who see you as a threat but are not your predator or prey? I saw a shrewd cross-table Banishment vote turn the tide in a JOL game. Pool gaining votes are common and may assist your predator or prey. To me, a vote affecting one's grand-prey qualifies as a "cross-table" vote. >Cross-table bleeds beget cross-table bleeds. Poor strategy is not a reason to ban an action; that the game was originally designed not to have cross-table bleeding is a compelling reason (to me at least). However, I did like having cross-table bleeding. Using bleeds to slow down your predator was an infrequent, but effective and valid defensive tactic. In my view, if one can freely bounce bleeds than one should be able to bleed whomever one wants. The argument that there is a lack of defense to a cross-table bleed applies similarly to bounces (but bounces are not so restricted).

In article <6r54dn$3gi$1...@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, Augie <augiedogy@my- dejanews.com> writes >Rushing a Methuselah before he >becomes your predator or prey in can be a smart move. *sigh* So you let your current predator and prey cement their positions and make it harder for yourself in the long run. Smart move. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6r54dn$3gi$1...@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, Augie <augiedogy@my- dejanews.com> writes >Using bleeds to slow down your >predator was an infrequent, but effective and valid defensive tactic. How does it slow down your predator? They still have all their minions out and are probably going to go on the rampage because they have to get you out quick because they now have the equivalent of two predators. They have to get rid of you *now*. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <ys$fDKAbm...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> says: >>Rushing a Methuselah before he >>becomes your predator or prey in can be a smart move. >So you let your current predator and prey cement their positions and >make it harder for yourself in the long run. Smart move. One would not make these rushes unless one's prey or predator have been placed in a compromising position. Gaining an extra turn or so before the powerful deck bears down on you or preventing a grand-prey from gaining a VP and pool before you can oust your prey can be vital. Don't confuse smart moves with capricious behavior.

In article <y8$fHOAan...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> says: >How does it slow down your predator? They still have all their minions >out and are probably going to go on the rampage because they have to get >you out quick because they now have the equivalent of two predators. >They have to get rid of you *now*. As noted, though the tactic is infrequently utilized, a bleed can place them into a defensive position. Again, the amount of pool and one's own position in the game are critical factors to be considered. If they are placed in a desperate position, all the better: that's why you did the bleed(s). Having the ability to bleed your predator was a nice option, offering flexibility to one's defense. Though I performed such bleeds rarely, they were, at times, quite effective.

> How likely is it that someone will hit you cross-table with a vote? > Well, vote decks have their own problems with No Vote Pushing (which I > whole-heartedly support) meaning that if they *can* get a vote passed, > they'll be much better off using it on prey, predator and, possibly, > grand-prey. Unless provoked, there is very little reason for cross- > table votes. I have to disagree with you on this one point. You don't have to have a lock on votes to get them passed. Social interaction is necessary sometimes - you will get cross-table voted if your predator/prey has votes that the acting Meth needs. This is, IMHO, why votes can affect things outside of the pred/prey mechanic - to encourage interaction _on a social level_ between players. Jyhad did try to limit interaction, but is still a multiplayer game which needs to come together sometime. Political decks do attempt to lock down votes to automatic successes, but aren't always successful at it. Alan (aj)

In article <35D86B...@skat.usc.edu>, Alan Flesch <afl...@skat.usc.edu> writes [ quoted text not captured ] You are basically making my point for me, but I explained myself a little badly. A vote deck now finds it hard to establish a lock - on this point we both agree. This means that "if they can get a vote passed, they'll be much better off using it on prey, predator and, possibly, grand prey". If there are two vote decks on a table, I'm not going to get my votes passed very often. I *can* collude with the other vote deck, but if that means that they end up dictating the terms, I stop calling votes of any real importance, because they won't get passed, unless I am just trying to cycle now (harder under NVP). When I *can* get a vote passed (say, my opponent's Justicar is temporarily torporised by his prey's copy of Richter), I'll be much better off attacking those people close to me rather than cross-table, unless, perhaps in extenuating circumstances, I could possibly get rid of the other vote deck and oust it. OF course, other people on the table have votes and might defend it - people colluding with it to use Anathema, say. Now, in a roughly equal position, dropping a point or two on a cross- table Methuselah is possible to try and get the co-operation of the other vote deck, but the majority still has to go to someone directly affecting me or the point of my calling the vote is pretty minimal. [ quoted text not captured ]

Why? Rush/combat decks can target anyone they want. Political decks can target anyone they want. To some extent, you can intercept anyone you want (Eagle Sight, Anneke, etc). Therefore, I should be able to bleed ANYONE I want to. Why is bleeding being handicapped? Case in point: Last night I was playing Jyhad. I had your prototypical stealth/bleed deck working. My predator had a rush/combat deck. Immediately he set upon my vamps, working them over. I had no defense against this, EXCEPT to direct bleed him! So I did. And you know what? He backed off - giving me valuable time to recoup. (If I could have, I would've bled him out because I had no fear of his predator even if she gained the six blood for his ousting because I had plenty of bleed bounce/reduction to hold her off.) As the game wore on, he became distracted with his predator and I was finally able to go on the offensive. I eliminated my prey with bleeds totalling seven. My predator was eliminated with a bounced RTI (oooohhh!) - not mine - before my next turn. So his predator was now after me (Toreador Presence bleed deck). As I said, I could hold her off, but I was low on pool - so not for long as my deck is primarily offensive and I had just influenced a new vamp. What to do? My new prey had only three pool left and my Tor predator 2. A fame had been played and that vamp was in torpor. I could eliminate my prey as I had just enough strength to get through, but in doing so I would leave myself wide open for elimination by the Toreadors. Sure I could secure another "victory point", but I like winning and this was no tournament. Here's what I did - I bled my prey down to one and with my last remaining vamp, I (Oh, NO - call the RTR!!) DIRECT bled my predator to 1 also. I ended my turn. My prey was eliminated via the Fame and so was my predator. I got the point AND I stayed in the game. My new predator didn't scare me as he had only 1 vamp out and I still had a blocker with reduction potential. So you see, direct bleeding kept me in the game early by warning my rushing predator off and it secured my second place finish in the 8 man game we were playing. Without direct bleeding I would've been dead in the first few rounds and would've sat there for the next 2 hrs while everyone else played. So don't tell me direct bleeding is a gang-up strategy, or for sore losers, or has no place in the game. It is a viable offensive and defensive strategy. Badger

In article <35E0412B...@buffnet.net>, badger <bad...@buffnet.net> writes >Why? > >Rush/combat decks can target anyone they want. Political decks can >target anyone they want. To some extent, you can intercept anyone you >want (Eagle Sight, Anneke, etc). Therefore, I should be able to bleed >ANYONE I want to. Why is bleeding being handicapped? Rush/combat incapacitates a minion, not pool. Political affects pool but EVERYONE can vote. Intercept is not pro-active. People can get round intercept (unblockability, actions that don't care if they're blocked - combat etc.). Intercept can only affect minions, not pool. Bleed affects pool and only one person can stop it. If it goes cross- table, still only one person can stop it - and not a person who was expecting to get hit by you. *sigh* Bleed: gets rid of pool (unlike combat) doesn't interact with whole table (unlike vote) So: it can only affect your prey. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dear James: I beg to differ. How is being bum rushed expected? Or the victim of Conservative Agitation. And if I'm not ready for a direct bleed, how am I ready for a direct attack? Also, it most certainly does affect my pool when someone bum rushes my 6 capacity vampire and torporizes him in the first round of combat. Or votes to make me lose 6 pool. My deck's a stealth/bleed - I have no combat/political defense. Except to threaten with direct bleeds. It's designed to hit hard and fast - not to punk my predator just for the sake of it. If I concentrate too much on him, my prey benefits and so does his predator. It's a deterent, that's all. The ruling against it heavily handicaps bleed decks as it eliminates its one, true defense. Badger

> How likely is it that someone will hit you cross-table with a rush? A > rush deck has enough problems of its own to hit someone cross-table > without provocation. Very likely, if that person is playing politics and just voted to steal your location. Very likely if that person is playing politics and calls peace treaty to burn you weapons. Very likely, if they vote to burn your allies. Very likely, if that person just mind raped one of your minions. Very likely, if that person just Malk Dem you. Need I go on? > > How likely is it that someone will hit you cross-table with a vote? > Well, vote decks have their own problems with No Vote Pushing (which I > whole-heartedly support) meaning that if they *can* get a vote passed, > they'll be much better off using it on prey, predator and, possibly, > grand-prey. Unless provoked, there is very little reason for cross- > table votes. Sure there is - if you want to steal a powerful location or burn weapons/allies. Sure there is - if you want to conservative agitation your grand-prey, realizing you can knock your prey out at any time and you want to blow through 2-3 guys at once for a massive 12-18 blood gain. Sure there is - if that methuselah is also playing politics and keeps voting against your Praxis Seizures or Cons Boons. Sure there is - if the methuselah in question is about to eliminate his prey and you want to slow him down with Consang Cond (so his predator can attack) or Political Flux (?) to reduce the blood he's going to gain next turn for ousting. Or maybe you'd like to switch places with him for the easy 6. > > How likely is that someone will bleed you cross-table? Well, a bleed > deck is going to be better off ousting your prey with your cards and > getting the blood and the victory points. Unless provoked, there is > very little reason for cross-table bleeds. Of course there is. If that guy just called a vote that adversely affected you. Or he played ARchon Investigation. Or he's tearing through your predator too fast and you'd like to preserve a buffer. Or because he just stole one of your minions. Or because he Bum Rushed you because you were chewing through your prey too fast. > > Unfortunately, the biggest provocation on the table is *another* cross-table bleed from a spiteful player, who would rather oust you than their > prey, simple because you're playing well, have a good deck, have a lot > of VPs so far (in a tournament). Like I said, a cross-table rush is > VERY risky any of the time. You can't afford the vamps. A cross-table > vote is now a lot less likely if you can't empty your hand of vote cards > for it. A cross-table bleed is the only action that can be reliably > pulled off. > > Cross-table bleeds beget cross-table bleeds. > Wrong again James. What do we have for our runner up? Ooh look, some nice conciliation prizes. Five more pages of errata with another half dozen card rewrites. Jyhad isn't just a tournament game where everyone's worried about VPs. It 90% played in the shops and living rooms where people want to have fun and win if they can. And if it takes a direct bleed or 10 to accomplish that, then so be it. LET Cross Table Bleeds BE!!! BAdger

badger wrote: > > Dear James: > > I beg to differ. How is being bum rushed expected? Or the victim of > Conservative Agitation. And if I'm not ready for a direct bleed, how am > I ready for a direct attack? You have to be prepared (i.e., untapped) to be able to defend against a cross-table bleed. You _cannot_ defend against a ct-bleed if your defense is anything other than Deflection or intercept. You can defend against a combat deck by having combat cards, and you can defend against votes by having votes of your own, or cards like Delaying Tactics. > Also, it most certainly does affect my pool when someone bum rushes my 6 > capacity vampire and torporizes him in the first round of combat. Or > votes to make me lose 6 pool. A capactity-6 vampire going to torpor is not the same as losing 6 pool. You can rescue the vampire, or if he's diablerizing, burn the perpetrator in the Blood Hunt. > My deck's a stealth/bleed - I have no combat/political defense. Then you have a weak deck. The only way you can possibly hope to win is by ousting your prey faster than you can be killed by the combat/vote decks near you. > Except to threaten with direct bleeds. This is not a defense against combat or against votes. Removing someone's pool doesn't keep their vampires from acting. It just makes the person mad. > It's designed to hit hard and fast - > not to punk my predator just for the sake of it. If I concentrate too > much on him, my prey benefits and so does his predator. It's a > deterent, that's all. The ruling against it heavily handicaps bleed > decks as it eliminates its one, true defense. Bleed decks can have combat defense and vote defense, just like every other deck. If you're whining because this ruling makes you actually have to put defenses in your deck, then I have no sympathy. [In another post, you begat:] > Jyhad isn't just a tournament game where everyone's worried about VPs. > It 90% played in the shops and living rooms where people want to have > fun and win if they can. If you aren't playing to win, then you're playing a different game. > And if it takes a direct bleed or 10 to > accomplish that, then so be it. The point is that the ct-bleed for 10 is far too powerful, and far too hard to defend against. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu V:EKN FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html "We _do_ kill people... that's sort of our raison d'etre" -- Spike

Badger wrote: "I had no defense against this, EXCEPT to direct bleed him! So I did. And you know what? He backed off - giving me valuable time to recoup." Regardless of the appropriatness of CTB, why, in gods name, did your Rush action predator ease up on you becasue you were back bleeding him? Was he weak and soft? Any self respecting Rush deck that gets provoked like that should have _demolished_ you. Sure, you can get his dander in an uproar by back bleeding him a couple times, but if you were playing a combat defense free S+B deck, you should have never taken an action again (as every vampire you get is immediately destroyed before it takes a single action) after pulling such a feat. What am I missing? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "You're lucky to even know me. You're lucky to be alive." -Liz Phair

Badger wrote: "Very likely, if that person is playing politics and just voted to steal your location. Very likely if that person is playing politics and calls peace treaty to burn you weapons. Very likely, if they vote to burn your allies. Very likely, if that person just mind raped one of your minions. Very likely, if that person just Malk Dem you. Need I go on?" Provoking someone across the table is idiocy, tournament or no. Jyhad is a game where the people next to you are your enemies and the people not next to you are your (for the time being) friends. For the vast bulk of the time, you gain nothing at all by acting against the people across the table from you, and usually weaken your position in the long run, as this sort of activity invariably strengthens your enemies (the people sitting next to you). Voting to hurt someone across the table is dumb. Rushing someone across the table is dumb. Bleeding someone across the table is dumb. It strengthens your enemies, wastes your actions, and weakens your position. Never a good idea. I play Rush decks all the time. I almost never Rush across the table, and the only times I do is out of spite when I am losing anyway and someone across the table does something dumb and random, like cross table bleed me. The more possibility there is in the game for random, spiteful actions like CTBs, the weaker the game is. "Jyhad isn't just a tournament game where everyone's worried about VPs. It 90% played in the shops and living rooms where people want to have fun and win if they can. And if it takes a direct bleed or 10 to accomplish that, then so be it." This has nothing to do with whether you are in a tournament or not. A game succeeds or fails based on how well it is designed. Anything that comprimises good design weakens the game. I fail to see why people in shops and living rooms should be required to play a substandard game. If you want to play with wacky house rules, by all means, go ahead, but the rules as they currently are lend to a well designed and well balanced play environment, whether in a tournament or a living room. [ quoted text not captured ]

PDB6 wrote: > > Regardless of the appropriatness of CTB, why, in gods name, did your Rush > action predator ease up on you becasue you were back bleeding him? Was he weak > and soft? Any self respecting Rush deck that gets provoked like that should > have _demolished_ you. Sure, you can get his dander in an uproar by back > bleeding him a couple times, but if you were playing a combat defense free S+B > deck, you should have never taken an action again (as every vampire you get is > immediately destroyed before it takes a single action) after pulling such a > feat. What am I missing? What you are missing is that Jyhad is not a 1D game. People don't go full offense. If his prey were to use every vampire to kill each of his each turn, he would have had no defense against the Toreador Bleed Deck - not a smart move. If this is the *normal* mindset of a "self respecting Rush deck" then that must be why people are always complaining they don't win much (I do fine with them when I use them by the way). Kevin

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <35E0412B...@buffnet.net>, badger <bad...@buffnet.net> > writes > >Why? > > > >Rush/combat decks can target anyone they want. Political decks can > >target anyone they want. To some extent, you can intercept anyone you > >want (Eagle Sight, Anneke, etc). Therefore, I should be able to bleed > >ANYONE I want to. Why is bleeding being handicapped? > > Rush/combat incapacitates a minion, not pool. This is a weak argument that everyone keeps throwing around. Why is a minion considered less than pool. Number one, you must use pool to get a minion. Second, I usually have ways to get pool from minions so losing a minion with blood is just like losing pool in the amount of blood on them. Third, you can more easily do large amounts of blood damage in combat than you can in bleed damage to pool. Finally, many times I would *rather* lose pool than minions (depending on the minion) because the loss of that minion could criple me. > Political affects pool but EVERYONE can vote. Everyone with a political deck or that happens to have titled vampires. > Intercept is not pro-active. People can get round intercept > (unblockability, actions that don't care if they're blocked - combat > etc.). Intercept can only affect minions, not pool. You can't get around intercept any easier than you can avoid being bled (intercept, bleed bounce, killing the bleeders). Some decks can't have a very hard time getting around intercept, some decks have a hard time avioding bleeds there isn't much difference. See above for affecting minions. > Bleed affects pool and only one person can stop it. If it goes cross- > table, still only one person can stop it - and not a person who was > expecting to get hit by you. Just like you weren't expecting to get hit by an arson, or a rush, or .... I say just learn to expect it. Besides I am always concerned about bleeds since that is the name of the game (whoever they are from). > *sigh* > > Bleed: gets rid of pool (unlike combat) One is not worse than the other > doesn't interact with whole table (unlike vote) Most people at the table can't affect a vote anyway. > > So: it can only affect your prey. Which is just plain wrong. > -- > James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply > > Vampire: Elder Kindred Network > http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net Kevin

> Political affects pool but EVERYONE can vote. [snip] > doesn't interact with whole table (unlike vote) But how difficult is it to build a deck with *total* vote dominance? Not that difficult. Add Awe, BO and to a lesser extent Bribes and who needs the other meth's votes? The only decks that really require everyone else at the table to vote your way are Non-Presence vote decks. Why is it that this fact is continuously overlooked? a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

PDB6 wrote: > > Badger wrote: > "Very likely, if that person is playing politics and just voted to steal > your location. Very likely if that person is playing politics and calls peace > treaty to burn you weapons. Very likely, if they vote to burn your allies. > Very likely, if that person just mind raped one of your minions. Very likely, > if that person just Malk Dem you. Need I go on?" > > Provoking someone across the table is idiocy, tournament or no. Jyhad is a > game where the people next to you are your enemies and the people not next to > you are your (for the time being) friends. For the vast bulk of the time, you > gain nothing at all by acting against the people across the table from you, and > usually weaken your position in the long run, as this sort of activity > invariably strengthens your enemies (the people sitting next to you). Voting > to hurt someone across the table is dumb. Rushing someone across the table is > dumb. Bleeding someone across the table is dumb. It strengthens your enemies, > wastes your actions, and weakens your position. Never a good idea. Never is an awful strong word. I agree that it is *usually* not a good idea take cross-table actions. This statement alone makes me wonder why people are so adament about eliminating them. By eliminating something which you have said never helps (I disagree with never) you also stop me from including something that I think *may* help. I you don't think it helps me, WHY DO YOU CARE. I'm saying that sometimes it does help and I may just want to prepare appropriately for that situation. It is up to the skill of a player to determine when it is good (seldom) and when it is detrimental. Don't tell me I can't do it just because *you* don't think it can help me. (This goes for all forms of cross table actions not just bleeds - I have used them all at one time or another at a definate help to me). <snip> > Anything that comprimises > good design weakens the game. I agree, so why take out ct-bleeds? By the way, how does leaving something is which you don't even think can help someone weaken good design? While we're at it, lets get ride of the Chain Saw and the Oxford location from DS <please note: sarcasm> Kevin

> Dear James: > > I beg to differ. How is being bum rushed expected? Or the victim of > Conservative Agitation. And if I'm not ready for a direct bleed, how am > I ready for a direct attack? This begs the question of why you were being bum's rushed across the table. A combat deck _shouldn't_ be attacking c-t anymore than you should be c-t bleeding. Bad play on your opponant's part shouldn't be rectified by resorting to ousting him from the game (or contributing to his ousting). > Also, it most certainly does affect my pool when someone bum rushes my 6 > capacity vampire and torporizes him in the first round of combat. Or > votes to make me lose 6 pool. Again, there is almost no reason to attack cross-table or to vote someone down who isn't your prey. Poor play. > My deck's a stealth/bleed - I have no combat/political defense. Except > to threaten with direct bleeds. With fewer directed bleeds, you now have room in your deck for other defesnses. > It's designed to hit hard and fast - > not to punk my predator just for the sake of it. If I concentrate too > much on him, my prey benefits and so does his predator. It's a > deterent, that's all. How is it a deterrent? Does it cause your predator to stop trying to oust you? All it did was to weaken the c-t player, who should have been trying to oust his prey/weaken his predator. > The ruling against it heavily handicaps bleed > decks as it eliminates its one, true defense. Direct-bleed defenses strengthen an already powerful deck. Alan (aj)

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > Political affects pool but EVERYONE can vote. > [snip] > > doesn't interact with whole table (unlike vote) > > But how difficult is it to build a deck with *total* vote > dominance? Not that difficult. Add Awe, BO and to a lesser > extent Bribes and who needs the other meth's votes? (Am I the only player who plays with Kindred Coersion vs. Awe?) There is no total vote dominance. My Malk deck uses Malkavian riders to 'leech' off of vote-dominance, with Cryptic riders to force further votes after the Malk Rider vote passes. So, the success of your deck powers the success of mine. It doesn't do so well when there _isn't_ another vote deck present... :) > The only decks that really require everyone else at the table > to vote your way are Non-Presence vote decks. Why is it that > this fact is continuously overlooked? Because you can never guarantee that someone else _isn't_ playing a vote deck (with Awe, et. al). Alan (aj)

In article <35E0915D...@buffnet.net>, badger <bad...@buffnet.net> writes <snip> Badger, you live in a world where you attack all over the table, attacking anyone in sight. You gather no allies in your games and therefore provide no incentive for anyone to help you. If you're not playing in a tournament, the reputation you keep as a player is of great importance. You seem to think that hitting anyone, anywhere on the table, at any time is a GREAT MOVE!!! Your arguments are based round "It's fun" and other puerile statements. If you are quite incapable of seeing that combat decks have enough problems of their own before they START attacking across a table (as opposed to retaliate against it), that a vote deck now has a great deal of trouble securing the votes it needs so is unlikely to START a cross- table frenzy and that other deck types are generally unstable and insecure in that, though quite possibly powerful, they often are quite precariously balanced in what they do and that they have enough problems of their own without having to start going across table for no reason, then we are not playing the same game. A bleed deck has NO problems bleeding cross-table. Bleeding cross-table is no different to bleeding your prey, from its point of view. It can still stealth it as much as it likes, increase the bleed as much as it likes and so forth. A vote deck incurs the wrath of the other votes on the table, and a vote deck has many fewer votes now. A combat deck loses the action it should have been taking against its predator to stop them bleeding/voting against it. A bleed deck loses very little since it can already do large bleeds against its prey with one action, so losing an action doesn't matter so much. Bleeding cross-table can often be a "good" way to cycle cards when they're filling your hand, and the rules are quite obviously set up to make unnecessary cycling difficult to do. >LET Cross Table Bleeds BE!!! > *sigh* Please provide solid arguments of your own. Not just "It's fun" and "We have to allow them". Give us proper, solid information which shows that they are not unbalancing, were what the Game Designers intended, do not allow King-Making in any way and do not disrupt the Predator-Prey dynamic. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35E16199...@atlantic.net>, Kevin Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote: [snip] > What you are missing is that Jyhad is not a 1D game. People don't go > full offense. If his prey were to use every vampire to kill each of his > each turn, he would have had no defense against the Toreador Bleed Deck > - not a smart move. If this is the *normal* mindset of a "self > respecting Rush deck" then that must be why people are always > complaining they don't win much (I do fine with them when I use them by > the way). > > Kevin The game is set up to reward offense. The whole VP system keeps people from profiting when they snipe c-t bleeds. The problem isn't in the advantages for the deck doing the c-t bleed. The problem is for the deck that suddenly finds itself with an additional predator. Actually, the Tao of Rush has always been 'Rush early, Rush often'. In this case, against a S+B without any combat defenses, the Rush player would have more than enough vampires free to rush the Toreador Bleed also. Offense _is_ the Rush defense. Scott Harris kub...@imsa.edu [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35E168A3...@atlantic.net>, Kevin Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> writes >I agree, so why take out ct-bleeds? Why did the Rules Team put them in when the game didn't allow for them, more to the point? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6rrum2$rpt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com writes >But how difficult is it to build a deck with *total* vote >dominance? Not that difficult. Add Awe, BO and to a lesser >extent Bribes and who needs the other meth's votes? >The only decks that really require everyone else at the table >to vote your way are Non-Presence vote decks. Why is it that >this fact is continuously overlooked? You have no idea of how to build a vote deck then. Or you play with a clueless group who don't know how to defend against votes and so getting one Prince onto the table would be considered vote lock. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Never is an awful strong word. I agree that it is *usually* not a good > idea take cross-table actions. This statement alone makes me wonder why > people are so adament about eliminating them. By eliminating something > which you have said never helps (I disagree with never) you also stop me > from including something that I think *may* help. I you don't think it > helps me, WHY DO YOU CARE. I'm saying that sometimes it does help and > I may just want to prepare appropriately for that situation. It is up > to the skill of a player to determine when it is good (seldom) and when > it is detrimental. Don't tell me I can't do it just because *you* don't > think it can help me. (This goes for all forms of cross table actions > not just bleeds - I have used them all at one time or another at a > definate help to me). > Here's where I used to agree with you. The thing is, if you do something that doesn't help you, but ousts me, the game is not at all fun for me. If I am sitting merrily at 8 pool and have destroyed all of my predator's vampires, I usually don't have anything to worry about. If my deck is pretty strong, then I should probably win. If you are my grand-predator, however, and you decide to bleed me for 8 with a GtU + action modifiers and stuff, then I get ousted, and your prey gains 6 pool and a VP. That didn't help you at all. All it did was screw me over. And why would you do this? Maybe you're just an all-around jerk. Maybe you don't really know how to play the game. Maybe I accidentally bumped into you before the tournament and you're pissed off at me. I don't know. All I know is, when people do things that hurt you and don't help them, the game is not fun. (BTW, when I say "you" I don't mean you personally, but some people actually play the game this way. If we were to ban these people, then I would be back to being in favour of ct-bleeds.) -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

> > But how difficult is it to build a deck with *total* vote > > dominance? Not that difficult. Add Awe, BO and to a lesser > > extent Bribes and who needs the other meth's votes? > (Am I the only player who plays with Kindred Coersion > vs. Awe?) Umm, Kindred Coersion is a Reaction card whereas Awe is an Action Modifier. > There is no total vote dominance. Sure there is. Princes w/Presence. Not hard to do. > > The only decks that really require everyone else at the table > > to vote your way are Non-Presence vote decks. Why is it that > > this fact is continuously overlooked? > Because you can never guarantee that someone else _isn't_ > playing a vote deck (with Awe, et. al). This doesn't matter in the least. If I have a few Princes out using Awe or BO, it doesn't matter how many Awe or BO they have in their hand, the vote will pass. Since they are Action Mods, I'm the only one who can use them. The only way you can defend against a Presense vote deck, once the PA is successful, is by using Delaying Tactics or the DOM vote reactions. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

Alan Flesch wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Jyhad should not be degenerated into a situation where the only people you affect are you're predator and your prey. >Again, there is almost no reason to attack cross-table or to vote someone down who isn't your prey. Poor play. I tell you what, I will give a couple of examples as to why you may want to perform ct actions (please feel free to add to this list since I do not have time to type all day). 1. You wish to remove a player that has half of the political muscle when you have the other half 2. You wish to bring out a vampire without contesting (another player already has him out) 3. As above but with locations, allies, or any contestable card 4. A person threatens to be your predator soon and you can tell that you will have a very diffucult time defending vs them 5. You simply want their blood (conservative agitation etc) 6. You want the edge 7. You want to diablerize a vampire for their equipment and or blood 8. You wish to weaken you're grand prey (hoping that soon both he and your current prey will die) blood, blood, blood 9. You wish to use their weakening or death in a political ploy for more power 10. etc, etc, etc ...... Don't you get it ........ there is no limit to the reasoning for performing ct actions, it specifically depends upon the game you are playing at the time. This game is so much more than predator prey interaction, it is specifically the capability to affect anyone at the table (within certain strictures) that allow this game to have the depth that so many other CCGs lack. Those across the table from oneself can either be nominal allies or enemies, in direct cooperation to aid each other (for a short period) or be totally oblivious to one another. The magic mentality of I'm going to max/mini my deck to the point of total predictablity, narrow focus and short game play with my competitor having no chance of survival is absolutely moronic. Alright 1 round Jyhad kills yea how great. Develop a theme yes, build in a "degree" of predictability and play the game (don't buy as many rare cards as you can just to assure a quick win). Try bulding combat decks without IG or bums rush. Try building a prescence deck without majesty. Christ people develop some originality. (Note: If this last statement applies to you you know who you are, if not my apologies for stating the obvious). -Chris BTW who really cares about VPs, the man still seated at the table with his toys still alive wins the day.

Kevin Kelly wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > > > In article <35E0412B...@buffnet.net>, badger <bad...@buffnet.net> > > writes > > >Why? > > > > > >Rush/combat decks can target anyone they want. Political decks can > > >target anyone they want. To some extent, you can intercept anyone you > > >want (Eagle Sight, Anneke, etc). Therefore, I should be able to bleed > > >ANYONE I want to. Why is bleeding being handicapped? > > > > Rush/combat incapacitates a minion, not pool. > > This is a weak argument that everyone keeps throwing around. Why is a > minion considered less than pool. Number one, you must use pool to get > a minion. Second, I usually have ways to get pool from minions so > losing a minion with blood is just like losing pool in the amount of > blood on them. Third, you can more easily do large amounts of blood > damage in combat than you can in bleed damage to pool. Finally, many > times I would *rather* lose pool than minions (depending on the minion) > because the loss of that minion could criple me. > > > Political affects pool but EVERYONE can vote. > > Everyone with a political deck or that happens to have titled vampires. > > > Intercept is not pro-active. People can get round intercept > > (unblockability, actions that don't care if they're blocked - combat > > etc.). Intercept can only affect minions, not pool. > > You can't get around intercept any easier than you can avoid being bled > (intercept, bleed bounce, killing the bleeders). Some decks can't have > a very hard time getting around intercept, some decks have a hard time > avioding bleeds there isn't much difference. See above for affecting > minions. > > > Bleed affects pool and only one person can stop it. If it goes cross- > > table, still only one person can stop it - and not a person who was > > expecting to get hit by you. > > Just like you weren't expecting to get hit by an arson, or a rush, or > .... I say just learn to expect it. Besides I am always concerned > about bleeds since that is the name of the game (whoever they are from). > > > *sigh* > > > > Bleed: gets rid of pool (unlike combat) > > One is not worse than the other > > > doesn't interact with whole table (unlike vote) > > Most people at the table can't affect a vote anyway. > > > > > So: it can only affect your prey. > > Which is just plain wrong. > > > -- > > James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply > > > > Vampire: Elder Kindred Network > > http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net > > Kevin The loss of resources be they pool or minions is of equal detriment.

badger wrote: > > How likely is it that someone will hit you cross-table with a rush? A > > rush deck has enough problems of its own to hit someone cross-table > > without provocation. > > Very likely, if that person is playing politics and just voted to steal > your location. Very likely if that person is playing politics and calls > peace treaty to burn you weapons. Very likely, if they vote to burn > your allies. Very likely, if that person just mind raped one of your > minions. Very likely, if that person just Malk Dem you. Need I go on? > > > [ quoted text not captured ] > Jyhad isn't just a tournament game where everyone's worried about VPs. > It 90% played in the shops and living rooms where people want to have > fun and win if they can. And if it takes a direct bleed or 10 to > accomplish that, then so be it. > > LET Cross Table Bleeds BE!!! > > BAdger >Wrong again James. What do we have for our runner up? Ooh look, some >nice conciliation prizes. Five more pages of errata with another half >dozen card rewrites. >Jyhad isn't just a tournament game where everyone's worried about VPs. >It 90% played in the shops and living rooms where people want to have >fun and win if they can. And if it takes a direct bleed or 10 to >accomplish that, then so be it. >LET Cross Table Bleeds BE!!! Hallelujah ........ brother ... I can see the light, can I have an Amen?

Kevin Kelly wrote: "Never is an awful strong word. I agree that it is *usually* not a good idea take cross-table actions. This statement alone makes me wonder why people are so adament about eliminating them. By eliminating something which you have said never helps (I disagree with never) you also stop me from including something that I think *may* help." The reason CTBs have been eliminated is because they were not in the original rules. The concept of omnidirectable (D) bleeds were an abhorrent mistake by the old rules team, and were not based on the original rules of the game. Jyhad was designed in such a way that barring a card speciffically saying so (like Cat Burgalry or Night Moves), you could only bleed your prey, (D) action or no. The RT decision that changed this was completely erroneous and not based on any worthwhile decision. It was an error. That being said, whether or not CTBs are useful are not at issue. My point in the previous post was that in most cases, acting against someone across the table is a bad idea. I understand that occasionally a strike across the table is helpful, if not vital, to winning a particular game. I lost a tournament final because I was Rushed from across the table at a very inopportune time, which was inconvinient, but as the situation was, certainly not a random act on the part of the guy across the table. Yes, occasionally acting across the table is useful, but more often than not, acting across the table is incredibly random and is done for not strategically viable reason. "I you don't think it helps me, WHY DO YOU CARE." I don't care whether or not it helps you, but in situations where people CTB for no good reason, it _completely_ screws the guy being assaulted, to the point where it damages the game for everyone involved. If you CTB me for spite's sake, you will lose and I will lose. The difference is that you make the decision to lose the game for yourself, but I do not have the option to decide not to lose the game. "I'm saying that sometimes it does help and I may just want to prepare appropriately for that situation. It is up to the skill of a player to determine when it is good (seldom) and when it is detrimental." Yes, occasionally acting across the table will help you. More often than not, however, acting across the table is done out of randomocity, spite, or just plain idiocy. This ruins the game for everyone, not just the two people involved. "Don't tell me I can't do it just because *you* don't think it can help me. (This goes for all forms of cross table actions not just bleeds - I have used them all at one time or another at a definate help to me)." I'm not telling you that you can't act across the table. I am telling you that more often than not it is not a good idea, and anything that reduces the chances of this occurring improve the game. The reason you can't Bleed across the table is because it is against the rules. "While we're at it, lets get ride of the Chain Saw and the Oxford location from DS" We did get rid of Chain Saw. [ quoted text not captured ]

> There is no total vote dominance. My Malk deck uses > Malkavian riders to 'leech' off of vote-dominance, with > Cryptic riders to force further votes after the Malk Rider > vote passes. So, the success of your deck powers the > success of mine. It doesn't do so well when there _isn't_ > another vote deck present... :) Good trick but unfortunately I do not think you can Cryptic Rider a Malk Rider Clause, for the same reason you cannot chain Cryptics together (ie. vote, CR, CR, CR etc.) Since the voting process is skipped when either CR or MRC are used you are not eligible to play them again after the first is used. LSJ and Others care to comment???

Kevin Kelly wrote: "What you are missing is that Jyhad is not a 1D game. People don't go full offense. If his prey were to use every vampire to kill each of his each turn, he would have had no defense against the Toreador Bleed Deck- not a smart move." Any worthwhile Rush deck that is faced with a defenseless S+B deck (such as a generic Malk deck) will have all the time in the world to kill the Malk softies, and still have the ability to defend against its Toreador Predator. A reliable and fast Rush deck should torporize/burn a Malkavian on every action it takes. Given a well designed Rush deck, a Malkavian prey will never manage to take an action from turn one, unless the Rush deck lets them. If I have 3 or 4 smallish vampires, I can easily survive by attacking my predator or prey equally. If my prey decides to back bleed me, I will let my predator alone for a turn, and destroy every vampire my prey has in his active reigon. It probably won't hurt me much. "If this is the *normal* mindset of a "self respecting Rush deck" then that must be why people are always complaining they don't win much (I do fine with them when I use them by the way). " The normal mindset of a Rush deck is to destroy what threatens you. If your predator is dangerous, you whack him first. If not, you demolish your prey. If your prey gets uppity and back bleeds you, you punish him severely for it. If your Rush deck does not have this ability, then you are playing an ineffective Rush deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dear Alan: Please refer to my other posts. I can't remember which one, but I covered the multiple reasons cross-table actions occur. Thanks, Badger

Oh, my. There is intelligent life on this newsgroup. Thanks for the support Kevin. Badger

PDB6 wrote: > > Badger wrote: > "I had no defense against this, EXCEPT > to direct bleed him! So I did. And you know what? He backed off - > giving me valuable time to recoup." > > Regardless of the appropriatness of CTB, why, in gods name, did your Rush > action predator ease up on you becasue you were back bleeding him? Was he weak > and soft? Any self respecting Rush deck that gets provoked like that should > have _demolished_ you. Sure, you can get his dander in an uproar by back > bleeding him a couple times, but if you were playing a combat defense free S+B > deck, you should have never taken an action again (as every vampire you get is > immediately destroyed before it takes a single action) after pulling such a > feat. What am I missing? > > Peter D Bakija > PD...@aol.com > > "You're lucky to even know me. > You're lucky to be alive." > -Liz Phair Hey Pete. Let me try and clarify. After direct bleeding him for a handful, he got the point that I wouldn't go quietly. His rushers were medium cap vamps, so he only had 3 out. Plus his predator was using a presence bleed deck to threaten him with. I guess he didn't want a fight on 2 fronts. There were 8 people playing so a quick victory wouldn't really benefit him while everyone else was growing in power. If he fought a war of attrition, he'd probably take me out, but then he'd be wide open for a quick dismissmal as well. Specifically what I did do was turtle. I had no combat capabilities whatsoever. However, I had to make him think I was dangerous enough to bleed him for several before I was eliminated. After he torped one and knocked 2 others down to one, I bled him as stated. He got the point, but I realized if I kept going over there I wouldn't last long anyway. So I kept myself tapped taking seemingly harmless actions like hunting and burning the pulled fangs. He had no intercept to stop me. But the most important thing - he saw I had no blockers so he just came over to bleed for 1-2 a turn instead of putting my remaining vamps out of their misery. Besides he was more concerned with his predator now. He figured I was finished and I would only punish him with more bleeds if he angered me further. But the real turning point came when my now-powerful prey starting politiking. He voted to steal my predator's hunting ground card as it was the only location available for his DisTer. This action angered my predator into rushing his voters. Too late did he realize his error. Now fighting a war on three fronts, he was spread too thin. A bounced bleed from his predator took him out. I immediately influenced the 3 vamps I had waiting with 90% of their blood already on them (I hadn't brought out anymore vamps as I knew my rushing predator would just torp them and I'd essentially do his bleeding for him). From the ashes of torpor Yorik rose. I eliminated my prey, the voter. A famed vamp in torpor helped me to simultaneously eliminate my new prey and predator with a direct bleed in both directions. In the end, I finished in second. In good part to being able to direct bleed two predators. Badger In the meantime, I influenced more vamps into my uncontrolled region - putting enough blood on them to

I hate to tell you Pete, but most of the current errata/rulings were made because of tournaments. Because the "Great Balance" was disturbed. Aside from the handful of zealots on this newsgroup, I haven't heard anyone I've ever played with complain to the point of requiring a card be rewritten to suit their needs. Most of this stuff stems from having your ass kicked in a tournament and crying foul. Understandable seeings tournaments are few and far between, so you don't have a chance to rework a deck to counter the evil one the other guy unleashed and mopped up with. Badger As to your points about cross tabling - you're right - it is stupid to make enemies across the table. But sometimes it happens and sometimes you have to. If I'm playing bleed and someone messes with me from across the way, they'd better realize I'm gonna hit back.

Unfortunately, you've misunderstood my point(s) on CT bleeding. Or you're just plain ignorant. Sure CT can be "fun", but I don't advocate it for that reason. It's a tool. Pure and simple. A tool that can be used to attain victory. You want me to put that tool back in the box, as if I never owned it. Well too bad. I ain't gonna do it and you can't browbeat me into it. And if we were sitting at a Jyhad table now, I'd direct bleed you for six for your insolent tongue. Badger

In article <35E1E740...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: > Jyhad should not be degenerated into a situation where the only people you >affect are you're predator and your prey. Um, that's how the game was designed. Main foci of attention are predator and prey, with small, mainly political interaction with other Methuselahs. It curtails kingmaker effects (kill the person that's ahead) and *creates* the depth and variety that isn't found in other games. >The magic mentality of I'm going to max/mini my deck to the point of total >predictablity, narrow focus and short game play with my competitor having no >chance of survival is absolutely moronic. Alright 1 round Jyhad kills yea how >great. Develop a theme yes, build in a "degree" of predictability and play the >game (don't buy as many rare cards as you can just to assure a quick win). Rare cards don't really figure into a strong deck, modulo Immortal Grapple -- and Potence/Foo decks have non-IG ways of coping (Psyche, Hidden Lurker, Fast Reaction, Thoughts Betrayed -- none rare). Giving your competitor as little chance of survival as possible is playing to win. If you don't play to win, you're playing a much different game than the rest of us. There *are* no one-round-kills in Jyhad. Even with focused decks playing to win, a 5-player table takes 90 to 150 minutes to play. Are 3 and 4 hour games superior to 1.5 to 2.5 hour games, simply by virtue of their added length? >Try >bulding combat decks without IG or bums rush. Quite possible -- Gangrel with Dogpack does quite nicely (Dogpacks and a poolgain support system to make them affordable takes about as much cardspace as IG in a Potence deck) with Scorpion Stings. A light intercept deck can get a lot of mileage out of Haven Uncovered. Imperial Decree/Covenant of Blood can be strong in the right deck. And there is, of course, Ambush. >Try building a prescence deck >without majesty. Christ people develop some originality. (Note: If this last >statement applies to you you know who you are, if not my apologies for stating >the obvious). Catatonic Fear and Staredown replace Majesty nicely. Celerity and Auspex provide decent defence for the Toreador, and Thoughts Betrayed is actually a decent combat defence for Dominate clans. >BTW who really cares about VPs, the man still seated at the table with his >toys still alive wins the day. Okay. So you're playing with an entirely different set of victory conditions, then -- essentially, in your playgroup the last methuselah standing wins rather than (per the rules) the one with the most victory points. Hell, no wonder you're in favor of ct bleeds -- your game dynamic is skewed so seriously away from what the rest of us are discussing there's no essential commonality. We're playing two different games with the same cards. Given that, there's really nothing further to discuss. Feel free to play your variant as much as you wish. gomi

In article <35E1E7FC...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: > The loss of resources be they pool or minions is of equal detriment. A Methuselah without pool is ousted. A Methuselah without minions is not. This shouldn't be hard to grasp. gomi

In article <35E1EB02...@infomatch.com>, Karl and Sam <in...@infomatch.com> wrote: >Good trick but unfortunately I do not think you can Cryptic Rider a Malk >Rider Clause, for the same reason you cannot chain Cryptics together (ie. >vote, >CR, CR, CR etc.) Since the voting process is skipped when either CR or MRC are >used you are not eligible to play them again after the first is used. LSJ and >Others care to comment??? Well, the Sabbat text goes: Cryptic Rider Action modifier Cost: 1 blood Requires a ready vampire. Only usable after a successful vote. The next vote you successfully call this turn passes automatically. It doesn't say 'only usable during a political action' (cards with such text cannot be played during a CR'd vote), and a CR'd vote is, ipso facto, a successful vote, hence meets all the conditions for playing CR. I think it's perfectly legal, given that there are no rulings prohibiting it on the Rulemonger site. gomi

badger wrote: > > I hate to tell you Pete, but most of the current errata/rulings were > made because of tournaments. Because the "Great Balance" was > disturbed. Untrue. The old rules team barely had any contact with tournaments and didn't get enough feedback from tournaments to make decisions based on the results. > Aside from the handful of zealots on this newsgroup, I > haven't heard anyone I've ever played with complain to the point of > requiring a card be rewritten to suit their needs. Most of this stuff > stems from having your ass kicked in a tournament and crying foul. The people I know who are complaining about cards like Tomb are the very people who are so good at abusing it. The newbies getting their ass kicked don't cry to the newsgroup--they leave the tournament and make sure not to play again. > Understandable seeings tournaments are few and far between, so you > don't have a chance to rework a deck to counter the evil one the other > guy unleashed and mopped up with. While the Meta game is important and harder to grasp at the tournament level it does still exist. On the other hand, V:TES isn't supposed to be *all* meta game decisions. If someone mops up with a bleed deck then I shouldn't have to counter with a deflect deck which is then countered with a combat deck, etc. > As to your points about cross tabling - you're right - it is stupid to > make enemies across the table. But sometimes it happens and sometimes > you have to. If I'm playing bleed and someone messes with me from > across the way, they'd better realize I'm gonna hit back. I do agree that it is sometimes necessary. Maybe even if the only benefit of retaliation is to let that player and everyone else see that I don't put up with being hit ct. -- Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

> Kevin Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote: > > James Coupe wrote: > > > > In article <35E0412B...@buffnet.net>, badger <bad...@buffnet.net> > > writes > > >Why? > > > > > >Rush/combat decks can target anyone they want. Political decks can > > >target anyone they want. To some extent, you can intercept anyone you > > >want (Eagle Sight, Anneke, etc). Therefore, I should be able to bleed > > >ANYONE I want to. Why is bleeding being handicapped? > > > > Rush/combat incapacitates a minion, not pool. > > This is a weak argument that everyone keeps throwing around. Why is a > minion considered less than pool. A number of reasons, primarily that losing a minion _cannot_ directly oust you, whereas loosing pool can. Look back in the threads for a discussion of primary and secondary resources. >Number one, you must use pool to get a minion. Yes, and that minion may take actions to refill itself. In a way, a minion is a self perpetuating resource, whereas pool is _difficult_ to replace. It requires a sequence of cards, and is often easily disrupted (blocking the 5th, torporing the blood doll, burning the powerbase). > Second, I usually have ways to get pool from minions so > losing a minion with blood is just like losing pool in the amount of > blood on them. Are you sure? this seems a little confused: losing blood on minions is _nothing_ like losing pool. If anything, blood on minions (along with counters on cards, etc) is a tertiary resource, and even more easy to replace than the first two, In fact, there is a base level action (hunting) that directly replaces some of this resource. There is no such thing for secondary resources (vamps, etc) or primary resource (pool). > Third, you can more easily do large amounts of blood > damage in combat than you can in bleed damage to pool. How is this an argument _for_ CTB? I must be missing your point. > Finally, many times I would *rather* lose pool than minions (depending on the > minion) because the loss of that minion could criple me. BUT: if it was a choice of losing pool (and being ousted) or losing a minion, you can (should) see that losing a minion is _not_ as direct a factor to ousting as is being bled. > > > Political affects pool but EVERYONE can vote. > > Everyone with a political deck or that happens to have titled vampires. However, titled vampires are relatively common, and vote gaining reaction cards/ vote effecting cards are plentiful, and skill-less. Even non political decks can usually swing a vote or three, and a table full of votes must be overcome before any particular voting action can be successful. Contrast this to the lack of bleed defense available, particularly skill-less or innate. > > > Intercept is not pro-active. People can get round intercept > > (unblockability, actions that don't care if they're blocked - combat > > etc.). Intercept can only affect minions, not pool. > > You can't get around intercept any easier than you can avoid being bled > (intercept, bleed bounce, killing the bleeders). Some decks can't have > a very hard time getting around intercept, some decks have a hard time > avioding bleeds there isn't much difference. See above for affecting > minions. Yes you can. Intercept offers the opportunity to pound the miscreant into the turf, and otherwise explain rather forcefully why they shouldn't do this ;) Seriously though, Intercept _at not point_ can cause you to loose pool. Intercept is _defensive_. Bleeding is aggressive, and particularly CTB, directly targets that which keeps you in the game. > > > Bleed affects pool and only one person can stop it. If it goes cross- > > table, still only one person can stop it - and not a person who was > > expecting to get hit by you. > > Just like you weren't expecting to get hit by an arson, or a rush, or > .... I say just learn to expect it. Besides I am always concerned > about bleeds since that is the name of the game (whoever they are from). No, the name of the game is ousting your prey. Beyond this, any of the other actions you name may _indirectly_ contribute to your ousting (other actions to reduce your pool are still required), but Bleed directly expedites your exit. > > > *sigh* > > > > Bleed: gets rid of pool (unlike combat) > > One is not worse than the other Definitely disagree here. Do you _really_ believe that combat (and having minions incapacitated) is as bad as losing the game? > > > doesn't interact with whole table (unlike vote) > > Most people at the table can't affect a vote anyway. Not even nearly true. Sudden reaction, Pulling Strings, Innate titles, delaying tactics, all these cards and effects make it easy to play the politics game. If you fail to include them, that is a choice. BUT: anti-bleed cards such as deflection, reduction and intercept are discipline specific, and cannot be included in many decks. > > > > > So: it can only affect your prey. > > Which is just plain wrong. > No it is not. Bleeding as a cardless action can only effect your prey. Why should carded bleeding, which bestows other advantages (such as increased bleed) be at all different? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] It is exactly the potential for this sort of childishness which provoked cross table bleeds to be removed. Do you really need any other reasons?

Christopher Chew wrote: > BTW who really cares about VPs, the man still seated at the table with his > toys still alive wins the day. The player with the most VPs wins. That's why they're called "victory" points. Rulebook, section 0 "Object of the Game" and section 10 "Ending the Game". It doesn't matter if you've been ousted or not if you have the most VPs. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch

Karl and Sam wrote: > [...] I do not think you can Cryptic Rider a Malk > Rider Clause, for the same reason you cannot chain Cryptics together (ie. vote, > CR, CR, CR etc.) Since the voting process is skipped when either CR or MRC are > used you are not eligible to play them again after the first is used. You can. CR is played "after a successful vote", not "during a political action". Bribes cannot be played on a vote that automatically passes, but Cryptic Rider can be played after the vote passes, automatically or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35E1FA91...@buffnet.net>, badger <bad...@buffnet.net> writes > It's a tool. Pure and simple. A tool that can be >used to attain victory. You want me to put that tool back in the box, >as if I never owned it. It's a tool you only owned because the RT screwed up badly. >Well too bad. I ain't gonna do it and you >can't browbeat me into it. And if we were sitting at a Jyhad table now, >I'd direct bleed you for six for your insolent tongue. *sigh* And you expect me to believe that, after that remark, if you were allowed to use Cross Table Bleeds under the official rules, you'd use them wisely? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35E1E740...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> writes >Don't you get it ........ there is no limit to the reasoning for performing ct >actions, No, no, no. You misunderstand completely. If we didn't see the need for ANY cross-table interaction, we'd be arguing that Rushes should be only playable on your predator/prey, that votes should only target them etc. But a bleed is just too easy and powerful to pull off. Losing a minion to torpor is painful. But they can be rescued. Losing a minion to burning is also painful, but it's not the same as losing pool - if I had three minions out for 15 pool, and had 15 pool left, losing a minion means I still have 15 pool left, whereas losing pool means I have less than 15 pool left. With a minion gone, I can use that 15 pool as I choose. With less pool, it's a harder tougher choice. Voting can get rid of pool, yes, but bleed is just VERY easy to do. It shouldn't be thrown about willy-nilly. Combat is difficult and only gets rid of blood which can be got back with Fifth Tradition, Hunting, Aaron's, IDF, Giant's Blood, Festivo dello Estinto, Hunting Grounds, Taste of Vitae, Steal blood and so forth. Pool is much harder to get back. >The magic mentality of I'm going to max/mini my deck to the point of total >predictablity, narrow focus and short game play with my competitor having no >chance of survival is absolutely moronic. No, not at all. This is something I fail to see the point of. I *can* build a very wide deck, but if I want to build a narrow deck, why not? I fail to see how a narrow deck is not fun. It seems to be a school of thought that just because I draw similar cards a lot of the time that a deck must be not fun and the player must be moronic? Why? It is quite possible to have a lot of fun with a fairly pure rush deck. I know, I've built them before. I'm not a good player of them, but it was a bloody fun deck and got quite a few remarks about it. Being reliable in what I draw isn't the same as being boring. >Alright 1 round Jyhad kills yea how >great. Develop a theme yes, build in a "degree" of predictability and play the >game (don't buy as many rare cards as you can just to assure a quick win). Try >bulding combat decks without IG or bums rush. Building combat decks without some form of rush is facile. I need to be able to get into combat and not have to rely on blocking. The only other way to do it would be to do intercept, but that requires my predator/prey to attempt blockable actions. Haven Uncovered, Ambush, Contract and Archon are all usable and used alternatives. From the IG point of view, it's difficult. One combat tactic is to include either Dodge or S:CE in a non-combat deck. IG is one of the only reliable ways. Thoughts Betrayed and Dog Pack also work, and the ability to restart combats are also possible. However, Potence has some advantages of its own in that it's fairly easy to do big hits, whereas Gangrel find it harder to hit big and burn you - torporisation is fairly easy, but they can't carry a blood hunt vote :( And the Tremere normally have to wait till second round for the good strikes. It's an unfortunate fact that it's just difficult to pull off another form of combat. > Try building a prescence deck >without majesty. Christ people develop some originality. (Note: If this last >statement applies to you you know who you are, if not my apologies for stating >the obvious). > Why use Majesty when you can use Catatonic Fear? <evil grin> Actually, I don't like Majesty that much anyway. I throw maybe a couple in as a little defence, but not too many. >-Chris > >BTW who really cares about VPs, the man still seated at the table with his >toys still alive wins the day. Not at all. The last man standing doesn't always win. The guy with most VPs does, which isn't necessarily the same thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35E1E7FC...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> writes > > The loss of resources be they pool or minions is of equal detriment. Not at all. If a vampire goes to torpor, I can rescue him. If pool goes to the blood bank, it's harder to get back. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <35E1F619...@buffnet.net>, badger <bad...@buffnet.net> writes <snip - resume of game> Well played. Unfortunately, not everyone in the world uses cross-table bleeding as a finely tuned scalpel. A few have a tendency to use it more as a piece of two by four. As Chris Berger said, there are enough unintelligent people out there that it can really matter to the game. If the restriction were "All cross-table bleeds with no point are banned" then I'd go for that because it would still allow intelligent cross-table bleeding to be done in a handful of circumstances. Unfortunately, you can't guarantee that. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6rsnmm$sbt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com writes >> There is no total vote dominance. > >Sure there is. Princes w/Presence. Not hard to do. There is no total vote dominance. Princes with Presence will only pass you so many votes before it runs out. And Princes are expensive and you can't vote dump anymore. Since 7/7, it's been VERY difficult to establish vote lock, especially if you work intelligently to ensure that you have a little vote defence in your deck. Like I've said before, playtest11 on JOL is a good example of this - lots of voting vampires, Power Structure, Vampiric Disease on voting vampires, Muaziz, vote cancelling (Delaying Tactics variant) and so forth mean that the solid vote decks on the table have a VERY hard time establishing vote lock. And this uses a similar restriction to 7/7. [ quoted text not captured ]

kub...@imsa.edu wrote: > > > The game is set up to reward offense. Offense, yes. Blind attack, no. > The whole VP system keeps people > from profiting when they snipe c-t bleeds. The problem isn't in the advantages > for the deck doing the c-t bleed. The problem is for the deck that suddenly > finds itself with an additional predator. I still say that they should just have to deal with it (if it's not an advantage to the bleeder - they don't have to worry about it much). This is just an opinion though. > Actually, the Tao of Rush has always been 'Rush early, Rush often'. > In this case, against a S+B without any combat defenses, the Rush > player would have more than enough vampires free to rush the > Toreador Bleed also. Offense _is_ the Rush defense. I agree. For a rush deck to work they have to kill anyone that is a direct threat to them. This is one reason c-t bleeds do hurt the rush decks more than most others. I may also have responded to quickly, in this example I would probably have gone to a more conservative defense against the Toreador (which you could because of limited stealth capability) and attack the Malk deck harder because you probably couldn't stop a bleed from there if you wanted to. My point though, was that there are many times that a well placed bleed against your pred *will* relieve some pressure - I have seen it a lot. It is not nearly as effective as a reverse rush though which is why it is much less frequently used. Kevin

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > Here's where I used to agree with you. The thing is, if you do something > that doesn't help you, but ousts me, the game is not at all fun for me. If I > am sitting merrily at 8 pool and have destroyed all of my predator's > vampires, I usually don't have anything to worry about. If my deck is pretty > strong, then I should probably win. If you are my grand-predator, however, > and you decide to bleed me for 8 with a GtU + action modifiers and stuff, > then I get ousted, and your prey gains 6 pool and a VP. That didn't help you > at all. All it did was screw me over. And why would you do this? Maybe > you're just an all-around jerk. Maybe you don't really know how to play the > game. Maybe I accidentally bumped into you before the tournament and you're > pissed off at me. I don't know. All I know is, when people do things that > hurt you and don't help them, the game is not fun. (BTW, when I say "you" I > don't mean you personally, but some people actually play the game this way. > If we were to ban these people, then I would be back to being in favour of > ct-bleeds.) I think I now understand why I don't understand. I have played in only one tournament (which I hated beyond belief). Every other time I've played it has been with friends and friends of friends. I almost never had to deal with truely random play. Sometimes people would do things that didn't benefit them only because they *thought* it would but didn't. Usually they saw the error of their ways and didn't try that again, so we saw things like this very infrequently. If someone did start to exibit random behavior because "they thought it was funny", we would always gang up on them or guilt them out of not acting like a horses rear end. Since we regularly played with the same groups, this usually worked (wouldn't probably do squat at a tourny though). I also can see if I geared up to play a tournament, hoping to win, built what I think is a very good deck. The deck works wonderful and out of nowhere someone bleeds me for no reason and ruins my whole game - yes I can see how this could be frustrating. Now if I was any reason for them doing it them I should have been prepared and if I wasn't then, well, you snooze you lose. But if it was a totally random act then yes, that wouldn't be fun. So I guess I concede, for tournament play, there probably needs to be a little more predictability (Jyhad has always been a pretty unpredictable game). I don't think I will ever ban c-t bleeds in play with friends though because with friends, I don't care as much (we'll play again soon anyway) and I'd hate to diminish any stratagy (because to keep it fresh you have to constantly do new things). I do think c-t bleeds have a place in Jyhad, maybe it just isn't in tournaments. Kevin PS. Are there people out there who think that c-t bleeds are bad even without the random factor (ie. Someone bleeding c-t when it doesn't help them)?

badger wrote: > > Unfortunately, you've misunderstood my point(s) on CT bleeding. Or > you're just plain ignorant. Sure CT can be "fun", but I don't advocate > it for that reason. It's a tool. Pure and simple. A tool that can be > used to attain victory. You want me to put that tool back in the box, > as if I never owned it. Well too bad. I ain't gonna do it and you > can't browbeat me into it. And if we were sitting at a Jyhad table now, > I'd direct bleed you for six for your insolent tongue. > > Badger Badger: I have been defending your position in most of this argument so please take this the right way. We don't need to turn this argument into a flame contest. James: Please ignore the fire starters in this last post so we can all remain civilized. I hate to see good arguements degrade into "your dumb", "no, your dumb". And this is the kind of post that seems to start that. Kevin

PDB6 wrote: > > Kevin Kelly wrote: > "Never is an awful strong word. I agree that it is *usually* not a good idea > take cross-table actions. This statement alone makes me wonder why people are > so adament about eliminating them. By eliminating something which you have > said never helps (I disagree with never) you also stop me from including > something that I think *may* help." > > The reason CTBs have been eliminated is because they were not in the original > rules. The concept of omnidirectable (D) bleeds were an abhorrent mistake by > the old rules team, and were not based on the original rules of the game. > Jyhad was designed in such a way that barring a card speciffically saying so > (like Cat Burgalry or Night Moves), you could only bleed your prey, (D) action > or no. The RT decision that changed this was completely erroneous and not > based on any worthwhile decision. It was an error. This might be the case. A problem I have is that once you play with a particular interpretation of a rule (espesially when that interpretation has been declared "official") for a long time I don't want to change it unless there is a good reason. > <snip> > Yes, occasionally acting across the > table is useful, but more often than not, acting across the table is incredibly > random and is done for not strategically viable reason. I conceded in an above reply that I now understand why I have never understood this argument, namely, in my playgroup, it just doesn't happen. I also don't play in tournaments (I did it once, I didn't have fun, I won't do it again). part of why I don't play in tournaments was that randomness issue but I guess I never assosiated it with the "real" game (I like to pretend tournaments don't exist). I would just prefere to get rid of the random people than the c-t bleeds (yes I know I keep saying "get rid of" and your point was "it was never really there"). <snip> > "While we're at it, lets get ride of > the Chain Saw and the Oxford location from DS" > > We did get rid of Chain Saw. Was it banned or just not printed in V:TES? Either way, you get my point. Kevin PS. Ok, I'll now change my position. Get rid of (or keep gone) c-t bleeds for tournaments, but do it for tournaments only (I will always allow them anyway).

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > In article <35E1E740...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, > Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: > >BTW who really cares about VPs, the man still seated at the table with his > >toys still alive wins the day. > > Okay. So you're playing with an entirely different set of victory conditions, > then -- essentially, in your playgroup the last methuselah standing wins > rather than (per the rules) the one with the most victory points. > > Hell, no wonder you're in favor of ct bleeds -- your game dynamic is > skewed so seriously away from what the rest of us are discussing there's > no essential commonality. We're playing two different games with the > same cards. > > Given that, there's really nothing further to discuss. Feel free to > play your variant as much as you wish. > > gomi This brings up a very intersting question. Who here counts victory points at the end of a game outside of a tournament? For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs? I'd like to see as many responses as possible so please reply - I am very curious. Kevin

Kevin Kelly (kke...@atlantic.net) wrote: : PDB6 wrote: : > : > invariably strengthens your enemies (the people sitting next to you). : > Voting : > to hurt someone across the table is dumb. Rushing someone across the : > table is : > dumb. Bleeding someone across the table is dumb. It strengthens your : > enemies, : > wastes your actions, and weakens your position. Never a good idea. : Never is an awful strong word. I agree that it is *usually* not a good : idea take cross-table actions. This statement alone makes me wonder why : people are so adament about eliminating them. By eliminating something : which you have said never helps (I disagree with never) you also stop me : from including something that I think *may* help. I you don't think it : helps me, WHY DO YOU CARE. I'm saying that sometimes it does help and : I may just want to prepare appropriately for that situation. It is up : to the skill of a player to determine when it is good (seldom) and when : it is detrimental. Don't tell me I can't do it just because *you* don't : think it can help me. (This goes for all forms of cross table actions : not just bleeds - I have used them all at one time or another at a : definate help to me). What's never a good idea is the 'strengthening your enemies, wasting your actions, and weakening your position.' I recognize that a cross- table-bleed at the right time can win you the game. It shouldn't be able to. There should be no kingmaking in Jyhad. It is a game *involving* diplomacy, but it is not Diplomacy. It's not that I don't think it can help you. I think it can help you in certain situations. In those situations you shouldn't be allowed to do it because it's too powerful. In the situations when it won't help you, you shouldn't be allowed to do it because you'd be shooting yourself in the foot. ;-) : > Anything that comprimises : > good design weakens the game. : I agree, so why take out ct-bleeds? Because they reduce the amount of in-game strategy and increase the amount of politics. [relative to the original state of the game before CT bleeds were introduced by the old rules team] Josh god save the queen... she ain't no human being...

badger (bad...@buffnet.net) wrote: : I hate to tell you Pete, but most of the current errata/rulings were : made because of tournaments. Because the "Great Balance" was : disturbed. Aside from the handful of zealots on this newsgroup, I : haven't heard anyone I've ever played with complain to the point of : requiring a card be rewritten to suit their needs. Most of this stuff : stems from having your ass kicked in a tournament and crying foul. : Understandable seeings tournaments are few and far between, so you : don't have a chance to rework a deck to counter the evil one the other : guy unleashed and mopped up with. Sure, we're zealots, but it doesn't mean we're wrong. (You're a zealot too you know.) What this stuff actually stems from (for me) is seeing unbalanced cards dominating play, and wanting to change them so that more strategies using more different cards become more viable. If the Great Balance doesn't matter to you, why do you bother following the newsgroup discussions at all? You could just as well play with the rules as given in the rulebook and make up answers to any cards with ambiguous text. : As to your points about cross tabling - you're right - it is stupid to : make enemies across the table. But sometimes it happens and sometimes : you have to. If I'm playing bleed and someone messes with me from : across the way, they'd better realize I'm gonna hit back. They shouldn't be doing that in the first place. Your position is that CT-bleeds are necessary because otherwise bleed decks don't have mutually assured destruction threats available? Josh nuclear deterrence in jyhad... who knew?

Kevin Kelly wrote: > > This brings up a very intersting question. Actually, I'm kind of perplexed that it even needs asking. > Who here counts victory points at the end of a game outside of a > tournament? Um, every single time I've played this game, we count victory points to see who wins. That's how the game works. > For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to > be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs? It's "more important" to have the most VP's, since that determines who wins. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu V:EKN FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html "We _do_ kill people... that's sort of our raison d'etre" -- Spike

the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > A number of reasons, primarily that losing a minion _cannot_ directly oust > you, whereas loosing pool can. Look back in the threads for a discussion of > primary and secondary resources. Your making the assumption that every c-t bleed will oust. > >Number one, you must use pool to get a minion. > > Yes, and that minion may take actions to refill itself. In a way, a minion is > a self perpetuating resource, whereas pool is _difficult_ to replace. It > requires a sequence of cards, and is often easily disrupted (blocking the > 5th, torporing the blood doll, burning the powerbase). A minion is only self perpetuating if it is alive. This same self perpetuation is also the primary way to get pool (ie. pull it off the vampire). If the vampire is dead you just lost the minion *and* a possible source of pool. > Are you sure? this seems a little confused: losing blood on minions is > _nothing_ like losing pool. If anything, blood on minions (along with > counters on cards, etc) is a tertiary resource, and even more easy to replace > than the first two, In fact, there is a base level action (hunting) that > directly replaces some of this resource. There is no such thing for secondary > resources (vamps, etc) or primary resource (pool). This is true of course. Blood on minions is not directly as important as pool. However, it is rather easy to do massive damage whereas it is not as easy to do massive bleeds. This blood on the vampire is not directly as important as pool but there are many ways to make it become pool, but only if you have excess blood to begin with. > > Third, you can more easily do large amounts of blood > > damage in combat than you can in bleed damage to pool. > > How is this an argument _for_ CTB? I must be missing your point. Very indirectly at this point. People are claiming that c-t bleeds are "bad" and c-t rush is not. This is claimed because they say that minions ar not as important as pool. I disagree and am attempting to show why I consider them of equal importance (depending on *many* game time situations). I am saying that it is not to terribly difficult to hit my 8 cap vamp for 9 - send him to torpor with no blood and I now am missing 8 blood that I probably paid for with 8 pool. It is much more difficult to bleed for 8. No, they are not directly relatable - an 8 bleed in much worse than being hit for 8. But They are both very detrimental and I am simply pointing out that I consider minion loss equal to pool loss in general. > > > Finally, many times I would *rather* lose pool than minions (depending on the > > minion) because the loss of that minion could criple me. > > BUT: if it was a choice of losing pool (and being ousted) or losing a minion, > you can (should) see that losing a minion is _not_ as direct a factor to > ousting as is being bled. Again, you are assuming that if I am losing pool I am being ousted. Of course being ousted is the worst. But assume I have 6 blood. If I have the choice of being bleed for 3 or losing my last vampire I will lose the blood. At this point I am in poor shape one way or the other but with a vampire up I at least may have a shot at recovery. If pool was so much more important why would I ever influence a vampire to begin with - which obviously makes no sense. > > > > > Political affects pool but EVERYONE can vote. > > > > Everyone with a political deck or that happens to have titled vampires. > > However, titled vampires are relatively common, and vote gaining reaction > cards/ vote effecting cards are plentiful, and skill-less. Even non political > decks can usually swing a vote or three, and a table full of votes must be > overcome before any particular voting action can be successful. Contrast this > to the lack of bleed defense available, particularly skill-less or innate. Apearently my experiences are different that yours. Usually, the only thing that can stop a powerful vote deck is anouther vote deck. Vote reaction cards are almost unheard of in my play circles. > > > > > Intercept is not pro-active. People can get round intercept > > > (unblockability, actions that don't care if they're blocked - combat > > > etc.). Intercept can only affect minions, not pool. > > > > You can't get around intercept any easier than you can avoid being bled > > (intercept, bleed bounce, killing the bleeders). Some decks can't have > > a very hard time getting around intercept, some decks have a hard time > > avioding bleeds there isn't much difference. See above for affecting > > minions. > > Yes you can. Intercept offers the opportunity to pound the miscreant into the > turf, and otherwise explain rather forcefully why they shouldn't do this ;) > > Seriously though, Intercept _at not point_ can cause you to loose pool. > Intercept is _defensive_. Bleeding is aggressive, and particularly CTB, > directly targets that which keeps you in the game. I don't understand this point, could you reexplain it. I think the original point was that intercept can also affect other meths, James gave reasons why this wasn't as important and I countered. > > > > Besides I am always concerned > > about bleeds since that is the name of the game (whoever they are from). > > No, the name of the game is ousting your prey. Beyond this, any of the other > actions you name may _indirectly_ contribute to your ousting (other actions to > reduce your pool are still required), but Bleed directly expedites your exit. You're right. What I meant to say was that I am usually ready to block a bleed (intending from my pred but could be from anywhere). It's true though that some decks really have no blocking capabiltiy (esp rush decks) and are much more vulnerable to c-t bleeds (although much less vulnerable to c-t rush). > Definitely disagree here. Do you _really_ believe that combat (and having > minions incapacitated) is as bad as losing the game? You keep assuming that you'll get ousted on every c-t bleed. This was not my assumption and I understand your confusion if you thought it was. > > > > > doesn't interact with whole table (unlike vote) > > > > Most people at the table can't affect a vote anyway. > > Not even nearly true. Sudden reaction, Pulling Strings, Innate titles, > delaying tactics, all these cards and effects make it easy to play the > politics game. If you fail to include them, that is a choice. BUT: anti-bleed > cards such as deflection, reduction and intercept are discipline specific, > and cannot be included in many decks. Again, this is just different from my experience where the reaction vote cards are seldom used. > > > > > > > > So: it can only affect your prey. > > > > Which is just plain wrong. > > > > No it is not. Bleeding as a cardless action can only effect your prey. Why > should carded bleeding, which bestows other advantages (such as increased > bleed) be at all different? Yes, as a cardless action you can only bleed your prey, I would never disagree with that. Having to use cards for the action I think puts the correct level of restriction. Carded bleedsing means that you must design your deck to effectivly be able to bleed anywhere and this really doesn't pay off. Therefore c-t bleeds are an occational tool you can use to help your situation (I am disregarding random c-t bleeds which I agree are anoying). Kevin

James Coupe wrote: > > > Please provide solid arguments of your own. Not just "It's fun" and "We > have to allow them". Give us proper, solid information which shows that > they are not unbalancing, were what the Game Designers intended, do not > allow King-Making in any way and do not disrupt the Predator-Prey > dynamic. > > I'm not Badger but I'll give it a shot, but before I do let me say that in all the years I have played I have only used this tool maybe 4 times total so removing it will cause very little change. At least around here. That said I feel the VP condition is enough of a limiting factor by itself If you CT bleed regularly you can't win (0 VP's = loss) It is however a tool you can use to buy time and help yourself win occasionally. The main arguments I've heard on the subject point to this supposed renegade player who does it out of spite and or ignorance, But I feel this renegade will figure out quite quickly that they can't win like that and will change the behavior on their own. Richard Garfield put it this way: (quoted from the original Jyhad players guide) " If a player is inclined to remove someone other than their prey then she is either gaining some advantage from the move, hence being rewarded, or she should reconsider her strategy." This says to me that the designer realized that a good player can and should be able to oust someone other than their prey "IF" it helps them. Was this really a problem ???? Eric

Kevin Kelly wrote: > > > This brings up a very intersting question. > > Who here counts victory points at the end of a game outside of a > tournament? Me and everyone I've ever played with > > > For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to > be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs? Most VP's of course Eric > >

Kevin Kelly (kke...@atlantic.net) wrote: : This brings up a very intersting question. : Who here counts victory points at the end of a game outside of a : tournament? I do. : For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to : be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs? When I played in Ithaca (with James Hamblin, Peter Bakija, et al.) we counted the person with the most VPs as the winner of the game. (just like it says in the rulebook ;-) At one point, we started using a point system to keep score among the regular players so as to encourage people to get as many VPs as they could. We did that because we were concerned that people weren't 'playing to win' to the extent that they should be, and it was unbalancing our game environment. : I'd like to see as many responses as possible so please reply - I am : very curious. In my opinion, 'last person standing' is a silly way to play. It suggests that the best thing to play is a super-defensive intercept deck. Josh i had to write the great american novel; i had a neutron bomb...

In article <35E2B9F2...@atlantic.net>, Kevin Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote: > Who here counts victory points at the end of a game outside of a > tournament? We do. Every group I've played with (4 people for a year, 20 people for a year, 6 people for 1.5 years, and 4 people for a year) has. It's the only real way to say who wins as that's what is defined by the rulebook. As someone else already stated, it's an entirely different game if you take out this element. If your group uses the house rule that last person standing is the winner and all you wanted to do is win, then why not play bounce/intercept and blood gain every game? I sure would unless I made a deck to toy with everyone else. > For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to > be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs? Being last man standing gives nothing more than minor satisfaction at having ousted someone who may have gained 6 or more pool from ousting other people. The point of the game is ousting your prey. If you only do it once while someone else does it twice, why should you be considered the winner? Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

James Coupe wrote: > In article <6rrum2$rpt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com > writes > >But how difficult is it to build a deck with *total* vote > >dominance? Not that difficult. Add Awe, BO and to a lesser > >extent Bribes and who needs the other meth's votes? > >The only decks that really require everyone else at the table > >to vote your way are Non-Presence vote decks. Why is it that > >this fact is continuously overlooked? > > You have no idea of how to build a vote deck then. Or you play with a > clueless group who don't know how to defend against votes and so getting > one Prince onto the table would be considered vote lock. > > -- > James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply > > Vampire: Elder Kindred Network > http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net >how difficult is it to build a deck with *total* vote dominance? Not that difficult. In a very small game this may be true (assuming that there are not other vote decks). In a large game it is very diffucult to have complete dominance even if you are the only political deck at the table. In my experience most decks get out one or two large vampires (for whatever theor purpose may be) which equates to alot of votes on the table. Even clever manipulation of cards and political savvy may not be able to prevent your votes from going down the drain. BTW what about intercepting the vote..... -Chris

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > > > Never is an awful strong word. I agree that it is *usually* not a good > > idea take cross-table actions. This statement alone makes me wonder why > > people are so adament about eliminating them. By eliminating something > > which you have said never helps (I disagree with never) you also stop me > > from including something that I think *may* help. I you don't think it > > helps me, WHY DO YOU CARE. I'm saying that sometimes it does help and > > I may just want to prepare appropriately for that situation. It is up > > to the skill of a player to determine when it is good (seldom) and when > > it is detrimental. Don't tell me I can't do it just because *you* don't > > think it can help me. (This goes for all forms of cross table actions > > not just bleeds - I have used them all at one time or another at a > > definate help to me). > > > > Here's where I used to agree with you. The thing is, if you do something > that doesn't help you, but ousts me, the game is not at all fun for me. If I > am sitting merrily at 8 pool and have destroyed all of my predator's > vampires, I usually don't have anything to worry about. If my deck is pretty > strong, then I should probably win. If you are my grand-predator, however, > and you decide to bleed me for 8 with a GtU + action modifiers and stuff, > then I get ousted, and your prey gains 6 pool and a VP. That didn't help you > at all. All it did was screw me over. And why would you do this? Maybe > you're just an all-around jerk. Maybe you don't really know how to play the > game. Maybe I accidentally bumped into you before the tournament and you're > pissed off at me. I don't know. All I know is, when people do things that > hurt you and don't help them, the game is not fun. (BTW, when I say "you" I > don't mean you personally, but some people actually play the game this way. > If we were to ban these people, then I would be back to being in favour of > ct-bleeds.) > > -Chris > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum You cannot regulate the game based upon the stupidity of some players and the futility or randomness of their actions. I can think of no time since I have played this game when I have bled a player for "no" reason (for me to do anything ct there MUST be a compeling reason). I will not waste my time on actions that will not benefit me. There a many responsible players using ct-bleed actions why not keep the ct bleeds for their tactical benefit (sword cuts both ways). -Chris

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > But how difficult is it to build a deck with *total* vote > > > dominance? Not that difficult. Add Awe, BO and to a lesser > > > extent Bribes and who needs the other meth's votes? > > (Am I the only player who plays with Kindred Coersion > > vs. Awe?) > > Umm, Kindred Coersion is a Reaction card whereas Awe is an Action > Modifier. > > > There is no total vote dominance. > > Sure there is. Princes w/Presence. Not hard to do. > > > > The only decks that really require everyone else at the table > > > to vote your way are Non-Presence vote decks. Why is it that > > > this fact is continuously overlooked? > > Because you can never guarantee that someone else _isn't_ > > playing a vote deck (with Awe, et. al). > > This doesn't matter in the least. If I have a few Princes out > using Awe or BO, it doesn't matter how many Awe or BO they have > in their hand, the vote will pass. Since they are Action Mods, > I'm the only one who can use them. > The only way you can defend against a Presense vote deck, once > the PA is successful, is by using Delaying Tactics or the DOM > vote reactions. > > a0 > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum >This doesn't matter in the least. If I have a few Princes out >using Awe or BO, it doesn't matter how many Awe or BO they have >in their hand, the vote will pass. Since they are Action Mods, >I'm the only one who can use them. >The only way you can defend against a Presense vote deck, once >the PA is successful, is by using Delaying Tactics or the DOM >vote reactions. Or you could use that pesky Auspex thing ......... -Chris

badger wrote: > I hate to tell you Pete, but most of the current errata/rulings were > made because of tournaments. Because the "Great Balance" was > disturbed. Aside from the handful of zealots on this newsgroup, I > haven't heard anyone I've ever played with complain to the point of > requiring a card be rewritten to suit their needs. Most of this stuff > stems from having your ass kicked in a tournament and crying foul. > Understandable seeings tournaments are few and far between, so you > don't have a chance to rework a deck to counter the evil one the other > guy unleashed and mopped up with. > > Badger > > As to your points about cross tabling - you're right - it is stupid to > make enemies across the table. But sometimes it happens and sometimes > you have to. If I'm playing bleed and someone messes with me from > across the way, they'd better realize I'm gonna hit back. Can you smell that ......... common sense ... damned refreshing. -Chris

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > In article <35E1E740...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, > Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: > > > Jyhad should not be degenerated into a situation where the only people you > >affect are you're predator and your prey. > > Um, that's how the game was designed. Main foci of attention are predator > and prey, with small, mainly political interaction with other Methuselahs. > > It curtails kingmaker effects (kill the person that's ahead) and *creates* > the depth and variety that isn't found in other games. > > >The magic mentality of I'm going to max/mini my deck to the point of total > >predictablity, narrow focus and short game play with my competitor having no > >chance of survival is absolutely moronic. Alright 1 round Jyhad kills yea how > >great. Develop a theme yes, build in a "degree" of predictability and play the > >game (don't buy as many rare cards as you can just to assure a quick win). > > Rare cards don't really figure into a strong deck, modulo Immortal Grapple -- > and Potence/Foo decks have non-IG ways of coping (Psyche, Hidden Lurker, > Fast Reaction, Thoughts Betrayed -- none rare). > > There *are* no one-round-kills in Jyhad. Even with focused decks playing > to win, a 5-player table takes 90 to 150 minutes to play. Are 3 and 4 > hour games superior to 1.5 to 2.5 hour games, simply by virtue of their > added length? > > >Try > >bulding combat decks without IG or bums rush. > > Quite possible -- Gangrel with Dogpack does quite nicely (Dogpacks and > a poolgain support system to make them affordable takes about as much > cardspace as IG in a Potence deck) with Scorpion Stings. A light > intercept deck can get a lot of mileage out of Haven Uncovered. > Imperial Decree/Covenant of Blood can be strong in the right deck. > And there is, of course, Ambush. > > >Try building a prescence deck > >without majesty. Christ people develop some originality. (Note: If this last > >statement applies to you you know who you are, if not my apologies for stating > >the obvious). > > Catatonic Fear and Staredown replace Majesty nicely. Celerity and Auspex > provide decent defence for the Toreador, and Thoughts Betrayed is actually > a decent combat defence for Dominate clans. > > >BTW who really cares about VPs, the man still seated at the table with his > >toys still alive wins the day. > > Okay. So you're playing with an entirely different set of victory conditions, > then -- essentially, in your playgroup the last methuselah standing wins > rather than (per the rules) the one with the most victory points. > > Hell, no wonder you're in favor of ct bleeds -- your game dynamic is > skewed so seriously away from what the rest of us are discussing there's > no essential commonality. We're playing two different games with the > same cards. > > Given that, there's really nothing further to discuss. Feel free to > play your variant as much as you wish. > > gomi Main foci do not change based upon increased interaction. Kingmaker, what a wonderful mathematical concept that so many have latched onto however in light of actual experience things don't usually pan out that way. Usually its not worth my time to perform a (D) action across the table. >Giving your competitor as little chance of survival as possible is playing >to win. If you don't play to win, you're playing a much different game >than the rest of us. <Sigh>...... You have seperated this from its context. Obviously you wish to kill others, hence the BASIC concept of the game. Of course I never wish to win just waste my time playing cards doesn't everyone (that was sarcasm). You missed the subtle point refering to mini/maxi. >There *are* no one-round-kills in Jyhad. Even with focused decks playing >to win, a 5-player table takes 90 to 150 minutes to play. Are 3 and 4 >hour games superior to 1.5 to 2.5 hour games, simply by virtue of their >added length? Yes, I know. My statement was sarcasm. >Okay. So you're playing with an entirely different set of victory conditions, >then -- essentially, in your playgroup the last methuselah standing wins >rather than (per the rules) the one with the most victory points. >Hell, no wonder you're in favor of ct bleeds -- your game dynamic is >skewed so seriously away from what the rest of us are discussing there's >no essential commonality. We're playing two different games with the >same cards. >Given that, there's really nothing further to discuss. Feel free to >play your variant as much as you wish. For the sake of homogeny I am discussing the standard rules. The last statement was my opinion regarding VPs'.

> > So I guess I concede, for tournament play, there probably needs to be a > little more predictability (Jyhad has always been a pretty unpredictable > game). I don't think I will ever ban c-t bleeds in play with friends > though because with friends, I don't care as much (we'll play again soon > anyway) and I'd hate to diminish any stratagy (because to keep it fresh > you have to constantly do new things). I do think c-t bleeds have a > place in Jyhad, maybe it just isn't in tournaments. > That's almost exactly how I feel. The problem with my playgroup (actually, with *one* of my playgroups, as I spend the summer in the Chicago area but go to school in Pasadena) is that we don't play very much. So, I'm not sure what other people in that group think of ct-bleeds. With either playgroup, I'll go with the majority. If the majority wants to use the official rule, cool, if not, ct-bleeds are fine by me, since I'm friends with these people. Like many people have said, house rules are okay. People have used house rules for a long time, and 7/7 won't change that (acutally, I think fewer people use house rules now than before). But it seems pretty absurd for the official rules to require intelligence and social pressure to make the game balanced, especially if there are to be tournaments, which there are. > PS. Are there people out there who think that c-t bleeds are bad even > without the random factor (ie. Someone bleeding c-t when it doesn't help > them)? > Actually, I think there are quite a few of them. I'm not one of them, however. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > The reason CTBs have been eliminated is because they were not in the original > > rules. The concept of omnidirectable (D) bleeds were an abhorrent mistake by > > the old rules team, and were not based on the original rules of the game. > > Jyhad was designed in such a way that barring a card speciffically saying so > > (like Cat Burgalry or Night Moves), you could only bleed your prey, (D) action > > or no. The RT decision that changed this was completely erroneous and not > > based on any worthwhile decision. It was an error. > > > I conceded in an above reply that I now understand why I have never > understood this argument, namely, in my playgroup, it just doesn't > happen. I also don't play in tournaments (I did it once, I didn't have > fun, I won't do it again). part of why I don't play in tournaments was > that randomness issue but I guess I never assosiated it with the "real" > game (I like to pretend tournaments don't exist). I would just prefere > to get rid of the random people than the c-t bleeds (yes I know I keep > saying "get rid of" and your point was "it was never really there"). > Eh? Don't take that bullshit. People can argue until they're blue in the face about "original intent." However, it is not clear at all that ct-bleeds were not originally intended. At best, the original rules are ambiguous on the issue. So, that is not at all a good reason for disallowing what has become a part of the game. That said, it looks like you and I are in the same boat on the issue... as in, "I prefer to keep ct-bleeds in the game, but due to stupid people would just as soon officially disallow them and play with house rules in friendly games." [ quoted text not captured ]

> > This brings up a very intersting question. > > Who here counts victory points at the end of a game outside of a > tournament? > > For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to > be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs? > Everyone I've ever played with counts victory points. This includes a playgroup of about 5 people in the Chicago area, about 15 people in Pasadena, and all Jyhad On-Line games (which may become the future of the game if this new expansion thingie doesn't pan out). The fact is, being the last one standing doesn't necessarily mean anything. If you have an intercept deck that does nothing but block, you will almost certainly be the last one standing. However, you prey who just ousted 3 people and runs out of cards and concedes will (or at least should!) have a problem with you claiming total victory. Allowing the last person left to win the game encourages passive play, and results in 3 hour (or longer) games that are not exciting at any point. Using Victory Points (as per even the most basic rules of the game), however, ensures that people must try to *do* something in order to win. With everyone trying to oust his or her prey as quickly as possible to rack up VP's, the game goes faster and usually has some pretty exciting parts. [ quoted text not captured ]

the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Kevin Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote: > > > James Coupe wrote: > > > > > > In article <35E0412B...@buffnet.net>, badger <bad...@buffnet.net> > > > writes > > > >Why? > > > > > > > >Rush/combat decks can target anyone they want. Political decks can > > > >target anyone they want. To some extent, you can intercept anyone you > > > >want (Eagle Sight, Anneke, etc). Therefore, I should be able to bleed > > > >ANYONE I want to. Why is bleeding being handicapped? > > > > > > Rush/combat incapacitates a minion, not pool. > > > > This is a weak argument that everyone keeps throwing around. Why is a > > minion considered less than pool. > > A number of reasons, primarily that losing a minion _cannot_ directly oust > you, whereas loosing pool can. Look back in the threads for a discussion of > primary and secondary resources. > > >Number one, you must use pool to get a minion. > > Yes, and that minion may take actions to refill itself. In a way, a minion is > a self perpetuating resource, whereas pool is _difficult_ to replace. It > requires a sequence of cards, and is often easily disrupted (blocking the > 5th, torporing the blood doll, burning the powerbase). > > > Second, I usually have ways to get pool from minions so > > losing a minion with blood is just like losing pool in the amount of > > blood on them. > > Are you sure? this seems a little confused: losing blood on minions is > _nothing_ like losing pool. If anything, blood on minions (along with > counters on cards, etc) is a tertiary resource, and even more easy to replace > than the first two, In fact, there is a base level action (hunting) that > directly replaces some of this resource. There is no such thing for secondary > resources (vamps, etc) or primary resource (pool). > > > Third, you can more easily do large amounts of blood > > damage in combat than you can in bleed damage to pool. > > How is this an argument _for_ CTB? I must be missing your point. > > > Finally, many times I would *rather* lose pool than minions (depending on the > > minion) because the loss of that minion could criple me. > > BUT: if it was a choice of losing pool (and being ousted) or losing a minion, > you can (should) see that losing a minion is _not_ as direct a factor to > ousting as is being bled. > > > > > > Political affects pool but EVERYONE can vote. > > > > Everyone with a political deck or that happens to have titled vampires. > > However, titled vampires are relatively common, and vote gaining reaction > cards/ vote effecting cards are plentiful, and skill-less. Even non political > decks can usually swing a vote or three, and a table full of votes must be > overcome before any particular voting action can be successful. Contrast this > to the lack of bleed defense available, particularly skill-less or innate. > > > > > > Intercept is not pro-active. People can get round intercept > > > (unblockability, actions that don't care if they're blocked - combat > > > etc.). Intercept can only affect minions, not pool. > > > > You can't get around intercept any easier than you can avoid being bled > > (intercept, bleed bounce, killing the bleeders). Some decks can't have > > a very hard time getting around intercept, some decks have a hard time > > avioding bleeds there isn't much difference. See above for affecting > > minions. > > Yes you can. Intercept offers the opportunity to pound the miscreant into the > turf, and otherwise explain rather forcefully why they shouldn't do this ;) > > Seriously though, Intercept _at not point_ can cause you to loose pool. > Intercept is _defensive_. Bleeding is aggressive, and particularly CTB, > directly targets that which keeps you in the game. > > > > > > Bleed affects pool and only one person can stop it. If it goes cross- > > > table, still only one person can stop it - and not a person who was > > > expecting to get hit by you. > > > > Just like you weren't expecting to get hit by an arson, or a rush, or > > .... I say just learn to expect it. Besides I am always concerned > > about bleeds since that is the name of the game (whoever they are from). > > No, the name of the game is ousting your prey. Beyond this, any of the other > actions you name may _indirectly_ contribute to your ousting (other actions to > reduce your pool are still required), but Bleed directly expedites your exit. > > > > > > *sigh* > > > > > > Bleed: gets rid of pool (unlike combat) > > > > One is not worse than the other > > Definitely disagree here. Do you _really_ believe that combat (and having > minions incapacitated) is as bad as losing the game? > > > > > > doesn't interact with whole table (unlike vote) > > > > Most people at the table can't affect a vote anyway. > > Not even nearly true. Sudden reaction, Pulling Strings, Innate titles, > delaying tactics, all these cards and effects make it easy to play the > politics game. If you fail to include them, that is a choice. BUT: anti-bleed > cards such as deflection, reduction and intercept are discipline specific, > and cannot be included in many decks. > > > > > > > > > So: it can only affect your prey. > > > > Which is just plain wrong. > > > > No it is not. Bleeding as a cardless action can only effect your prey. Why > should carded bleeding, which bestows other advantages (such as increased > bleed) be at all different? > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum >BUT: if it was a choice of losing pool (and being ousted) or losing a minion, >you can (should) see that losing a minion is _not_ as direct a factor to >ousting as is being bled. Bleed: gets rid of pool (unlike combat) > > One is not worse than the other >Definitely disagree here. Do you _really_ believe that combat (and having >minions incapacitated) is as bad as losing the game? Having minions unavailable for actions takes me much closer to losing the game. You are correclating the loss of pool directly with the loss of the game, this is incorrect. ANY action which removes your resources brings you closer to death (Pool or minions). This can be explained because pool is the driver by which most other actions can be initiated. Would you say that influencing a vampire or playing a master card that required pool was directly contributing to your death? Minion and locations are the means to replenishing my pool not simply exhausing it. >Not even nearly true. Sudden reaction, Pulling Strings, Innate titles, >delaying tactics, all these cards and effects make it easy to play the >politics game. If you fail to include them, that is a choice. BUT: anti-bleed >cards such as deflection, reduction and intercept are discipline specific, >and cannot be included in many decks. Not every deck can perform every action (nor should it). Intercept can be included in any deck via mastercards or equipment and thereby give you a defense to all (D) actions (excluding unbloackable). Not a valid arguement.

Kevin Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> writes: >the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: >>> >>> ["Bleed is prey only" is wrong.] >> >> No it is not. Bleeding as a cardless action can only effect your prey. Why >> should carded bleeding, which bestows other advantages (such as increased >> bleed) be at all different? >Yes, as a cardless action you can only bleed your prey, I would never >disagree with that. Having to use cards for the action I think puts the >correct level of restriction. Carded bleedsing means that you must >design your deck to effectivly be able to bleed anywhere and this really >doesn't pay off. Therefore c-t bleeds are an occational tool you can >use to help your situation (I am disregarding random c-t bleeds which I >agree are anoying). What is it about a carded bleed that makes you think it should be directable to any (other) Methuselah? Card text overriding the rules? OK. So you can use Cat Burglary, Night Moves, and Kindred Spirits to bleed someone other than your Prey because card text says so. But Computer Hacking says nothing about being able to bleed someone other than your prey, so you have to bleed your prey. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Error: TREK.SYS not found. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Load REALITY.SYS instead? Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | (Y/N)

Eric Freeman <eric...@uswest.net> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> >> Please provide solid arguments of your own. Not just "It's fun" and "We >> have to allow them". Give us proper, solid information which shows that >> they are not unbalancing, were what the Game Designers intended, do not >> allow King-Making in any way and do not disrupt the Predator-Prey >> dynamic. >I'm not Badger but I'll give it a shot, but before I do let me say that in >all the years I have played I have only used this tool maybe 4 times total >so removing it will cause very little change. At least around here. > That said I feel the VP condition is enough of a limiting factor by itself >If you CT bleed regularly you can't win (0 VP's = loss) It is however >a tool you can use to buy time and help yourself win occasionally. No, you cannot, since the rules do not allow it (card text excepted, of course, as allowed by the rules - Night Moves, Kindred Spirits, etc.) > The main arguments I've heard on the subject point to this supposed >renegade player who does it out of spite and or ignorance, But I feel >this renegade will figure out quite quickly that they can't win like that >and will change the behavior on their own. >Richard Garfield put it this way: (quoted from the original Jyhad players >guide) >" If a player is inclined to remove someone other than their prey then >she is either gaining some advantage from the move, hence being >rewarded, or she should reconsider her strategy." >This says to me that the designer realized that a good player can and >should be able to oust someone other than their prey "IF" it helps them. >Was this really a problem ???? Not if the player does so within the structure of the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35E2C8AE...@uswest.net>, Eric Freeman <eric...@uswest.net> wrote: > Was [the renegade ct-bleeder] really a problem ???? I've been in one group where it was quite easy to manipulate or intimidate a certain person into being a renegade ct-bleeder. Chris Berger (I think it was) had it happen to him in the GenCon tournament with a ct-deflector. It happens. And the only ways to prevent this behavior is to prevent that kind of player from playing or to get rid of ct-bleeds. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > [...] People can argue until they're blue in the > face about "original intent." However, it is not clear at all that ct-bleeds > were not originally intended. ? About as clear as it can be. But, since this point cannot be argued, never mind. The rules suffice. > At best, the original rules are ambiguous on > the issue. Not true. The original rules did not allow CTB: "You may attempt to bleed the player who is your prey by declaring a bleed action." [Jyhad 12.3.1] -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin Kelly (kke...@atlantic.net) wrote: : This is true of course. Blood on minions is not directly as important : as pool. However, it is rather easy to do massive damage whereas it is : not as easy to do massive bleeds. This blood on the vampire is not : directly as important as pool but there are many ways to make it become : pool, but only if you have excess blood to begin with. I think it's inaccurate to say that it's 'easy' to do massive damage to a vampire compared to doing a massive bleed. I'm not sure in what sense you're using the word 'easy', but the combination of cards needed for a large bleed is smaller than that needed for a high- damage successful combat. Compare: Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost, Fists of Death, Undead Strength: 4-7 damage depending on inferior/superior potence; 4 cards. Govern the Unaligned, Conditioning: 5-6 bleed depending on inferior/ superior dominate; 2 cards. That's assuming a victim with no countermeasures. For the combat deck, if they have damage prevention or strike: combat ends or dodge, you need to add Immortal Grapple and maybe some presses. For the bleed deck, if they have intercept, you need to add a stealth card. : Very indirectly at this point. People are claiming that c-t bleeds are : "bad" and c-t rush is not. This is claimed because they say that : minions ar not as important as pool. I disagree and am attempting to : show why I consider them of equal importance (depending on *many* game : time situations). I am saying that it is not to terribly difficult to : hit my 8 cap vamp for 9 - send him to torpor with no blood and I now am : missing 8 blood that I probably paid for with 8 pool. It is much more : difficult to bleed for 8. No, they are not directly relatable - an 8 : bleed in much worse than being hit for 8. But They are both very : detrimental and I am simply pointing out that I consider minion loss : equal to pool loss in general. To hit your 8 camp vamp for 9, I need to have the right cards at the right time, and I need you to not have a Skin of Steel. (Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost, Immortal Grapple, Blur: 9 damage if I have both superior Celerity and Potence. This is the 'easiest' way to get 9 damage I know of, and it needs two superior disciplines.) To bleed for 8 in a single action is 'difficult'; the easiest way off the top of my head would be an IC member bleeding with Govern the Unaligned and Conditioning (8 bleed, 2 cards). To bleed for 8 in two actions is 'easy'; the most straightforward way is two vamps with dom each using a Govern and a Bonding (8 bleed, 4 cards). Losing a vampire to torpor is bad. But in the midgame, losing that vampire's capacity in pool is generally much worse. Josh quoth the raven, 'eat my shorts!'

I'm confused as your statements are pretty contradictory on face value. In article <35E2C45B...@atlantic.net>, Kevin Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote: First apparent contradiction, ---- > This blood on the vampire is not directly as important as pool, > but there are many ways to make it become > pool, but only if you have excess blood to begin with. and later > [ct-bleeds being bad and ct-rush being ok] is claimed because they say that > minions ar not as important as pool. I disagree and am attempting to > show why I consider them of equal importance (depending on *many* game > time situations). ---- In the first statement, you say that vampire blood is not directly as important as pool. In other words, unless you have the cards to bring the vampire's blood back to your pool, they are definitely not as important. In the second statement, you say they are of equal importance. Hrmmm, now that I'm re-reading this, I think I may of mininterpreted your "depending on many game time situations" qualifier. So if it's only as important in cases where you are trying to get the blood back, then vampire blood's importance depends on your metagame, ie. how many Blood Dolls, Minion Taps people use or combat efficiency. Second apparent contradiction in consecutive sentences ---- > No, [bleeding for 8 and a vampire taking 8 damage] are not directly > relatable - an 8 bleed in much worse than being hit for 8. But They are > both very detrimental and I am simply pointing out that I consider minion loss > equal to pool loss in general. ---- First you say that a bleed of 8 is much worse than a vampire getting hit for 8, but then you say you consider them equal. Why? Look at it this way. Let's say there is this card: Sock it to Ya! Master Your prey must either burn 8 pool or one of your prey's vampires takes 8 damage. I can tell you that 99% of the time, I would take the 8 damage on my vampire rather than the pool. The only time I would take the pool burn is if I can definitely kill my prey with that vampire during my turn, assuming I have the blood to take the 8 point pool burn. > I am saying that it is not to terribly difficult to > hit my 8 cap vamp for 9 - send him to torpor with no blood and I now am > missing 8 blood that I probably paid for with 8 pool. It is much more > difficult to bleed for 8. This is a metagame issue. In my group, hitting a vampire for 9 is VERY difficult to do. There's a very good balance of combat defense. If you manage to damage a vampire for 9 (in any number of strikes in one round of combat), you got pretty lucky. However, having a bleed for 8 is not super incredibly difficult to accomplish. The only thing that stops bleeds this size in our group is fear of Archon Investigation. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

[Chris] ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: [someone wrote:] > > > The reason CTBs have been eliminated is because they were not in the > > > original rules. > People can argue until they're blue in the > face about "original intent." However, it is not clear at all that ct-bleeds > were not originally intended. At best, the original rules are ambiguous on > the issue. So, that is not at all a good reason for disallowing what has > become a part of the game. Actually, they were not intended. Talk to Richard Garfield. Look at what the rules themselves (however ambiguous) say in the original rulebook. Look at what Garfield wrote about unlimited player dynamics in a multiplayer game. It becomes fairly obvious. Garfield develops games, but then he generally gives them over to WotC to continue work on. Where they develop it from there, he rarely steps in on. Saying that the RTR regarding (D)-bleeds somehow disprove the original intent of the (D)-bleeds is not quite correct, because the RTR was made without consultation of the original designers. > That said, it looks like you and I are in the > same boat on the issue... as in, "I prefer to keep ct-bleeds in the game, but > due to stupid people would just as soon officially disallow them and play > with house rules in friendly games." This was painfully obvious at GenCon this year, with one Methuselah willfully taking actions that would oust both himself and his predator because he was "a wildcard, unpredictable, and I paid a lot of money to get here and play like I wanna". -- @#$ Adrian Sullivan $#@ Game Theorist Coffee Addict Hedonist @#$ Cabal Rogue Team Rogue $#@ Opinionated Gynophile Eccentric Geek @#$ V:EKN Prince of Madison $#@ heterotranshomotransexual - got that? @#$ The Corrupter $#@ GAT/WS C(+++)$ N++ PS++@+ R+++*$ z++**? [ quoted text not captured ]

> >>> > >>> ["Bleed is prey only" is wrong.] > >> > >> No it is not. Bleeding as a cardless action can only effect your prey. Why > >> should carded bleeding, which bestows other advantages (such as increased > >> bleed) be at all different? > > >Yes, as a cardless action you can only bleed your prey, I would never > >disagree with that. Having to use cards for the action I think puts the > >correct level of restriction. Carded bleedsing means that you must > >design your deck to effectivly be able to bleed anywhere and this really > >doesn't pay off. Therefore c-t bleeds are an occational tool you can > >use to help your situation (I am disregarding random c-t bleeds which I > >agree are anoying). > > What is it about a carded bleed that makes you think it should be > directable to any (other) Methuselah? > The fact that it doesn't restrict who you may bleed. > Card text overriding the rules? > In a way. The fact that the card doesn't imply the same restrictions about bleeding your prey that the rules mention when defining the default bleed action. > OK. So you can use Cat Burglary, Night Moves, and Kindred Spirits to > bleed someone other than your Prey because card text says so. > > But Computer Hacking says nothing about being able to bleed someone > other than your prey, so you have to bleed your prey. > Computer Hacking says nothing about only bleeding your prey, so you may bleed anyone. Neither your argument nor mine is convincing. I think you know that. If I were to say, "Hit someone," you would have no idea as to who you must hit. If you hit the person on your right, and I said, "you're not allowed to do that, I told you to hit the person on your left," you would think I was nuts. The broadest I will go is to compare it to saying "Attack." Well, in this case, I'm not sure who to attack. You didn't say that I must attack the person on my left, so it is logical to assume that I can attack the person on my right if I wish. Your argument says something to the effect of "without instruction, you may attack the person on your left." Well, great, but I have an instruction. That instruction is "Attack." So why can't I attack anyone I want? The "attack" instruction is ambiguous. The most I'll agree to is that the rulebook is ambiguous and requires clarification as to who a carded bleed may target. Since I can vaguely see the need for restricting ct-bleeds, I accept the clarification. I don't agree, however, with people arguing that this was "obviously" the original intent. When I first heard that (D)bleeds could target any methuselah, I said, "okay," reread the rules and decided that it made sense. Sure, we'd originally played the other way, but either way makes sense from the original rules. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

> ---- > > No, [bleeding for 8 and a vampire taking 8 damage] are not directly > > relatable - an 8 bleed in much worse than being hit for 8. But They are > > both very detrimental and I am simply pointing out that I consider minion loss > > equal to pool loss in general. > ---- > > First you say that a bleed of 8 is much worse than a vampire getting > hit for 8, but then you say you consider them equal. Why? > > Look at it this way. Let's say there is this card: > > Sock it to Ya! > Master > Your prey must either burn 8 pool or one of your prey's vampires > takes 8 damage. > Yeah, but that's not exactly what he's saying. I hate joining an argument where I don't really have a strong opinion, but to be a good parallel, the card would need to be: Suck It Up, Fanboy! Master Choose one: Your prey loses 3 pool, OR one of your prey's vampires takes 8 damage. This is a little bit more difficult to choose. Whether or not you believe that it is that much easier to burn blood than pool, that's more true to the arguement. The idea is, causing 8 pool loss is more devastating than causing 8 blood loss, but it's much easier to cause 8 blood loss. Thus, averaging in difficulty (as seen in disciplines/capacity/title required, and cards and blood burned) with damage, the two may be approximately equal. I disagree a little, but he does have a point. There are a lot more permanent ways of dealing more damage, and there are more ways of dealing damage/torporizing minions without much risk. Plus, if you are bleeding, you'll likely need to add stealth cards into the combo. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > What's never a good idea is the 'strengthening your enemies, wasting > your actions, and weakening your position.' I recognize that a cross- > table-bleed at the right time can win you the game. It shouldn't > be able to. There should be no kingmaking in Jyhad. It is a game > *involving* diplomacy, but it is not Diplomacy. > > It's not that I don't think it can help you. I think it can help > you in certain situations. In those situations you shouldn't be > allowed to do it because it's too powerful. <snip> > Because they reduce the amount of in-game strategy and increase the > amount of politics. [relative to the original state of the game before > CT bleeds were introduced by the old rules team] I think we have a conflicting basic belief. That is that I don't think c-t bleeds are too powerful. I don't think they lead to kingmaking. I think that the restriction that you need a card to do it, along with the fact that it is usually not a benefit to the person doing it is more that enough to it's power on equal grounds with other actions which require cards. You state "relative to the original state of the game before CT bleeds were introduced by the old rules team". I would like to know, original state according to whom? I have played since it came out and didn't know a "rules team" existed until about two years ago and I have always played that way and never met anyone who didn't. I think the rules team made it official because that's how the majority played. I have seen some different interpretations of the rules and they were (are?) ambiguous so I could really see it either way according to the original book. Kevin PS. By the way here are some wierd rules interpretations I have heard (in fact most of these are the reason I won't go to tournaments around here - Orlando - anymore). Does anyone use these? Have you ever heard these interpretations? Are any of them correct??? By the way I am going from memory on the cards so the words aren't exactly correct. 1.) Eagles Sight - +1 intercept. Sup: You may block any action They took this to mean - you *automatically* block any action. 2.) Voter dominance (I think that's the name (the one that uses pre.- you'll recognize): The next vote called automatically passes They did not take it to be "the next vote *you* call" but the next vote called. So if my pred used it but didn't call anouther vote. I could call a vote and it would auto pass. - This one I kind of found interesting. 3.) ---- well I just can't think of the others right now. Most of the really bad ones I tried to forget. I will go home and try to think of them.

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Kevin Kelly (kke...@atlantic.net) wrote: > > : This brings up a very intersting question. > > : Who here counts victory points at the end of a game outside of a > : tournament? > > I do. > > : For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to > : be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs? > > When I played in Ithaca (with James Hamblin, Peter Bakija, et al.) we > counted the person with the most VPs as the winner of the game. (just > like it says in the rulebook ;-) At one point, we started using > a point system to keep score among the regular players so as to > encourage people to get as many VPs as they could. We did that > because we were concerned that people weren't 'playing to win' to > the extent that they should be, and it was unbalancing our game > environment. > > : I'd like to see as many responses as possible so please reply - I am > : very curious. > > In my opinion, 'last person standing' is a silly way to play. It > suggests that the best thing to play is a super-defensive intercept > deck. > > Josh > > i had to write the great american novel; i had a neutron bomb... Not to deride an opinion but our play group has found that to be a very favorable way to play. It does not lead to the exclusion or inclusion of a single deck archetype. No one deck type tends to dominate combat, political or bleed. It comes down to how you play, not specifically what you play. -Chris

Kevin Kelly wrote: > Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > > > In article <35E1E740...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, > > Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: > > > >BTW who really cares about VPs, the man still seated at the table with his > > >toys still alive wins the day. > > > > Okay. So you're playing with an entirely different set of victory conditions, > > then -- essentially, in your playgroup the last methuselah standing wins > > rather than (per the rules) the one with the most victory points. > > > > Hell, no wonder you're in favor of ct bleeds -- your game dynamic is > > skewed so seriously away from what the rest of us are discussing there's > > no essential commonality. We're playing two different games with the > > same cards. > > > > Given that, there's really nothing further to discuss. Feel free to > > play your variant as much as you wish. > > > > gomi > > This brings up a very intersting question. > > Who here counts victory points at the end of a game outside of a > tournament? > > For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to > be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs? > > I'd like to see as many responses as possible so please reply - I am > very curious. > > Kevin VP are the only thing that counts. If a player has enough VP to win the game, I would rather not finish the game, even if I get to kick some serious butt.

Kevin Kelly wrote: "This might be the case. A problem I have is that once you play with a particular interpretation of a rule (espesially when that interpretation has been declared "official") for a long time I don't want to change it unless there is a good reason." That the game was not designed to work in this way is not a good enough reason? That it makes bleeding more powerful than the game was balanced to allow is not enough? "I conceded in an above reply that I now understand why I have never understood this argument, namely, in my playgroup, it just doesn't happen. I also don't play in tournaments (I did it once, I didn't have fun, I won't do it again). part of why I don't play in tournaments was that randomness issue but I guess I never assosiated it with the "real" game (I like to pretend tournaments don't exist). I would just prefere to get rid of the random people than the c-t bleeds (yes I know I keep saying "get rid of" and your point was "it was never really there")" If you always play with the same people, then it doesn't matter how you play. If you want to keep CTBs, and your playe group is happy that way, then go to town. The point here is that it would be good if there was a consistent, balanced set of rules for play at home with freinds and at tournaments with strangers. The rules as they are get pretty close. "Was it banned or just not printed in V:TES? Either way, you get my point." Chain Saw was removed from the VTES set, and effectively replaced with "Gas Powered Chainsaw" in Sabbat. "PS. Ok, I'll now change my position. Get rid of (or keep gone) c-t bleeds for tournaments, but do it for tournaments only (I will always allow them anyway)." If you are going to always use them anyway, regardless of whether it is official or not, why are you arguing? As to tournament/home rules, why should people not at tournaments be expected to play with substandard rules? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "The sound of gunfire. Off in the distance. I'm getting used to it now." -Talking Heads

badger wrote: > Why? <massive snip of rational> > > Rush/combat decks can target anyone they want. Political decks canBadger Your whole argument dealt with whether allowing cross-table bleeds are more desirable than not. Most of the arguments I have seen have been directed at that issue. Frankly, I do not care. I can see arguments for playing both ways based on fun and playability. The reason CTBs were nixed was because of the spirit of the rules. As some have pointed out, bleeds were intended to be directed at your prey and noone else. Interpreting EVERY bleed action card to allow cross- table bleeding was an abortion of a ruling. It was very obvious to me that it was a mistake, regardless of how much fun it is to cross-table bleed. The (D) symbol was never intended as a licence to cross-table bleed. NEVER. Just because some pin-head remedial stupid jerk in a position of power made a pathetic ruling does not make it right. And just because you like it that way does not make it right. We should have been playing by the current rules for the last couple of years, but I'll take what I can get.

Badger wrote: "I hate to tell you Pete," Please call me Peter. You don't see me calling you "Badge", do you? :-) "but most of the current errata/rulings were made because of tournaments." Nope. As opposed to, say, Magic, Jyhad tournaments are few and far between. There is no "Pro Tour" or Professional Jyhad players, or anything of the sort. For the most part, Jyhad is played in living rooms and game stores. I talk alot of smack, but in the last year, I have played in 3 Jyhad tournaments, 2 of which were run by my local game club and one of which was at Origins. The current errata/rulings was made because they made the game stronger, tournaments or no. "Because the "Great Balance" was disturbed. Aside from the handful of zealots on this newsgroup, I haven't heard anyone I've ever played with complain to the point of requiring a card be rewritten to suit their needs." Cards were re-written because they were designed poorly. They were not rewritten because they suited someones needs. I was just as capable of abusing Tomb or RTI as anyone else, yet always thought that the cards were poorly designed and damaged the game environment. Enough other people felt the same way, so they were changed. "Most of this stuff stems from having your ass kicked in a tournament and crying foul." Nope. I never had my ass kicked by any said cards in a tournament setting. My large group of Jyhad gamers, on the other hand, examined these cards over a long period of time and determined that they were wrong. Apparently many other folks agreed. "Understandable seeings tournaments are few and far between, so you don't have a chance to rework a deck to counter the evil one the other guy unleashed and mopped up with." The fact that tournies are few and far between simply means that any new player who shows up and then gets slain by some RTI/Mind Rape/Tomb deck or some WVP nightmare will get discouraged and forget about the game before another tourney comes around. Until now. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin Kelly wrote: "For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs?" The game's victory conditions are Victory Points. If the game ends with me ousted, but with 3 VPs and one other guy at the table, still alive with 2 VPs, I still win. Granted, in most situations this makes not a stitch of difference, but then neither does winning in any game. If you are playing a game, then winning is, at some level, important. if not, you might as well be doing something else. Role Playing comes to mind, initially, but then so does going down to a pub for a pint. People generally play games because they enjoy the puzzle solving involved, and the ultimate expression of solving the puzzles correctly is winning. Sure, I don't _really_ care if I win a game of Jyhad, but it is always nice to win occasionally. As the victory conditions are "Get the most Victory Points", then that is what is used to gauge said victory. Yes, being the last guy alive at the table is always good for sort of a moral victory, but it is still the guy with the most VPs who wins, alive or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Kevin Kelly wrote: > Who here counts victory points at the end of a game outside of a > tournament? I do. This is expecially true since I am trying to evaluate my own decks as I play them. Winning 2 victory points is a very respectable showing even if someone else gets 3. There is a big difference between being ousted with one victory point and being ousted with none. I have always counted the relative degrees of victory. I'm sure this is true of most people. This is, after all a multi-player game that is generally thought best with about 5 players. If you view it as strictly "either I win, or I lose", then it will be rather discouraging, as the average player will "lose" about 80% of the time, after devoting two or more hours to a typical game. > For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to > > be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs? Usually the last person standing *is* the person with the most VPs. In the rare instances where this is not the case, my playgroup certainly consideres the deck with the most VPs as having won top honors. Imagine player A ousts 3 opponents, then successfully withdraws leaving player B the last standing. Player A has 4 victory points, and player B has 1. I doubt that anyone would have trouble with the idea that player A has made the best showing. I will not deny that that one victory point you get for being the last standing has a slightly higher luster than any other victory point. Thus, if you had a "tie game" where player A was the last standing with 2 victory points, after ousting player B with 2 victory points, then player A is usually just a little more satisfied with himself. But that never stops player B from pointing out that it is, in fact, a tie. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

> This brings up a very intersting question. > > Who here counts victory points at the end of a game outside of a > tournament? > I should think everyone. However, if I had to choose between getting a VP and surviving a few more turns, I'd opt for staying in the game longer. Afterall, that's what we're all really after. What fun is it earning a VP if you have to wait an hour or more til your next game? > For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to > be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs? It's always nice to be the last one left, but if all you did was sit there and do nothing, then you shouldn't be considered the winner. However, I could see playing some interesting defensive/political combo (both with cards and words) to set the others upon themselves and then sweep in when everyone's killed themselves killing each other. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6rusvk$gsl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: >Eh? Don't take that bullshit. People can argue until they're blue in the >face about "original intent." However, it is not clear at all that ct-bleeds >were not originally intended. At best, the original rules are ambiguous on >the issue. Actually, it's quite evident, as a simple perusal of the rulebook shows: (from 6.4, 'Minion Actions'): "Bleed (no card required): Bleeding is one of the most fundamental directed actions in the game. A minion controlled by a Methuselah attempts to reduce the blood pool of another Methuselah. [...] 1) Tap the minion and announce to your prey that your minion is attempting to bleed. 2) If your prey's minions cannot block, or are unsuccessful in their attempts to stop you, your prey burns one pool. There are also cards that allow your minions to bleed your prey for more than one pool." I encourage you to note the word 'prey' used throughout in the definition of 'bleed.' Since 'bleed' definitionally includes a prey-only restriction, specific cardtext is required for a bleed card to affect a non-prey methuselah. There isn't any ambiguity at all. gomi this isn't rocket science, folks

In article <35E2DF14...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> writes >Kingmaker, what a wonderful mathematical concept that so many have latched onto >however in light of actual experience things don't usually pan out that way. Including Richard Garfield and you have to admit that when I "re-wrote" the article he put in Duelist, you considered it a poweful argument. >Usually its not worth my time to perform a (D) action across the table. Usually, no. And in your experience, no, it might not work that way. But the official rules have to work around your average guy on the street, with zero intelligence. Cross-table voting and combat are hard to abuse - the latter always has been, the former now more so. Bleeds need the restraint to stop average Joe turning up to a tournament and ruining it for everyone. If you don't care about tournaments, use House Rules because tournaments (sanctioned) are the ONLY place where the rules *have* to apply. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <35E2C45B...@atlantic.net>, Kevin Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> writes >However, it is rather easy to do massive damage whereas it is >not as easy to do massive bleeds. Incorrect. VERY incorrect. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6rusvk$gsl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu writes >People can argue until they're blue in the >face about "original intent." However, it is not clear at all that ct-bleeds >were not originally intended. At best, the original rules are ambiguous on >the issue. I submit Cat Burglary as evidence, m'lud. Why not just "(D) Bleed"? [ quoted text not captured ]

> Kevin Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote: > > the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > A number of reasons, primarily that losing a minion _cannot_ directly oust > > you, whereas loosing pool can. Look back in the threads for a discussion of > > primary and secondary resources. > > Your making the assumption that every c-t bleed will oust. Regardless of whether or not a ct-bleed will oust, it contributes (often substanitally) to the eventual ousting of the target. Furthermore, even if it doesn't oust, it does not allow many standard bleed defenses an opportunity to work, particularly defenses of the proactive variety have no opportunity to defend, thus any CTB results in one particular player having two predators, and therefore being unfairly targetting an individual player. > > > >Number one, you must use pool to get a minion. > > > > Yes, and that minion may take actions to refill itself. In a way, a minion is > > a self perpetuating resource, whereas pool is _difficult_ to replace. It > > requires a sequence of cards, and is often easily disrupted (blocking the > > 5th, torporing the blood doll, burning the powerbase). > > A minion is only self perpetuating if it is alive. This same self > perpetuation is also the primary way to get pool (ie. pull it off the > vampire). If the vampire is dead you just lost the minion *and* a > possible source of pool. BUT: losing a minion cannot lose you the game. Taking this in terms of secondary and primary resources, the only way to be ousted is to lose all your primary resource - your pool. Any other actions targetted at you just make you less likely to be able to defend your primary resource. The aim of the game is to reduce your prey's pool - the main (and most effective) way to do this is with bleeds - so why should (oustside of particular cards CB,NM,etc) a player be allowed to target someone other than their prey? > This is true of course. Blood on minions is not directly as important > as pool. However, it is rather easy to do massive damage whereas it is > not as easy to do massive bleeds. This blood on the vampire is not ????? Big bleeds are far easier than big damage???? Given Dominate: GtU + Cond = 6+any permanents (7 pool for 2 blood) Given Potence : Fists of Death, Pushing the Limit (7 damage for 2 blood) but there are far more effective combat defenses than bleed defenses. > directly as important as pool but there are many ways to make it become > pool, but only if you have excess blood to begin with. ?Powerbases, Investments, edge, etc? > > > > Third, you can more easily do large amounts of blood > > > damage in combat than you can in bleed damage to pool. > > > > How is this an argument _for_ CTB? I must be missing your point. > > Very indirectly at this point. People are claiming that c-t bleeds are > "bad" and c-t rush is not. This is claimed because they say that > minions ar not as important as pool. I disagree and am attempting to > show why I consider them of equal importance (depending on *many* game > time situations). I am saying that it is not to terribly difficult to > hit my 8 cap vamp for 9 - send him to torpor with no blood and I now am > missing 8 blood that I probably paid for with 8 pool. It is much more > difficult to bleed for 8. No, they are not directly relatable - an 8 > bleed in much worse than being hit for 8. But They are both very > detrimental and I am simply pointing out that I consider minion loss > equal to pool loss in general. Pool damage is more effective at removing a player from the game, and it is harder to defend against. For example there is no card which reduces damage from any bleed to zero, whereas such a card exists for damage (skin of steel). Furthermore, a combat attempt can be cancelled (S:CE), whereas the only card to do that for bleeds, AI is broken. > Again, you are assuming that if I am losing pool I am being ousted. Of And you assume that you are not. Regardless of how little pool you lose it directly contributes to your ousting, and there are _very_ few defenses against it. > course being ousted is the worst. But assume I have 6 blood. If I have > the choice of being bleed for 3 or losing my last vampire I will lose > the blood. At this point I am in poor shape one way or the other but > with a vampire up I at least may have a shot at recovery. If pool was > so much more important why would I ever influence a vampire to begin > with - which obviously makes no sense. In this particular example, I would agree with you - but only if I didn't have another vamp of capacity less than 4 - or the vampire is I am losing is bigger than 6 (with plenty of blood) otherwise, I would consider the loss of the vampire lucky. > Apearently my experiences are different that yours. Usually, the only > thing that can stop a powerful vote deck is anouther vote deck. Vote > reaction cards are almost unheard of in my play circles. So powerful vote decks dominate, but people don't paly with vote defence cards? > > Yes you can. Intercept offers the opportunity to pound the miscreant into the > > turf, and otherwise explain rather forcefully why they shouldn't do this ;) > > > > Seriously though, Intercept _at not point_ can cause you to loose pool. > > Intercept is _defensive_. Bleeding is aggressive, and particularly CTB, > > directly targets that which keeps you in the game. > > I don't understand this point, could you reexplain it. I think the > original point was that intercept can also affect other meths, James > gave reasons why this wasn't as important and I countered. I think I've lost track of it as well, but the point I was making was that Intercept cannot result in a methuselah losing pool. > > > Besides I am always concerned > > > about bleeds since that is the name of the game (whoever they are from). > > > > No, the name of the game is ousting your prey. Beyond this, any of the other > > actions you name may _indirectly_ contribute to your ousting (other actions to > > reduce your pool are still required), but Bleed directly expedites your exit. > > You're right. What I meant to say was that I am usually ready to block > a bleed (intending from my pred but could be from anywhere). It's true Even if they dumped a single stealth card on it? say +2 stealth with LiC? people with proactive defense couldn't even hope to block this much, and +2 stealth is probably the minimum any decent bleed deck would consider. > though that some decks really have no blocking capabiltiy (esp rush > decks) and are much more vulnerable to c-t bleeds (although much less > vulnerable to c-t rush). > > > Definitely disagree here. Do you _really_ believe that combat (and having > > minions incapacitated) is as bad as losing the game? > > You keep assuming that you'll get ousted on every c-t bleed. This was > not my assumption and I understand your confusion if you thought it was. I don't care whether you are ousted, a single CT bleed can take away resources that you should have been able to use to hold off your predator. And I don't understand your insistence that non-ousting CTBs are justified. > Again, this is just different from my experience where the reaction vote > cards are seldom used. If they exist, and your group is not using them, this is not an excuse for not using them. These cards easily stymie vote decks, and are readily available - unlike the bleed defenses, which require disciplines. > > No it is not. Bleeding as a cardless action can only effect your prey. Why > > should carded bleeding, which bestows other advantages (such as increased > > bleed) be at all different? > > Yes, as a cardless action you can only bleed your prey, I would never > disagree with that. Having to use cards for the action I think puts the > correct level of restriction. Carded bleedsing means that you must Remember that by using any of these bleed cards, you are having an effect equal to two or more (many more!) single action bleed. > design your deck to effectivly be able to bleed anywhere and this really > doesn't pay off. Therefore c-t bleeds are an occational tool you can > use to help your situation (I am disregarding random c-t bleeds which I > agree are anoying). But CTB can be beyond annoying. You and I agree that it has a minimal strategic impact for the acting meth (except in certain circumstances, where you are taking advantage of something that is not in the original rules, to gain a strategic advantage which you should have had to gain through competition or diplomacy), and you agree that idiots can abuse it (whether it is for spite, out of game reasons, or other irrelevancies), you say that you rarely use it, so _why_ should we keep it? Particularly since it was not part of the original game, and gives an unfair advantage to a particular deck strategy? The Autarch [ quoted text not captured ]

>> At best, the original rules are ambiguous on >> the issue. > >Not true. The original rules did not allow CTB: While the rules did not allow bleeding Methuselahs other than your prey, I find it interesting that we are using rules as being sacrosanct. Weren't these same original rules altered? See political actions. I liked CTB, but I can certainly live without them. What I find odd is that deflections and the like remain unaltered. These reactions are tantamount to bleeds and should be dealt with similarly if we are so concerned with the predator-prey relation.

In article <QzVnkIAH...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <35E2C45B...@atlantic.net>, Kevin Kelly ><kke...@atlantic.net> writes >>However, it is rather easy to do massive damage whereas it is >>not as easy to do massive bleeds. > >Incorrect. VERY incorrect. Yah, exactly the opposite actually. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > >>> ["Bleed is prey only" is wrong.] > > What is it about a carded bleed that makes you think it should be > > directable to any (other) Methuselah? > > > The fact that it doesn't restrict who you may bleed. The rules restrict whom you can bleed. The fact that the card doesn't override that inherent restriction is the reason it can only target your Prey. > > Card text overriding the rules? > > > In a way. The fact that the card doesn't imply the same restrictions about > bleeding your prey that the rules mention when defining the default bleed > action. The card says "bleed". It doesn't reiterate all the rules about bleeding, since it doesn't have to. For instance, the bit about getting the Edge if you are successful (1 or more) isn't changed by using a cardless vs. carded bleed. And neither is the bit about the bleed being directed at your Prey. The only thing that is changed by (for instance) Computer Hacking is the amount of the bleed, because card text explicitly changes the amount. > > OK. So you can use Cat Burglary, Night Moves, and Kindred Spirits to > > bleed someone other than your Prey because card text says so. > > > > But Computer Hacking says nothing about being able to bleed someone > > other than your prey, so you have to bleed your prey. > > > Computer Hacking says nothing about only bleeding your prey, so you may bleed > anyone. It says "bleed". That means "prey" since the rules say so. > Neither your argument nor mine is convincing. I think you know that. I know you are not convinced by my argument and that I am not convinced by yours, yes. But that doesn't mean that one of the arguments is not convincing. > If I were to say, "Hit someone," you would have no idea as to who you must > hit. If you hit the person on your right, and I said, "you're not allowed to > do that, I told you to hit the person on your left," you would think I was > nuts. Right. Unless the definition of "hit" included the stipulation it was an activity that is directed at the person on your left by default. > The broadest I will go is to compare it to saying "Attack." Well, in this > case, I'm not sure who to attack. You didn't say that I must attack the > person on my left, so it is logical to assume that I can attack the person on > my right if I wish. Right, unless the rules have provided a stipulation on who is the target of an "attack". > Your argument says something to the effect of "without > instruction, you may attack the person on your left." But you have instruction - the rules. My argument is better stated as: "In the absence of overriding instruction, the rules apply" (implication of the Golden Rule for Cards, sec. 12). > Well, great, but I > have an instruction. That instruction is "Attack." So why can't I attack > anyone I want? The "attack" instruction is ambiguous. For "Attack", sure. For "bleed", no. The rulebook is clear that this action is directed against the player's Prey. The ambiguity arises only when the rules are ignored. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Error: TREK.SYS not found. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Load REALITY.SYS instead? Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | (Y/N) -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote: > PS. By the way here are some wierd rules interpretations I have heard > (in fact most of these are the reason I won't go to tournaments around > here - Orlando - anymore). Does anyone use these? Have you ever heard > these interpretations? Are any of them correct??? By the way I am > going from memory on the cards so the words aren't exactly correct. > > 1.) Eagles Sight - +1 intercept. Sup: You may block any action > > They took this to mean - you *automatically* block any action. Jyhad text: "This vampire may attempt to block any action of any minion". VTES text: "This reacting vampire may attempt to block ..." Hard to get an "automatic" block out of that text. Official interpretation: superior Eagle's Sight overcomes the normal restrictions on who can attempt to block (i.e., the target of a directed action; the prey and predator of the acting Methsuelah in the case of an undirected action). Nothing more. > 2.) Voter dominance (I think that's the name (the one that uses pre.- > you'll recognize): The next vote called automatically passes > > They did not take it to be "the next vote *you* call" but the next vote > called. So if my pred used it but didn't call anouther vote. I could > call a vote and it would auto pass. - This one I kind of found > interesting. Charming Lobby. It does, indeed, cause the next vote called (unblocked) to pass automatically, regardless of who calls it (assuming the first vote passed, of course). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

Christopher Chew (c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com) wrote: : Joshua Duffin wrote: : > In my opinion, 'last person standing' is a silly way to play. It : > suggests that the best thing to play is a super-defensive intercept : > deck. : > : Not to deride an opinion but our play group has found that to be a very : favorable way to play. It does not lead to the exclusion or inclusion of a : single deck archetype. No one deck type tends to dominate combat, political : or bleed. It comes down to how you play, not specifically what you play. I take it by 'that' you mean 'last person standing wins'? I'm surprised that you've found it not to exclude certain deck types. It seems to me that it would greatly favor very defensive deck designs over more proactive decks. If you win by being the last person alive, there seems to be no use in playing with +bleed cards or Rush or damaging votes - it would be much more effective in keeping yourself alive till the end if you played with Wakes and Deflections and Delaying Tactics and intercept. I would expect that combat, political, and bleed decks wouldn't dominate, because I would expect anti-combat intercept/bounce decks to dominate. Why hasn't this happened for you? Is it just that no one is interested in playing decks like that? Josh good ol' army of rats, only takes thirty turns to kill you...

> >People can argue until they're blue in the > >face about "original intent." However, it is not clear at all that ct-bleeds > >were not originally intended. At best, the original rules are ambiguous on > >the issue. > > I submit Cat Burglary as evidence, m'lud. > > Why not just "(D) Bleed"? > Misprint? Oh, I forgot, there were no misprints in Jyhad, were there? -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

> >> At best, the original rules are ambiguous on > >> the issue. > > > >Not true. The original rules did not allow CTB: > > While the rules did not allow bleeding Methuselahs other than your prey, I > find it interesting that we are using rules as being sacrosanct. Weren't these > same original rules altered? See political actions. I liked CTB, but I can certainly > live without them. What I find odd is that deflections and the like remain > unaltered. These reactions are tantamount to bleeds and should be dealt > with similarly if we are so concerned with the predator-prey relation. > I still don't understand this argument. My Enemy's Enemy only allows you to bounce to your grand-predator. The other 3 bleed bounce cards specifically allow you to target any methuselah. Since they are explicit, there is no ruling to be made. (D)bleeds which are explicit ("bleed any methuselah") have not been errata'd and may still bleed any methuselah. There are no bleed bounces which are ambiguous, unlike most (D)bleed cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >People can argue until they're blue in the > >face about "original intent." However, it is not clear at all that ct-bleeds > >were not originally intended. At best, the original rules are ambiguous on > >the issue. > I submit Cat Burglary as evidence, m'lud. > Why not just "(D) Bleed"? Ok, since you brought it up, let's take a look at Cat Burglary: Card Title: Cat Burglary Blood/Pool: n/a Clan/Discip.: cel Card Type: Action Card Text: Bleed your prey for 1 pool at +1 stealth. If more than 1 pool is bled with this action, ignore the excess. (S) Bleed any Methuselah as a +1 stealth (D) action. If more than 1 pool is bled with this action, ignore the excess. Artist: Dave Roach and Pete Burges Rarity: Rare Now, if you'll notice, in the inferior, it states that you Bleed your prey for 1 pool at +1 stealth. It doesn't say that this action is a (D) action. However, in the superior where it says that we can bleed any Methuselah, it specifies that this bleed _is_ a (D) action. This seems to me that it is associating (D) Bleed with Bleeding any Methuselah... a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin Kelly (kke...@atlantic.net) wrote: : Joshua Duffin wrote: : > Because they reduce the amount of in-game strategy and increase the : > amount of politics. [relative to the original state of the game before : > CT bleeds were introduced by the old rules team] : I think we have a conflicting basic belief. That is that I don't think : c-t bleeds are too powerful. I don't think they lead to kingmaking. I : think that the restriction that you need a card to do it, along with the : fact that it is usually not a benefit to the person doing it is more : that enough to it's power on equal grounds with other actions which : require cards. The restriction of 'you need a card to CT-bleed' amounts to (as far as I can see) 'you need to be playing a bleed deck.' Any bleed deck I've seen someone play has had enough (D) bleed cards in it that they could make every bleed a CT-bleed if they wanted to. In other words, it's not a restriction at all, since the only decks that can usefully CT-bleed already have the cards they would need to do it. Even though it's usually not going to be worthwhile to CT-bleed someone, that doesn't make it any less powerful when it *is* useful. If a game goes along for twenty turns, and the person across the table has just picked up a VP, and looks like they're about to get another (but they're currently low on pool), and you oust them with a CT-bleed, that is much more powerful than calling a vote which everyone else on the table is allowed to influence, or Bum's Rushing one of their vampires. : You state "relative to the original state of the game before CT bleeds : were introduced by the old rules team". I would like to know, original : state according to whom? I have played since it came out and didn't : know a "rules team" existed until about two years ago and I have always : played that way and never met anyone who didn't. I think the rules team : made it official because that's how the majority played. I have seen : some different interpretations of the rules and they were (are?) : ambiguous so I could really see it either way according to the original : book. There has been a 'rules team' ever since the game was invented; the people on it decided on the proper interpretation of the rules and whether changes should be made to them. The original state of the game was that the Jyhad rulebook didn't allow cross-table bleeds (since it was inherent in the definition of the 'bleed' action that it was directed at your prey - the (D) symbol was only a reminder that actions with it were directed). Going back and looking at DejaNews posts, it seems that the Rules Team at that time denied that their interpretation of (D) bleeds was actually a change. On May 9, 1995, Tom Wylie (then the Netrep for Jyhad) posted a set of Design Team Rulings including this: "If an action card such as Computer Hacking provides a directed bleed, you may bleed any player other than yourself. This overrides the rules for the default bleed, which is a directed action only usable against your prey. This is something else that changed during playtesting, which is why Cat Burglary indicates different rules for directed bleeds. Any future printings of Cat Burglary will be changed to make the card useful." This ruling set off some dispute on the newsgroup, in which some of the sensible players argued with Tom about what the (D) symbol was supposed to mean and whether Cat Burglary had been written correctly. The Rules Team almost certainly made it official because that was how they thought the rules should be, rather than based on any kind of majority opinion they felt the players had. The Rules Team has always seemed to feel that their job is not to reflect the will of the masses, but what they think is right. : PS. By the way here are some wierd rules interpretations I have heard : (in fact most of these are the reason I won't go to tournaments around : here - Orlando - anymore). Does anyone use these? Have you ever heard : these interpretations? Are any of them correct??? By the way I am : going from memory on the cards so the words aren't exactly correct. : 1.) Eagles Sight - +1 intercept. Sup: You may block any action : They took this to mean - you *automatically* block any action. This is wrong, and I've never seen anyone using that interpretation. The Jyhad card text seems to make it pretty clear that that's not how it works - 'This vampire may attempt to block any action of any minion' is what the spoiler says. 'Attempt' means to me that it's not automatic. : 2.) Voter dominance (I think that's the name (the one that uses pre.- : you'll recognize): The next vote called automatically passes : They did not take it to be "the next vote *you* call" but the next vote : called. So if my pred used it but didn't call anouther vote. I could : call a vote and it would auto pass. - This one I kind of found : interesting. Do you mean Cryptic Rider? Jyhad and VTES text are clear according to spoiler lists: VTES: 'The next vote you successfully call this turn passes automatically.' (In other words, also wrong. I don't think I've ever played this way, but it sounds familiar for some reason.) Josh wonder whatever happened to curt adams, shane travis, etc...

In article <6s171r$a5h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Ok, since you brought it up, let's take a look at Cat Burglary: > > Card Title: Cat Burglary > Blood/Pool: n/a > Clan/Discip.: cel > Card Type: Action > Card Text: Bleed your prey for 1 pool at +1 stealth. If more > than 1 pool is bled with this action, ignore the excess. Actually, the Jyhad card text (don't know about V:tES) states: +1 Stealth. (D) Bleed, but if more than 1 pool.... It doesn't say anything about prey. By card text with your interpretation of bleeds, the inferior and superior are identical. > (S) Bleed any Methuselah as a +1 stealth (D) action. > If more than 1 pool is bled with this action, ignore > the excess. > Artist: Dave Roach and Pete Burges > Rarity: Rare Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

> My argument is better stated as: > "In the absence of overriding instruction, the rules apply" > (implication of the Golden Rule for Cards, sec. 12). > > > Well, great, but I > > have an instruction. That instruction is "Attack." So why can't I attack > > anyone I want? The "attack" instruction is ambiguous. > > For "Attack", sure. > > For "bleed", no. The rulebook is clear that this action is directed > against the player's Prey. The ambiguity arises only when the rules are > ignored. > Well, for just a moment, I'll assume that's true. (The rulebook actually says that bleeds are your way of reducing a methuselah's pool (doesn't mention prey there), and then goes on to describe how you execute the default cardless bleed (which *is* restricted to your prey).) So, "bleed" is defined to be against your prey? In that case, any card which says, "(D)Bleed your predator" would be nonsensical. If bleed by definition targets only prey, then this whole statement is a contradiction. Another stupid analogy... "Fishing" is defined, rather loosely, as catching fish. If I said, "go fishing," you would know pretty much what I meant (note: I don't care if you go fly fishing or trout fishing or whatever... ignore that). If I instead said, "go fishing for deer," the statement does not make sense. You might figure some way around that and decide I meant "hunting" but that's not the same thing. There is no way to strictly interpret my instructions such that they make sense. "Go catch fish for deer?!?" That said, since there *are* ways to bleed other methuselahs (including bleed bounce, some carded bleeds, and I think a particular vampire's special ability), it is not possible for the term "bleed" to automatically indicate your prey. The word "bleed" is used in those circumstances to indicate the burning of blood from another methuselah's pool. *That* it seems is the definition of "bleed." So, a card which says "(D) Bleed" cannot carry any more restrictions than the word "bleed" does. And if "bleed" carries the restriction of "prey" then "(D) Bleed your predator" makes no sense. Personally, I make myself feel better by telling myself that this new restriction against ct-bleeds is errata to all (D) bleed cards to make them say, "(D) Bleed your prey." That way, I can accept the ruling (which I have grudgingly admitted is best for the game) without losing sleep at night (you don't want to know the sort of things that keep me up at night... sad, really). -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

augi...@my-dejanews.com (Augie) wrote: [> Someone wrote:] > >Not true. The original rules did not allow CTB: > While the rules did not allow bleeding Methuselahs other than your prey, I > find it interesting that we are using rules as being sacrosanct. Weren't these > same original rules altered? See political actions. Actually, if you read the original rulebook on political actions, only the _other_ Methuselahs (i.e., not the Vote Caller) could push votes. The various interpretations from there (the original DCI all-push, the subsequent SPTR 1 PA per PA, the next DCI delayed replenishment, and finally the DCI's current 1 PA per PA status) are attempts to keep play fair and balanced. The initial DCI interpretation (and an initial intuitive interpretation) was made difficult by a shoddily worded rulebook, but the current Vote Push rule strives for what the original wording strives for: a balanced vote environment. > I liked CTB, but I can certainly > live without them. What I find odd is that deflections and the like remain > unaltered. These reactions are tantamount to bleeds and should be dealt > with similarly if we are so concerned with the predator-prey relation. Can't say I see this as an argument... The ability of a defensive deck to play a defensive card is reliant upon an aggressor towards that strategy. A bleeder can simply use their strategy from the get-go. Not only is there much less opportunity for a cross-table bouncer to be effective, it requires far to many conditionals for it to be a big deal (must have an aggressive bleeder, must have a deflection available, must for some reason bring it acrossed the table, must have to have aggressive bleeder continue to supply aggressive bleeds for deflection to become problematic). -- @#$ Adrian Sullivan $#@ Game Theorist Coffee Addict Hedonist @#$ Cabal Rogue Team Rogue $#@ Opinionated Gynophile Eccentric Geek @#$ V:EKN Prince of Madison $#@ heterotranshomotransexual - got that? @#$ The Corrupter $#@ GAT/WS C(+++)$ N++ PS++@+ R+++*$ z++**? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > : 1.) Eagles Sight - +1 intercept. Sup: You may block any action > > : They took this to mean - you *automatically* block any action. > > This is wrong, and I've never seen anyone using that interpretation. > The Jyhad card text seems to make it pretty clear that that's not how > it works - 'This vampire may attempt to block any action of any minion' > is what the spoiler says. 'Attempt' means to me that it's not > automatic. > Actually, my play group used to play the card like that. At the time, we didn't have any problem with a card that was the same as Enhanced Sense, only better. Must have been a remnant from our Magic days, eh? Anyway, we figured out on our own that the card just plain didn't work that way. Once we figured that out, it was obvious which way was correct. That was also in the days when we played that a vampire had to tap to call a bloodhunt vote, and it could only be called by a titled vampire (the reason for this was that we had started playing a few months before, but only 3 of use had played then and we hadn't played much; when we started playing again, we couldn't find a rulebook, and so played the rules as best we remembered them). -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

> Jyhad should not be degenerated into a situation where the only people you > affect are you're predator and your prey. I didn't say that. I said that Jyhad shouldn't allow bleeds to affect predator/prey. The situation you described implied that you had been rushed for no good tactical reason. You retaliated. The mechanic of gathering VP's through bleeding the prey was disrupted. How is the game made better by this? I still maintain that c-t actions aren't useful for the end-result of the game, but rush/vote are less damning than bleed. > >Again, there is almost no reason to attack cross-table or to vote someone > down who isn't your prey. Poor play. Okay. I've overstated my case here. Mea Culpa. I'll retract my statement. Point granted. > I tell you what, I will give a couple of examples as to why you may want to > perform ct actions (please feel free to add to this list since I do not have > time to type all day). > > 1. You wish to remove a player that has half of the political muscle when > you have the other half I find this ironic - you denigrate creating 'focussed' decks, but don't acknowledge that voting decks might operate without having a vote lock. It is possible to succeed despite lack of vote lock. Granted, a vote deck works _better_ when you have a lock, but isn't incapacitated thereby. > 2. You wish to bring out a vampire without contesting (another player > already has him out) > 3. As above but with locations, allies, or any contestable card > 4. A person threatens to be your predator soon and you can tell that you > will have a very diffucult time defending vs them Why worry about future problems when you still have to get through your prey? Even if you do weaken him, your prey has had respite to try to rally his own defenses... > 5. You simply want their blood (conservative agitation etc) > 6. You want the edge > 7. You want to diablerize a vampire for their equipment and or blood > 8. You wish to weaken you're grand prey (hoping that soon both he and your > current prey will die) blood, blood, blood > 9. You wish to use their weakening or death in a political ploy for more > power > 10. etc, etc, etc ...... Again, this isn't necessary, since I retracted most of my statement. I still wonder why he cross-table attacked you; if he did it for one of your above reasons (ie. in his place, _you_ would have done the same) then I don't know why it's necessary to retaliate by draining pool away. > Don't you get it ........ there is no limit to the reasoning for performing ct > actions, it specifically depends upon the game you are playing at the time. No. I do not 'get it' where c-t bleeding is concerned. > This game is so much more than predator prey interaction, it is specifically > the capability to affect anyone at the table (within certain strictures) that > allow this game to have the depth that so many other CCGs lack. Those across > the table from oneself can either be nominal allies or enemies, in direct > cooperation to aid each other (for a short period) or be totally oblivious to > one another. > > The magic mentality of I'm going to max/mini my deck to the point of total > predictablity, narrow focus and short game play with my competitor having no > chance of survival is absolutely moronic. Then why the insistence on getting a 'vote lock'? > Alright 1 round Jyhad kills yea how > great. Develop a theme yes, build in a "degree" of predictability and play the > game (don't buy as many rare cards as you can just to assure a quick win). Try > bulding combat decks without IG or bums rush. Try building a prescence deck > without majesty. Christ people develop some originality. (Note: If this last > statement applies to you you know who you are, if not my apologies for stating > the obvious). I'm sorry. You're right. Your superior wisdom opened my eyes. I tremble in the lack of my originality. :) > -Chris > > BTW who really cares about VPs, the man still seated at the table with his > toys still alive wins the day. VP's do count. They're the only thing that count. Otherwise, I'd play anti-Ventrue intercept/pool gain. Alan (aj)

badger wrote: > > Dear Alan: > > Please refer to my other posts. I can't remember which one, but I > covered the multiple reasons cross-table actions occur. I've noted elsewhere that I overstated my case. Point granted. Alan (aj)

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > > But how difficult is it to build a deck with *total* vote > > > dominance? Not that difficult. Add Awe, BO and to a lesser > > > extent Bribes and who needs the other meth's votes? > > (Am I the only player who plays with Kindred Coersion > > vs. Awe?) > > Umm, Kindred Coersion is a Reaction card whereas Awe is an Action > Modifier. That's right. Cause the vote to fail by Kindred Coersion to reverse their own votes on the Awed minion. That's why I said 'vs.' rather than 'instead of'. :) > > There is no total vote dominance. > > Sure there is. Princes w/Presence. Not hard to do. And if someone else plays the same? But I'll concede the point and amend myself to say "There is no _guaranteed_ vote-lock." > > > The only decks that really require everyone else at the table > > > to vote your way are Non-Presence vote decks. Why is it that > > > this fact is continuously overlooked? > > Because you can never guarantee that someone else _isn't_ > > playing a vote deck (with Awe, et. al). > > This doesn't matter in the least. If I have a few Princes out > using Awe or BO, it doesn't matter how many Awe or BO they have > in their hand, the vote will pass. Since they are Action Mods, > I'm the only one who can use them. And with Kindred Coersion, I can reverse your own votes, causing your voters to change their minds. > The only way you can defend against a Presense vote deck, once > the PA is successful, is by using Delaying Tactics or the DOM > vote reactions. Alan (aj) Hoping I'm not misremembering my cards again. :/

badger wrote: > > Look who's whining. Who? <Looking> :) Alan (aj)

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > > > > > The reason CTBs have been eliminated is because they were not in the > original > > > rules. The concept of omnidirectable (D) bleeds were an abhorrent mistake > by > > > the old rules team, and were not based on the original rules of the game. > > > Jyhad was designed in such a way that barring a card speciffically saying so > > > (like Cat Burgalry or Night Moves), you could only bleed your prey, (D) > action > > > or no. The RT decision that changed this was completely erroneous and not > > > based on any worthwhile decision. It was an error. > > > > > > I conceded in an above reply that I now understand why I have never > > understood this argument, namely, in my playgroup, it just doesn't > > happen. I also don't play in tournaments (I did it once, I didn't have > > fun, I won't do it again). part of why I don't play in tournaments was > > that randomness issue but I guess I never assosiated it with the "real" > > game (I like to pretend tournaments don't exist). I would just prefere > > to get rid of the random people than the c-t bleeds (yes I know I keep > > saying "get rid of" and your point was "it was never really there"). > > > > Eh? Don't take that bullshit. People can argue until they're blue in the > face about "original intent." However, it is not clear at all that ct-bleeds > were not originally intended. At best, the original rules are ambiguous on > the issue. So, that is not at all a good reason for disallowing what has > become a part of the game. That said, it looks like you and I are in the > same boat on the issue... as in, "I prefer to keep ct-bleeds in the game, but > due to stupid people would just as soon officially disallow them and play > with house rules in friendly games." > > -Chris > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum I second the above motion..... :) -Chris

Quicksilver wrote: > badger wrote: > > > Why? <massive snip of rational> > > > > Rush/combat decks can target anyone they want. Political decks canBadger > > Your whole argument dealt with whether allowing cross-table bleeds are > more > desirable than not. Most of the arguments I have seen have been directed at > that > issue. Frankly, I do not care. I can see arguments for playing both ways > based > on fun and playability. The reason CTBs were nixed was because of the > spirit of > the rules. As some have pointed out, bleeds were intended to be directed at > your > prey and noone else. Interpreting EVERY bleed action card to allow cross- > table bleeding was an abortion of a ruling. It was very obvious to me that > it > was a mistake, regardless of how much fun it is to cross-table bleed. The > (D) symbol was never intended as a licence to cross-table bleed. NEVER. > Just because some pin-head remedial stupid jerk in a position of power > made a pathetic ruling does not make it right. And just because you like it > > that way does not make it right. We should have been playing by the current > > rules for the last couple of years, but I'll take what I can get. Just because I like it is THE ONLY point. This game is played for fun. Whatever the original intent was is unimportant. When I spent my money and purchased this game it became mine to do with as I choose. This game no longer "belongs" to the designers it belongs to the collective Jyhad community. We are its lifeblood and its interpreters. -Chris

> > For "bleed", no. The rulebook is clear that this action is directed > > against the player's Prey. The ambiguity arises only when the rules are > > ignored. > Well, for just a moment, I'll assume that's true. (The rulebook actually > says that bleeds are your way of reducing a methuselah's pool (doesn't > mention prey there), and then goes on to describe how you execute the default > cardless bleed (which *is* restricted to your prey).) So, "bleed" is defined > to be against your prey? In that case, any card which says, "(D)Bleed your > predator" would be nonsensical. Only in the same sense that 'Bleed +1' would be nonsensical, since the definition of a cardless bleed is to remove 1 pool from your prey. The cards, as everyone well understands, are capable of changing the text of the rules (and it is even stated that if an apparent contradiction appears, the card's _text_ takes precedence. Now, given that, where on the card does it say that a carded bleed may be directed at anybody other than your prey on, say, Govern the Unaligned? > If bleed by definition targets only prey, > then this whole statement is a contradiction. In an apparent contradiction of the rules and the cards, Card Text takes precedence - ergo, _following card text_ you may bleed your predator. > Another stupid analogy... "Fishing" is defined, rather loosely, as catching > fish. If I said, "go fishing," you would know pretty much what I meant > (note: I don't care if you go fly fishing or trout fishing or whatever... > ignore that). If I instead said, "go fishing for deer," the statement does > not make sense. You might figure some way around that and decide I meant > "hunting" but that's not the same thing. There is no way to strictly > interpret my instructions such that they make sense. "Go catch fish for > deer?!?" But, there is an established metaphor, 'go fishing for compliments'. Now, it doesn't matter whether or not this is a stupid example, it functions well enough to get the meaning across - in the presence of an established social behavior (in this case, received cliche's) the social cliche takes precedence over 'ordinary meaning' (My God! Derrida is right! EVERYTHING IS A TEXT!!) :) > That said, since there *are* ways to bleed other methuselahs (including bleed > bounce, some carded bleeds, and I think a particular vampire's special > ability), it is not possible for the term "bleed" to automatically indicate > your prey. Except that even these seeming 'exceptions' are founded on explicit card-text. In the case of 'bleed-bouncing' it only changes the targetting of an already legal bleed - it modifies per the new card text the existing card rule set. >The word "bleed" is used in those circumstances to indicate the > burning of blood from another methuselah's pool. *That* it seems is the > definition of "bleed." So, a card which says "(D) Bleed" cannot carry any > more restrictions than the word "bleed" does. And if "bleed" carries the > restriction of "prey" then "(D) Bleed your predator" makes no sense. See the above arguments. (D) only limits who may block the action - the recipient of the action as directed. In the case of a bleed, it may be redundant (since bleeds may only ever be blocked by the prey) but for consistency's sake (and the presence of a revised rules-set regarding carded bleeds) the (D) was retained. If we had a hypothetical card which read strictly Public Assault Choose any minion in play. Begin a combat between the acting minion and this target. the minion's controller _could not block_ the action, instead the opportunity would pass to the prey, then the predator, as per all normal actions. The absence of the (D) in the above text indicates that normal rules concerning blocking take effect. In the case of (D) Bleed your predator The first (D) is reminder text, but also present to bring some consistency to the card set (since most actions which target other methuselahs or their minions have the (D) symbol.) The Bleed text 'activates' the rules set regarding bleeds, modifying them in the targetting section - the bleed must be targetted to your predator, instead of the prey. > Personally, I make myself feel better by telling myself that this new > restriction against ct-bleeds is errata to all (D) bleed cards to make them > say, "(D) Bleed your prey." That way, I can accept the ruling (which I have > grudgingly admitted is best for the game) without losing sleep at night (you > don't want to know the sort of things that keep me up at night... sad, > really). Have you tried counting sheep? :) > -Chris Alan (aj)

> I hate to tell you Pete, but most of the current errata/rulings were > made because of tournaments. <sigh> It should be glaringly obvious that _only_ the tournament rules need to be fixed. As powerful as WotC has become as an economic entity, they still haven't activated the Game Oversights/Overpower Ninja (GOON) Squad they've been planning to invade people's playgroups to ensure that all standardized rules are followed... On the Ars Magica list, we have a saying, known as 'Robbie's Mantra' - Do What Thou Wilt in Thine Own Saga. It's your game, man, and if you don't wanna play by the tournament rules, you don't have to. > Because the "Great Balance" was disturbed. It's usually considered a good thing when a game is fun _and_ balanced. > Aside from the handful of zealots on this newsgroup, I > haven't heard anyone I've ever played with complain to the point of > requiring a card be rewritten to suit their needs. I suppose that having a contrary opinion to yours is being a zealot. Aside from the few zealots who bitterly complain and whine that their precious rules set is being damaged beyond all repair, the general feeling is that the fixes do contribute to a fairer game environment. Nobody is happy with all the fixes, but most people acknowledge that at least the areas where fixes were made were really broken. > Most of this stuff > stems from having your ass kicked in a tournament and crying foul. Au Contraire. Most of the people you have seen complain against cards/rulings were the top players in their regions. They _profit_ from the rules breakages. Myself, I'm purely a 'wood pusher' (as they say in chess circles - one who can admire the skill and play of others, and is competent at the game, but in no way a top player.') But it simply isn't true that people raising objections to the existing rules set are simply pathetic whiners who want daddy to come and make it all better. These are players who know what errors exist, have profited by them, and recognize that these blocks actually _inhibit_ their development because of the ease-of-use. And face it, we're all game players here. Some of us would give up advantages of poor rules sets in order to have a 'fairer' game. > Understandable seeings tournaments are few and far between, so you > don't have a chance to rework a deck to counter the evil one the other > guy unleashed and mopped up with. This is simply patronizing. :) > As to your points about cross tabling - you're right - it is stupid to > make enemies across the table. But sometimes it happens and sometimes > you have to. If I'm playing bleed and someone messes with me from > across the way, they'd better realize I'm gonna hit back. Consider the following You completed your turn by stealing a ToR from an opponant c-t, since you needed it out to get your big vamp into play, and your own has been stuck in your hand while he uses his as a pool regainer. He retaliates by sacking the vamps you have in play. Now, do you retaliate, knowing that he might retaliate again by sacking another vamp? Alan (aj)

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > > My argument is better stated as: > > "In the absence of overriding instruction, the rules apply" > > (implication of the Golden Rule for Cards, sec. 12). > > > > > Well, great, but I > > > have an instruction. That instruction is "Attack." So why can't I attack > > > anyone I want? The "attack" instruction is ambiguous. > > > > For "Attack", sure. > > > > For "bleed", no. The rulebook is clear that this action is directed > > against the player's Prey. The ambiguity arises only when the rules are > > ignored. > > > > Well, for just a moment, I'll assume that's true. (The rulebook actually > says that bleeds are your way of reducing a methuselah's pool (doesn't > mention prey there), and then goes on to describe how you execute the default > cardless bleed (which *is* restricted to your prey).) Q: How does a Computer Hacking differ from a cardless bleed? A: 1) The presence/use of a card 2) In other ways as listed on the card Since the card doesn't say that it is changing the default behavior of a "bleed" in terms of who the bleed can target, it follows the default behavoir of a bleed in that regard. Similarly, since the card doesn't say that it is changing the default behavior of a bleed in terms of getting the Edge if the bleed successfully resolves for one or more, it follows the default behavior of a bleed in that regard. And so on for: who can block, how to block (intercept/stealth), amount of the bleed (although most bleed cards do alter this aspect of a bleed), tapping to take the action, etc. > So, "bleed" is defined > to be against your prey? In that case, any card which says, "(D)Bleed your > predator" would be nonsensical. If bleed by definition targets only prey, > then this whole statement is a contradiction. Card text can override the definition. [12]. The default bleed is for 1. The default bleed can be taken by untapped minions only. The default bleed is directed against the acting minion's prey. The default bleed doesn't increase your pool. etc. Carded bleeds can change these defaults by explicit text. Computer Hacking changes the first one. Force of Will changes the first and the second. Kindred Spirits (inferior) changes the third and fourth. Kindred Spirits (superior) changes the first, third, and fourth. Legal Manipulations (inferior) changes the first. Legal Manipulations (superior) changes the first and fourth. Night Moves changes the third. and so on. Computer Hacking doesn't change the third (or any of the others except the first). > > Another stupid analogy... "Fishing" is defined, rather loosely, as catching > fish. If I said, "go fishing," you would know pretty much what I meant > (note: I don't care if you go fly fishing or trout fishing or whatever... > ignore that). If I instead said, "go fishing for deer," the statement does > not make sense. You might figure some way around that and decide I meant > "hunting" but that's not the same thing. There is no way to strictly > interpret my instructions such that they make sense. "Go catch fish for > deer?!?" > > That said, since there *are* ways to bleed other methuselahs (including bleed > bounce, some carded bleeds, and I think a particular vampire's special > ability), it is not possible for the term "bleed" to automatically indicate > your prey. It does. [6.4] > The word "bleed" is used in those circumstances to indicate the > burning of blood from another methuselah's pool. *That* it seems is the > definition of "bleed." So, a card which says "(D) Bleed" cannot carry any > more restrictions than the word "bleed" does. And if "bleed" carries the > restriction of "prey" then "(D) Bleed your predator" makes no sense. Unless you read the part of the rules where "Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence." [12]. > Personally, I make myself feel better by telling myself that this new > restriction against ct-bleeds is errata to all (D) bleed cards to make them > say, "(D) Bleed your prey." That way, I can accept the ruling (which I have > grudgingly admitted is best for the game) without losing sleep at night (you > don't want to know the sort of things that keep me up at night... sad, > really). OK. But it is actually removing the (long-standing) errata that said that the "(D)" symbol itself (not simply the use of a card) granted omni-directability to the action. [TOM 950122], [TOM 960302], etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6rv6p2$vov$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu writes >> What is it about a carded bleed that makes you think it should be >> directable to any (other) Methuselah? >> >The fact that it doesn't restrict who you may bleed. > >> Card text overriding the rules? >> >In a way. The fact that the card doesn't imply the same restrictions about >bleeding your prey that the rules mention when defining the default bleed >action. When I use Disguised Weapon to equip, I follow the same rules as normal equipping - following clan, pool cost etc. When I bleed using Computer Hacking to bleed, I follow the same rules as normal bleeding - directable only at prey etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6s07q0$3s3$1...@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, Augie <augiedogy@my- dejanews.com> writes >While the rules did not allow bleeding Methuselahs other than your prey, I >find it interesting that we are using rules as being sacrosanct. Weren't these >same original rules altered? See political actions. An interpretation of the Jyhad rules, though slightly ambiguously written, certainly supports the current 1/action ruling. > I liked CTB, but I can >certainly >live without them. What I find odd is that deflections and the like remain >unaltered. These reactions are tantamount to bleeds > and should be dealt >with similarly if we are so concerned with the predator-prey relation. This is a possibility, since I have often found that the same players who abuse cross-table bleeds for no reason are the ones who bounce for no reason too. But bounces can be dealt with by an active player slightly more easily than cross-table bleeds can be by the defensive player. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Well, for just a moment, I'll assume that's true. (The rulebook actually > > says that bleeds are your way of reducing a methuselah's pool (doesn't > > mention prey there), and then goes on to describe how you execute the default > > cardless bleed (which *is* restricted to your prey).) So, "bleed" is defined > > to be against your prey? In that case, any card which says, "(D)Bleed your > > predator" would be nonsensical. > > Only in the same sense that 'Bleed +1' would be nonsensical, > since the definition of a cardless bleed is to remove 1 pool from > your prey. The cards, as everyone well understands, are > capable of changing the text of the rules (and it is even stated > that if an apparent contradiction appears, the card's _text_ > takes precedence. > If the text said, "(D) Bleed, but target any methuselah. That methuselah is the only one which may attempt to block this action, and that methuselah loses pool if this action is successful." then it would be contradicting and modifying the rules in a way that makes sense. "(D)Bleed your predator" takes a statement which you are saying has inherent restrictions "prey" and adds a new directive which cannot be followed. It doesn't cancel the old directive or modify it, but simply adds a new one. You are now instructed to do something to your predator which will cause your prey to lose 1 pool. Should we interpret this to mean that your predator is the only one who may block, but your prey loses pool if successful? If not, why not? The actual card text does not give instructions for this *because* the word "bleed" does not *have* to imply prey. If the word bleed automagically implied prey in the way that you maintain, my above card text *would* be required. > > If bleed by definition targets only prey, > > then this whole statement is a contradiction. > > In an apparent contradiction of the rules and the cards, Card > Text takes precedence - ergo, _following card text_ you may > bleed your predator. > But it's not so much a contradiction as it is a statement that doesn't make sense. If there were a Reaction card that said "This card may not be used while a minion controlled by another methuselah is acting," we would have a problem with a contradiction. If card text takes precedence, then this card could never be played. If "bleed" works like this, then many aspects of the game simply don't make sense. IMNSHO, "bleed" does not work like this, which is the only reason that some things that we currently take for granted actually work (like bleed bounce and a back-bleed Night Moves). > > Another stupid analogy... "Fishing" is defined, rather loosely, as catching > > fish. If I said, "go fishing," you would know pretty much what I meant > > (note: I don't care if you go fly fishing or trout fishing or whatever... > > ignore that). If I instead said, "go fishing for deer," the statement does > > not make sense. You might figure some way around that and decide I meant > > "hunting" but that's not the same thing. There is no way to strictly > > interpret my instructions such that they make sense. "Go catch fish for > > deer?!?" > > But, there is an established metaphor, 'go fishing for compliments'. But that's a metaphor. It takes the action of trying to get compliments and compares it to fishing. Jyhad does not work on metaphors. You can't bleed someone's locations, and you can't enter combat with a piece of equipment. These are things that don't make sense in the game. > Now, it doesn't matter whether or not this is a stupid example, it > functions well enough to get the meaning across - in the presence of > an established social behavior (in this case, received cliche's) > the social cliche takes precedence over 'ordinary meaning' > (My God! Derrida is right! EVERYTHING IS A TEXT!!) > Yes, but if I were to attempt to read the statement "fishing for compliments" literally, it makes no sense. The only way I could attempt to make it seem logical is to assume Compliments are a type of fish, and so, in my attempt to decipher your statement, I'd get the whole thing wrong. > > > That said, since there *are* ways to bleed other methuselahs (including bleed > > bounce, some carded bleeds, and I think a particular vampire's special > > ability), it is not possible for the term "bleed" to automatically indicate > > your prey. > > Except that even these seeming 'exceptions' are founded on > explicit card-text. In the case of 'bleed-bouncing' it only changes > the targetting of an already legal bleed - it modifies per the > new card text the existing card rule set. > But if it changes the target of a "bleed" how does that change who loses the pool? Look, my argument is simple. If "bleed" means, "remove pool from your prey," how does changing the target of the action change the word "prey?" If the word "bleed" does not allow you to cause pool loss to your predator, how does "bleed your predator" do so? If anything, changing the target of your prey-restricted bleed will only change who may block, not who loses the pool. This is ridiculous, so "bleed" cannot contain any such restriction. > >The word "bleed" is used in those circumstances to indicate the > > burning of blood from another methuselah's pool. *That* it seems is the > > definition of "bleed." So, a card which says "(D) Bleed" cannot carry any > > more restrictions than the word "bleed" does. And if "bleed" carries the > > restriction of "prey" then "(D) Bleed your predator" makes no sense. > > See the above arguments. (D) only limits who may block the action > - the recipient of the action as directed. In the case of a bleed, it may > be redundant (since bleeds may only ever be blocked by the prey) but > for consistency's sake (and the presence of a revised rules-set regarding > carded bleeds) the (D) was retained. > I don't care about the stinkin' (D) symbol. In fact, my whole point was, "(D)Bleed" must carry the same restrictions as "bleed." Therefore, adding the words "your predator" after the word do not alleviate the restrictions, but simply add another one. Now, with two restrictions, one of them being "predator" and one of them being "prey," you are left with nothing that can make sense. > > Personally, I make myself feel better by telling myself that this new > > restriction against ct-bleeds is errata to all (D) bleed cards to make them > > say, "(D) Bleed your prey." That way, I can accept the ruling (which I have > > grudgingly admitted is best for the game) without losing sleep at night (you > > don't want to know the sort of things that keep me up at night... sad, > > really). > > Have you tried counting sheep? :) > That keeps me awake as well. 8) -Chris Berger "There are no broken cards, only broken legs. So play with the new rulings or I'll find out where you live." (I like that quote so much, I think I'll start adding it to my sig... 8)) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6s17kg$ajh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > live without them. What I find odd is that deflections and the like remain > > unaltered. These reactions are tantamount to bleeds and should be dealt > > with similarly if we are so concerned with the predator-prey relation. > > > > I still don't understand this argument. My Enemy's Enemy only allows you to > bounce to your grand-predator. The other 3 bleed bounce cards specifically > allow you to target any methuselah. Since they are explicit, there is no > ruling to be made. (D)bleeds which are explicit ("bleed any methuselah") > have not been errata'd and may still bleed any methuselah. There are no > bleed bounces which are ambiguous, unlike most (D)bleed cards. The "argument" is simply an opinion that bouncing is subject to the same abuses as cross-table bleeding. I don't enjoy being bled by opponents aside from my predator and think that cards that encourage such activity are cards that I do not enjoy. I hope that is unambiguous enough for you. : ) [ quoted text not captured ]

Alan Flesch wrote: > If we had a hypothetical card which read strictly > > Public Assault > > Choose any minion in play. Begin a combat between the acting > minion and this target. > > the minion's controller _could not block_ the action, instead > the opportunity would pass to the prey, then the predator, > as per all normal actions. The absence of the (D) in the above > text indicates that normal rules concerning blocking take effect. Not so. The (D) identifies actions that are (usually) directed. It's presence or absence does not affect make the action directed or undirected. If the action is directed, it is directed. If it is not directed, it is undirected. This hypothetical card's action is directed (since you cannot enter combat with your own minions). As such, the card should have the (D) symbol on it as a reminder that it is directed. Like Sensory Deprivation, inferior Shepherd's Innocence, and Trick of Danya. Those actions are always/usually directed, so they should've had the (D) symbol on them. But the absence of the (D) symbol doesn't make the actions undirected. Those actions are directed if they target another Methuselah (including cards/counters she controls). > In the case of > > (D) Bleed your predator > > The first (D) is reminder text, but also present to bring some > consistency to the card set (since most actions which target > other methuselahs or their minions have the (D) symbol.) Right. > The Bleed text 'activates' the rules set regarding bleeds, > modifying them in the targetting section - the bleed must be > targetted to your predator, instead of the prey. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Christopher Chew wrote: > > Just because I like it is THE ONLY point. This game is played for fun. > Whatever the original intent was is unimportant. When I spent my money and > purchased this game it became mine to do with as I choose. This game no > longer "belongs" to the designers it belongs to the collective Jyhad > community. We are its lifeblood and its interpreters. All right. So who says we should listen to you instead of LSJ? Why are _you_ "more right" than he is? James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu V:EKN FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html "We _do_ kill people... that's sort of our raison d'etre" -- Spike

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: >Well, for just a moment, I'll assume that's true. (The rulebook actually >says that bleeds are your way of reducing a methuselah's pool (doesn't >mention prey there), and then goes on to describe how you execute the default >cardless bleed (which *is* restricted to your prey).) So, "bleed" is defined >to be against your prey? In that case, any card which says, "(D)Bleed your >predator" would be nonsensical. If bleed by definition targets only prey, >then this whole statement is a contradiction. ... And what does a CCG player do when the card text contradicts the rules? Every newbie learns that one on day one (answer: follow the card text) >Another stupid analogy... "Fishing" is defined, rather loosely, as catching >fish. If I said, "go fishing," you would know pretty much what I meant >(note: I don't care if you go fly fishing or trout fishing or whatever... >ignore that). If I instead said, "go fishing for deer," the statement does >not make sense. You might figure some way around that and decide I meant >"hunting" but that's not the same thing. There is no way to strictly >interpret my instructions such that they make sense. "Go catch fish for >deer?!?" >That said, since there *are* ways to bleed other methuselahs (including bleed >bounce, some carded bleeds, and I think a particular vampire's special >ability), it is not possible for the term "bleed" to automatically indicate >your prey. The word "bleed" is used in those circumstances to indicate the >burning of blood from another methuselah's pool. *That* it seems is the >definition of "bleed." So, a card which says "(D) Bleed" cannot carry any >more restrictions than the word "bleed" does. And if "bleed" carries the >restriction of "prey" then "(D) Bleed your predator" makes no sense. Again, this is card text that specifies an exception to the written rules. How to deal with a situation like this is provided for in the first five pages of the rulebook for _any_ CCG, including Jyhad. >Personally, I make myself feel better by telling myself that this new >restriction against ct-bleeds is errata to all (D) bleed cards to make them >say, "(D) Bleed your prey." That way, I can accept the ruling (which I have >grudgingly admitted is best for the game) without losing sleep at night (you >don't want to know the sort of things that keep me up at night... sad, >really). Hey, if that works for you... Go with it. Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver and future Prince of Charlotte, NC

> Card Title: Cat Burglary > Blood/Pool: n/a > Clan/Discip.: cel > Card Type: Action > Card Text: Bleed your prey for 1 pool at +1 stealth. If more > than 1 pool is bled with this action, ignore the excess. > (S) Bleed any Methuselah as a +1 stealth (D) action. > If more than 1 pool is bled with this action, ignore > the excess. > Artist: Dave Roach and Pete Burges > Rarity: Rare > > Now, if you'll notice, in the inferior, it states that you Bleed your > prey for 1 pool at +1 stealth. It doesn't say that this action is a > (D) action. However, in the superior where it says that we can bleed > any Methuselah, it specifies that this bleed _is_ a (D) action. > This seems to me that it is associating (D) Bleed with Bleeding any > Methuselah... > I think what it comes down to is do you believe that a Directed action and a (D) action are the same thing?? Since in the original rules all non-carded bleed actions are considered directed (ie only your target/prey may block). If you do believe that Directed and (D) are the same thing then by your reasoning it is perfectly legal to make an uncarded bleed against any target. This to me seems totally unreasonable. Karl

In article <6s18gl$bsj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu writes >In that case, any card which says, "(D)Bleed your >predator" would be nonsensical. Equipping, by definition, is an action, but Disguised Weapon lets you break that rule. That would be no more non-sensical than allowing a Methuselah to bleed someone who wasn't his prey, if you had the card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: Chris, This train of argument seems to stem from what I think is your belief that the simple statement "Bleed your Predator" is insufficient instruction to override (by way of the Golden Rule) the written rules. There is in CCG's a desire for brevity (due to a lack of much space on cards) so often there are cards that seem to contradict themselves. According to your line of thought, if a card were to work as per the above statement ("Bleed your Predator"), it would need to be worded as follows, "Bleed your Predator. This card allows you to override the restriction of bleeding only your prey." But the Golden Rule in application applies the following text to _ALL_ cards in the CCG "If this card contradicts some part of the rules, follow this card _instead of_ the written rules" Therefore, redundant text is 1. unneccesary to make the card function as intended, and 2. unwanted from a standpoint of brevity and simplicity of card design. [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > If the text said, "(D) Bleed, but target any methuselah. That methuselah is > the only one which may attempt to block this action, and that methuselah > loses pool if this action is successful." then it would be contradicting and > modifying the rules in a way that makes sense. "(D)Bleed your predator" > takes a statement which you are saying has inherent restrictions "prey" and > adds a new directive which cannot be followed. It doesn't cancel the old > directive or modify it, but simply adds a new one. You are now instructed to > do something to your predator which will cause your prey to lose 1 pool. It has inherent *default* restrictions. "prey" is the default target. Adding "prey or predator" changes the default restriction to the new (non-default) restriction (effectively easing the restriction). This is no more of a problem than if your definition of "(D) Bleed" is used (that is, "(D) bleed" is defined as "bleed any Methusealh"). With that definition, Night Moves suffers the same problem that you perceive in the official definition. Defn Card Problem --------------- ---------------- ------------------------------------------- Bleed any Meth. Night Moves Bleed any Methuselah your prey or predator. Bleed Prey. Computer Hacking Bleed prey prey or predator. The solution to both of these, of course, is to allow card text to override the default definition: Defn Card Solution --------------- ---------------- ------------------------------------------- Bleed any Meth. Night Moves Bleed your prey or predator. Bleed Prey. Computer Hacking Bleed prey or predator. > Should we interpret this to mean that your predator is the only one who may > block, but your prey loses pool if successful? If not, why not? Because the card has allowed you to choose to affect your Predator *instead of* your Prey. > The actual > card text does not give instructions for this *because* the word "bleed" does > not *have* to imply prey. Right, it simply implies Prey in the absence of overriding card text. > [snip] > But if it changes the target of a "bleed" how does that change who loses the > pool? Look, my argument is simple. If "bleed" means, "remove pool from your > prey," how does changing the target of the action change the word "prey?" OK, try this: Bleed means "remove pool from the target". [1] [3.2.2] Bleeds target the prey by default [6.4] -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6s1td0$66j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu writes > 2) includes: It doesn't state a restriction on where the bleed must be >targetted. No, the rules do that anyway. The rules state bleeds must be directed against your prey. You don't need an explicit restriction, you need an explicit over-riding of this rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6s1s0q$44k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu writes >The actual >card text does not give instructions for this *because* the word "bleed" does >not *have* to imply prey. If the word bleed automagically implied prey in >the way that you maintain, my above card text *would* be required. Bleed does not imply prey, but the rules book requires that bleed actions be taken against your prey. "(D) Bleed your predator" means take a bleed action against your predator. "(D) Bleed" means do a bleed action - and the rules book requires that bleed actions be taken against your prey. The Golden Rule of Cards does not apply here, as in "(D) Bleed your predator". So you bleed your prey. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Chris, > This train of argument seems to stem from what I think is your belief > that the simple statement "Bleed your Predator" is insufficient > instruction to override (by way of the Golden Rule) the written rules. > There is in CCG's a desire for brevity (due to a lack of much space on > cards) so often there are cards that seem to contradict themselves. > According to your line of thought, if a card were to work as per the > above statement ("Bleed your Predator"), it would need to be worded as > follows, > > "Bleed your Predator. This card allows you to override the > restriction of bleeding only your prey." > Not at all. Those who have responded to my argument have completely missed the point. It is not a case of the rules saying "You may only declare bleed actions against your prey." If they said this, there would be no problem. A card which said "Bleed your predator" would work fine, because it specifically overrides the restriction. The point is, the rules *do not* say you may only bleed your prey. Not at all explicitly, and only barely do they imply this. LSJ's (and others') argument that ct-bleeds are against the original intent of the game rests on the statement that the absolute definition of bleed involves prey. Let's try another example, and see if you can at least understand where I'm coming from. "Defeather." I don't know if that's a real word, but it doesn't matter. Let us define "defeather" to mean "to remove the feathers from a bird." Now, if I were to instruct you to "Defeather a bird," you would understand. If I were to tell you "defeather [something]," you would basically understand me and if you followed my instructions, you would find a bird and defeather it. However, if I were to instruct you to "defeather a salamander," you would have a problem. Defeather is defined to only work against birds. A salamander is not a bird. How can you possibly follow my instruction? Thus, my argument that "bleed" is not defined to only work against prey. The bleed that you can declare without a card has the specific restriction that it only works against prey. The word "bleed" does not have that restriction, because it is not given that restriction in the rules. A card which gave such a restriction would only work against your prey. Since the rules nowhere specify that a bleed may only be declared against prey, we are left with the idea that a bleed without a restriction may be directed anywhere. If LSJ's argument were true, all cards that said "(D) Bleed your predator" (or anything to that extent) would need to read, "(D) Bleed, but your predator (and only your predator) may block this action. If successful, your predator loses pool instead of your prey." Or perhaps "Switch places with your predator's predator. Bleed. Then switch places with your prey's prey." -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Bleed means "remove pool from the target". [1] [3.2.2] > Bleeds target the prey by default [6.4] > Aha! Are these new rulings (or clarifications)? If so, then I'm happy, as new rulings can hardly be used to argue original intent. My point may not have been "proved," but it's at least been upheld. 8) -Chris "There are no broken cards, only broken legs. So play with the new rulings or I'll find out where you live." -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: >The rulebook says that any methuselah who successfully bleeds her prey gains >the Edge. Rulings further state that successfully bleeding any methuselah >will get you the Edge (I don't know why, but oh well...). The rulebook does >not say "all bleeds must be directed at your prey, unless specifically >stated." It only says that without a card you may bleed your prey. Okay, so where in the rulebook does it say that any carded bleed action may be directed at any Methuselah? This all comes again from a rulebook that was designed to teach people a game, rather than being used as a rules encyclopedia. I think that if some people had their way, all CCG rulebooks would read like lawbooks. But hey, then only lawyers would play... That's my take on these arguments, anyway. If there's any convincing to be done, it'll come from the arguments about the playablity of c-t bleed, rather than from rulebook interpretation. That said, there is some text covering bleeds in the rulebook, and your arguments seem to bypass them by a lack of specific text in the rules for carded bleed actions. Bleeding with a carded bleed action is not specifically said to be omnidirectable. Nor does text on directed actions have any provision for suspending the restriction on bleeds being only towards the prey. There is, however specific text in the rulebook that covers bleed actions in general. Since this is the only text we have, its the only text that we can apply to bleed actions, carded or not. Other interpretations are mostly based on the standpoint that if it isn't in the rules, its legal. That's a faulty interpretation to have, and you won't find a single CCG maker that would support it, except for maybe Steve Jackson Games ;-) Considerations for including c-t bleed in the rules are a different story, I don't personally support them, but I see arguments for their inclusion as a more sound method of argument than saying "there's nothing in the rulebook that says I can't..." [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > The point is, the rules *do not* say you may only bleed your prey. But they do say that the prey is the target of a bleed [6.4] (this reference recurs in this post, I apologize for the need for such repetitiveness.) > Not at all > explicitly, and only barely do they imply this. 6.4 is pretty explicit about bleeding your prey by default. Without card text to override the default, a bleed is directed at one's prey. > LSJ's (and others') argument > that ct-bleeds are against the original intent of the game rests on the > statement that the absolute definition of bleed involves prey. And one pool, for that matter. Or, better stated, the default bleed is against your prey and for one pool. Card text can override these defaults, of course. > Let's try another example, and see if you can at least understand where I'm > coming from. > > "Defeather." I don't know if that's a real word, but it doesn't matter. Let > us define "defeather" to mean "to remove the feathers from a bird." Now, if > I were to instruct you to "Defeather a bird," you would understand. If I > were to tell you "defeather [something]," you would basically understand me > and if you followed my instructions, you would find a bird and defeather it. > However, if I were to instruct you to "defeather a salamander," you would > have a problem. Defeather is defined to only work against birds. A > salamander is not a bird. How can you possibly follow my instruction? If you define "defeather" to refer to geese (getting down for pillows, for instance), and later instructed someone to "defeather" a duck, they would be able to understand you (hopefully), since ducks have feathers. Your predator has pool. If a card said "bleed any minion", then you would have a problem similar to your "defeather a salamander" example. > Thus, my argument that "bleed" is not defined to only work against prey. But it is directed at your prey by default. [6.4] > The > bleed that you can declare without a card has the specific restriction that it > only works against prey. Where do you see that? 6.4 mentions that a bleed "doesn't require a card", but the section is describing bleeds in general. If it is describing cardless bleeds only, then what part of the rules are you using to figure out what happens when you use a card for a bleed? Carded bleeds are identical to cardless bleeds except where card text overrides the attributes of a cardless bleed. > The word "bleed" does not have that restriction, > because it is not given that restriction in the rules. 6.4 clearly shows that a bleed is directed against your prey. A bleed card which doesn't override this will be directed against you prey. > A card which gave such > a restriction would only work against your prey. A bleed card which doesn't override the default will be directed against your prey, a specified in the section on bleeding [6.4] > Since the rules nowhere > specify that a bleed may only be declared against prey, A bleed, by default, is directed at your prey. [6.4] > we are left with the > idea that a bleed without a restriction may be directed anywhere. A bleed without card text overriding the default is directed against your prey. > If LSJ's argument were true, all cards that said "(D) Bleed your predator" > (or anything to that extent) would need to read, "(D) Bleed, but your > predator (and only your predator) may block this action. If successful, your > predator loses pool instead of your prey." Or perhaps "Switch places with > your predator's predator. Bleed. Then switch places with your prey's prey." Not true. See my other post in this thread. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > Bleed means "remove pool from the target". [1] [3.2.2] > > Bleeds target the prey by default [6.4] > > Aha! Are these new rulings (or clarifications)? If so, then I'm happy, as > new rulings can hardly be used to argue original intent. My point may not > have been "proved," but it's at least been upheld. 8) They are from the rulebook, as cited. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I do not claim to be "more right" than he, only that my opinion has as much validity and weight as his, yours or any of the other players on this discussion. Hence why I typed the following lines: This game no longer "belongs" to the designers it belongs to the collective Jyhad community. We are its lifeblood and its interpreters. -Chris

James Coupe wrote: > In article <35E2DF14...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, Christopher Chew > <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> writes > >Kingmaker, what a wonderful mathematical concept that so many have latched onto > >however in light of actual experience things don't usually pan out that way. > > Including Richard Garfield and you have to admit that when I "re-wrote" > the article he put in Duelist, you considered it a poweful argument. > > >Usually its not worth my time to perform a (D) action across the table. > > Usually, no. And in your experience, no, it might not work that way. > But the official rules have to work around your average guy on the > street, with zero intelligence. Cross-table voting and combat are hard > to abuse - the latter always has been, the former now more so. Bleeds > need the restraint to stop average Joe turning up to a tournament and > ruining it for everyone. > > If you don't care about tournaments, use House Rules because tournaments > (sanctioned) are the ONLY place where the rules *have* to apply. > > -- > James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply > > Vampire: Elder Kindred Network > http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net >you considered it a poweful argument. I do not nessecarily consider the Kingmaking concept a good arguement merely a mathematically sound proposition. In some CCGs it may very well a completely accurate position. It is simply my experience that it does not apply in Jyhad (specifically becuase of the amount of interaction inherent to this game and the predator prey dynamic). >If you don't care about tournaments, use House Rules because tournaments (sanctioned) are the ONLY place where the rules >*have* to apply. The above reality cannot be argued with however I would like to see a common set of rules and a set of tournament restrictions. THE rules should be rather liberal and the tournament restricitions should impose a very conservative element to the game. This idea with allow palyers to move between play groups (outside of the tournament) with very little arguement over specific concepts. I realize what I have just iterated will open me up to the "well what rules will be THE rules, who decides them, etc" however this would seem to satisfy both "camps".

> > > Bleed means "remove pool from the target". [1] [3.2.2] > > > Bleeds target the prey by default [6.4] > > > > Aha! Are these new rulings (or clarifications)? If so, then I'm happy, as > > new rulings can hardly be used to argue original intent. My point may not > > have been "proved," but it's at least been upheld. 8) > > They are from the rulebook, as cited. > Which rulebook is this from?!? The rules that I have read, and which I have seen cited many times here say (Grr... no rulebook with me to use...) something to the effect of "Bleeding is your way of reducing another methuselah's pool. To declare a bleed action, tap your minion and announce to your prey that you are attempting to bleed them. Only your prey may attempt to block this action. If this action is successful, your prey loses 1 pool and you gain the Edge." That doesn't say what you are saying. What am I missing? -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > > > Bleed means "remove pool from the target". [1] [3.2.2] > > > > Bleeds target the prey by default [6.4] > > > > > > Aha! Are these new rulings (or clarifications)? If so, then I'm happy, as > > > new rulings can hardly be used to argue original intent. My point may not > > > have been "proved," but it's at least been upheld. 8) > > > > They are from the rulebook, as cited. > > > > Which rulebook is this from? The rules that I have read, and which I have > seen cited many times here say (Grr... no rulebook with me to use...) The VTES rulebook. There's a plain text (ASCII) copy available on the Rulemonger web page. (http://Rulemonger.Home.ML.Org) > seen cited many times here say (Grr... no rulebook with me to use...) > something to the effect of "Bleeding is your way of reducing another > methuselah's pool. To declare a bleed action, tap your minion and announce to > your prey that you are attempting to bleed them. Only your prey may attempt > to block this action. If this action is successful, your prey loses 1 pool > and you gain the Edge." > > That doesn't say what you are saying. What am I missing? That's section 6.4. The section you quoted from memory (very well, I might add), actually goes like this: A minion controlled by a Methuselah attempts to reduce the blood pool of another Methuselah. The term "bleed" is actually a metaphor. It describes meddling in the affairs of Methuselahs by paying bribes, burning down property, spreading rumors, and so on. To have one of your minions commit a bleed action: 1) Tap the minion and announce to your prey that your minion is attempting to bleed. 2) If your prey's minions cannot block, or are unsuccessful in their attempts to stop you, your prey burns one pool. There are also cards that allow your minions to bleed your prey for more than one pool. But, either way (your by-memory quote or the actual quote), the section indicates that the action is directed at your prey by default. The last sentence I quoted is particularly interesting to this discussion. It is just a reminder/paraphrase of the Golden Rule of Cards, but its use of the term "prey" is again indicative of the way carded bleeds default to regular (cardless) bleeds (barring further card text, of course). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

> Bleeding with a carded bleed action is not specifically said to be > omnidirectable. Nor does text on directed actions have any provision > for suspending the restriction on bleeds being only towards the prey. > There is, however specific text in the rulebook that covers bleed > actions in general. Since this is the only text we have, its the only > text that we can apply to bleed actions, carded or not. Other > interpretations are mostly based on the standpoint that if it isn't in > the rules, its legal. That's a faulty interpretation to have, and you > won't find a single CCG maker that would support it, except for maybe > Steve Jackson Games ;-) > Considerations for including c-t bleed in the rules are a different > story, I don't personally support them, but I see arguments for their > inclusion as a more sound method of argument than saying "there's > nothing in the rulebook that says I can't..." > I'm not arguing in favour of c-t bleeds. It may be difficult to follow the purpose through an entire thread, but I mean only to prove that the "original intent" in the case of (D) bleeds is ambiguous. Any argument which says "bleeds were *obviously* meant to go against your prey" also, as far as I can tell, precludes any means ever being used to have anyone bleed someone besides their prey. The fact that c-t bleeds have been ruled to not be allowed is enough, as I grudginly have agreed they are bad for the game. But the argument that the new ruling follows "original intent" is garbge, as I have tried to prove. Original intent, difficult to prove in any instance, is especially flimsy in the case of bleeds, as the only "proof" seems to be an implication introduced in the intstructions for a cardless bleed, which assumes that all bleeds will affect your prey. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

Christopher Chew wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > All right. So who says we should listen to you instead of LSJ? Why are > > _you_ "more right" than he is? > > I do not claim to be "more right" than he, only that my opinion has as much > validity and weight as his, yours or any of the other players on this > discussion. Except that LSJ is the only one who is the official authority on this game. He may have personal opinions which are, as you say, valid. But when he rules on the game, he does so in an official capacity. > Hence why I typed the following lines: This game no longer "belongs" > to the designers it belongs to the collective Jyhad community. We are its > lifeblood and its interpreters. Uh huh. Whatever. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > They are from the rulebook, as cited. > > Which rulebook is this from?!? The rules that I have read, and which I have There are two rulebooks I know of. One is from Jyhad (VtES first edition) and, from what I gather, help to define the "basic intent of rules". :) The other is the VtES one. You can find a copy of that one on the Rulemonger's site (accessible from the JOL site, as one of the links). As a side note, are there a lot of players out there who don't have access to the Jyhad Rulebook? If so, maybe it would be a good idea put a copy somewhere on the 'Net, so that everyone can consult it (unless there is already one available). Frederic.

In article <6s49la$vu4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > Which rulebook is this from?!? The rules that I have read, and which I have > seen cited many times here say (Grr... no rulebook with me to use...) > something to the effect of "Bleeding is your way of reducing another > methuselah's pool. To declare a bleed action, tap your minion and announce to > your prey that you are attempting to bleed them. Only your prey may attempt > to block this action. If this action is successful, your prey loses 1 pool > and you gain the Edge." Where does it say there that you can bleed anyone? It only defines one way to bleed: Tap your minion Tell your prey that you are trying to bleed him Only prey may block If not blocked, prey loses 1 pool. Nowhere does it say how to bleed another Methuselah. Where do you find the basis that a +bleed card changes this (unless explicitly stated)? A regular +bleed card breaks the rule for how to bleed in the amount only. Nothing else is changed. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: : > > > Bleed means "remove pool from the target". [1] [3.2.2] : > > > Bleeds target the prey by default [6.4] : > > : > > Aha! Are these new rulings (or clarifications)? If so, then I'm happy, as : > > new rulings can hardly be used to argue original intent. My point may not : > > have been "proved," but it's at least been upheld. 8) : > : > They are from the rulebook, as cited. : > : Which rulebook is this from?!? The rules that I have read, and which I have : seen cited many times here say (Grr... no rulebook with me to use...) : something to the effect of "Bleeding is your way of reducing another : methuselah's pool. To declare a bleed action, tap your minion and announce to : your prey that you are attempting to bleed them. Only your prey may attempt : to block this action. If this action is successful, your prey loses 1 pool : and you gain the Edge." : That doesn't say what you are saying. What am I missing? From the VtES rulebook on the Rulemonger web page, section 6.4, "Bleed": "Bleed (no card required): Bleeding is one of the most fundamental directed actions in the game. A minion controlled by a Methuselah attempts to reduce the blood pool of another Methuselah. The term "bleed" is actually a metaphor. It describes meddling in the affairs of Methuselahs by paying bribes, burning down property, spreading rumors, and so on. To have one of your minions commit a bleed action: 1) Tap the minion and announce to your prey that your minion is attempting to bleed. 2) If your prey's minions cannot block, or are unsuccessful in their attempts to stop you, your prey burns one pool. There are also cards that allow your minions to bleed your prey for more than one pool. Your predator will attempt to bleed you out of the game. She will try to send her minions past yours and reduce your blood pool; your minions can block these actions to defend you. You then have the opportunity to attempt to send your remaining minions past your prey's minions. If you succeed in getting through, you can then bleed your prey. You may do damage to your opponent's minions, but you want to ultimately bleed other Methuselahs out of the game. Important rule: Whenever a minion successfully bleeds a Methuselah, the controller of that minion "gets the Edge"." [end citation] Note that this tells you how to take a cardless bleed action, says that it's directed against your prey, and that if you succeed your prey burns one pool. In [1.1], under the heading "The Edge Counter", it says "A player who successfully "bleeds" another Methuselah and reduces his victim's blood pool gets the Edge." If this isn't the citation LSJ had in mind for section 1, I'm not sure what it was. At [3.2.2], he may be thinking of the sentence under the heading "Action Modifier Cards", which says "For instance, if your minion is taking a "bleed" action to drain the blood pool of another Methuselah, you could play an action modifier card designed to increase the amount of pool you drain." A citation LSJ didn't give, but which may be useful, is the entry in the Rules Glossary for "Bleed": "An action that involves one of your vampires making a direct assault on the pool of another player." Josh knows where to find the vtes rulebook online (but sadly, not the jyhad one)

> > > > > Bleed means "remove pool from the target". [1] [3.2.2] > > > > > Bleeds target the prey by default [6.4] > > > > > > > > > > They are from the rulebook, as cited. > > > > > > > Which rulebook is this from? The rules that I have read, and which I have > > seen cited many times here say (Grr... no rulebook with me to use...) > > The VTES rulebook. > There's a plain text (ASCII) copy available on the Rulemonger web page. > (http://Rulemonger.Home.ML.Org) > What does it say in the Jyhad rulebook? Original intent can't be proven from an expansion. (Well, original intent can't be "proven" at all, but it can at least be supported beyond a reasonable doubt. My only goal is to show that original intent is not obvious.) > > That doesn't say what you are saying. What am I missing? > > That's section 6.4. > > The section you quoted from memory (very well, I might add), actually goes > like this: > > A minion controlled by a Methuselah attempts to reduce > the blood pool of another Methuselah. The term "bleed" is > actually a metaphor. It describes meddling in the affairs > of Methuselahs by paying bribes, burning down property, > spreading rumors, and so on. To have one of your minions > commit a bleed action: > > 1) Tap the minion and announce to your prey that your > minion is attempting to bleed. > 2) If your prey's minions cannot block, or are unsuccessful > in their attempts to stop you, your prey burns one pool. > There are also cards that allow your minions to bleed your > prey for more than one pool. > > But, either way (your by-memory quote or the actual quote), the section > indicates that the action is directed at your prey by default. > > The last sentence I quoted is particularly interesting to this > discussion. It is just a reminder/paraphrase of the Golden Rule > of Cards, but its use of the term "prey" is again indicative of > the way carded bleeds default to regular (cardless) bleeds (barring > further card text, of course). > But it doesn't say anything to the effect of "Bleeds cause a methuselah pool loss. You may only bleed your prey." This would show original intent beyond reasonable doubt, and still allow carded bleeds to override the restriction of prey. Instead it implies to me that the section using the term "prey" applies only to bleeds that target your prey, namely the bleed you may attempt without an action card. In other words, it is describing how to execute a bleed without an action card and introduces the restriction of prey. To read it the way you read it implies to me that bleeds do not make sense against any methuselah other than your prey and an instruction to bleed your predator is as nonsensical as an instruction to bleed your Hunting Ground. It's perhaps possible that the original intent is as you maintain, but hardly obvious. I suppose this argument is getting tedious, as most rules arguments that last more than 2 or 3 posts, but I really don't like the fact that "it's the original intent" is being used to uphold the new ruling against ct-bleeds, especially when someone says something to the effect of "non ct-bleeds are the original intent. I don't have to argue against them, you have to prove why they should be allowed." -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35E2B9F2...@atlantic.net>, Kevin Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote: >Who here counts victory points at the end of a game outside of a >tournament? I do. >For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to >be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs? Back when I actually got to play paper Jyhad, my group counted VP to determine the winner. Of course, since we usually played 3 person games (we had a really small playgroup), "most VP" worked out the same as "last man standing"... These days I only get to play on JOL, but there VP's count for everything too. -- Justin Fang (jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu) This space intentionally left blank.

> > This brings up a very intersting question. > > Who here counts victory points at the end of a game outside of a > tournament? > > For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to > be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs? > > I'd like to see as many responses as possible so please reply - I am > very curious. > > Kevin Well, I guess I will now respond to my own post after seeing everyone elses. The groups I have played with *have* played with victory points but really didn't pay much attention to them. The last person around was generally considered the winner unless it was obvious they didn't (ie. played a total defensive game and only ousted the last guy). We all just frown on anyone sitting and only defending - its boring. For a tournament were it is important to deside *exactly* who the winner is I would always use VPs - that is the rule after all. We just don't care all that much. It never does quite feel like a "win" when you were ousted though, no matter who did it. I think what we "really" considered a win was both the most VPs *and* being the last at the table. If you were ousted - that just doen't quite cut it. Kevin PS. I find it interesting that people pay attention to "realative" losses. (ie. 2 VPs as opposed to 1). I have always considered 2nd place to be the first loser. (after I get knocked out, I do feel better if I at least got someone before I went though).

R. David Zopf wrote: > > ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > Chris, > This train of argument seems to stem from what I think is your belief > that the simple statement "Bleed your Predator" is insufficient > instruction to override (by way of the Golden Rule) the written rules. > There is in CCG's a desire for brevity (due to a lack of much space on > cards) so often there are cards that seem to contradict themselves. > According to your line of thought, if a card were to work as per the > above statement ("Bleed your Predator"), it would need to be worded as > follows, I don't think this is his argument at all. His argument is that in the rules it defines "bleed" as remove blood from a methusula, get the edge, etc. It then defines the **default** bleed. This is a particular action. If you use a card to bleed you are doing a *different* action then the default bleed. Thus, you start with what a bleed is and go from there. The default bleed would be like a card that said "(D) bleed you prey". If it says "(D) bleed" then it hasn't said who you bleed so you choose. > "Bleed your Predator. This card allows you to override the > restriction of bleeding only your prey." > > > But the Golden Rule in application applies the following text to _ALL_ > cards in the CCG > > "If this card contradicts some part of the rules, follow this card > _instead of_ the written rules" > > Therefore, redundant text is 1. unneccesary to make the card function > as intended, and 2. unwanted from a standpoint of brevity and > simplicity of card design. 1. Bleeding anyone does not contradict the definition of a bleed it is only *different* then the default bleed. - I know we have a difference of opinion on this. 2. Using Computer Hacking as an example. as is: "(D) Bleed +1" the long and complex version: "(D) Bleed prey +1" What exactly does it save. Kevin

On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > I'm not arguing in favour of c-t bleeds. It may be difficult to follow the > purpose through an entire thread, but I mean only to prove that the "original > intent" in the case of (D) bleeds is ambiguous. I do not believe such a position is defensible. The original state of the rules is quite clear. If you do not mind, I will present the situation to you anew. I'm not sure I am saying anything you have not heard already, but perhaps a coherent chronological account will be more convincing than alot of snippets. Let's start with Jyhad. Section 12.3.1 of the Jyhad rulebook describes bleeding Bleed (no card required): [...snip metaphorical descriptions of bleeding...]. You may attempt to bleed the player who is your prey by declaring a bleed action. If unblocked, this action, this action removes one blood from the blood pool of the bled player to the blood bank. If your vampire has a modifier to its bleed, it may remove extra blood from your prey to the blood bank. Note that, while it says no card is required, this text does not say it applies only to cardless bleeds. Obviously, it is intended to apply to all bleeds, or otherwise there would be no rules to say what carded bleeds do. Naturally, carded bleeds will change and alter what bleeds normally do, or otherwise there would be no point to them. Thus, "Computer Hacking", says "(D) Bleed at +1." which means--follow the rules for (cardless) bleed actions, except that your target will lose an additional pool. It ought to be clear that the rule that bleeds target your prey remains in effect, unless there is card text to contradict that. The rules say, quite clearly, that a "bleed" targets your prey. The rules also state that card text can break the base rules. There is no card text on "Computer Hacking" which states that this particular bleed does not have to target prey...that is, unless that mysterious (D) symbol can be taken as meaning something to this effect. I move on to that subject. A listing of "Jyhad Symbols" on the back of the rules booklet clearly indicates that (D) means "Directed Action". In Section 13.3.1 (Who May Block Whom) one learns what "directed actions" are. Actions that directly affect another Methuselah are called *directed actions* and can only be blocked by that Methuselah's minions. Other actions are called *non-directed* and can be blocked by either your predator's or prey's minions. Directed actions are noted on action cards with a (D) symbol in the card text. If the (D) symbol does not appear, it is not a directed action. The only directed actions that do not require a card are bleeding and encountering another Methuselah's vampire in torpor. Thus, it appears that the (D) symbol does not change anything about the bleed, since even cardless bleeds are directed. It's presence on the card is redundant. The card could have merely said "Bleed at +1" and had the same meaning, since the word "bleed" in and of itself is sufficient to indicate that the action is directed. The reason why the symbol is there is simple: The game designers are trying to be consistent in putting the symbol on all Action cards that describe directed actions, so that one will be able to tell by its absence that the action in non-directed. That intent is clearly stated in the above-quoted section. Thus the (D) symbol says nothing about who the target is. It merely indicates that the minions of the target Methuselah (whoever he is) can block, and no one else can. If this is not clear enough, let us look at the evidence of the cards themselves. There are two bleed cards in Jyhad that explicitly over-ride the restriction of bleeding one's prey only: Night Moves and Cat Burglary. Night Moves <Action> <Obfuscate> (D) Bleed your predator or prey at +3 stealth. If more than one pool is bled with this action, ignore the excess. *(D) As above but at +6 stealth.* In light of later rulings, the "predator or prey" text had been interpreted as a restriction preventing one from bleeding accross the table as the (D) symbol was then interpreted as normally allowing. The text was actually intended to grant a special privilege. The original interpretation seems more appropriate to the card, as it is hardly overpowered enough for a cross-table bleed restriction to be justified, or even meaningful. Those who dread cross-table bleeds are hardly going to breathe easier knowing that they are safe from Night Moves. Cat Burglary <Action> <Celerity> *+1 stealth* (D) Bleed, but if more than one pool is bled with this action, ignore the excess. *(D) Bleed any Methuselah, but if more than 1 pool is bled with this action, ignore the excess.* This card is convincing evidence that carded bleeds were never intended to normally permit the bleeding of any Methuselah, (D) symbol or no. The only difference between the inferior and inferior version of this card is that the Superior explicitly allows the bleeding of "any Methuselah". The inferior version has no explicit restriction preventing this, but merely fails to explicitly allow it -- just like Computer Hacking. If inferior Cat Burglary is interpreted as only allowing bleeding of one's prey (as it clearly must be--for otherwise the superior and inferior versions are identical), then to be consistent, Computer Hacking must be interpreted similarly. Cat Burglary is rare card. It was intended to do something rather usual and special (*if* you had Superior Celerity), by overriding the restrictions on who you could bleed, just as Eagle's Sight, at superior, was able to over-ride restrictions on what actions one was allowed to attempt to block. Another card I might mention is Arson: Arson <Action> *Do not replace until after combat.* (D) Burn a location. Can be directed at any Methuselah. Surely, if the (D) symbol meant what is was later claimed to mean, then this last sentence would have been entirely superfluous. It's kinda superfluous anyway, but... -------------------------- Sometime between the release of Jyhad and the release of V:tES, a ruling was issued on the meaning of the (D) symbol. Actually, it would be more proper to call the ruling errata, since it clearly altered what the (D) symbol was originally intended to mean. The ruling stated that the (D) symbol indicated that an action could be directed at any target, unless there was explicity card text indicating to the contrary. The main effect of this ruling was to allow cross-table bleeds with bleed-boosting actions. It served no other purpose. All other action cards that had the (D) symbol were fairly clear in defining who their target was. I have no idea why this errata was issued. I can only assume that the person responsible was used to doing CT bleeds, wanted to continue to do it this way, and wanted everyone else to do it the same way he did regardless of what the rulebook said or the game designers intended. Some other residual effects: Cat Burglary now required errata, for otherwise the inferior and superior versions were identical. In September 1994 errata was issued saying that "The inferior version is directed but not (D)." This errata must have been confusing for those who took the rulebook at its word and assumed that "directed" was precisely what the (D) symbol was supposed to signify. It is annoying also to have a symbol that cannot be pronounced out loud while still preserving what is now supposed to be its full meaning. It reminds me of that silly unpronounceable symbol that the Artist Formerly Known As Prince has taken to insisting is his name. I can understand TAFKAPs desire to make himself seem mysterious, but I cannot understand why one would want to do this with the Jyhad rules. As one can imagine, this ruling made a lot of people want to slap the rules team silly. Thankfully, it has now been reversed, and the rules restored to their original state of elegance. One of the consequences of this ruling was that Cat Burglary became one of the most despised of all rares, the one most commonly cited as an example of the fact that rares cards in Jyhad are not necessarily better than commons. Instead of being an (otherwise underpowered) bleed card that grants a rare privilege at superior, it became an underpowered bleed card that has unusual restrictions at inferior. ----------------------- Finally, I will discuss the release of the V:tES edition of the rules. V:tES was released long after this strange ruling, and while it was still in effect. Oddly enough, the new ruling was not incorporated into the latest addition of the rules, and nothing can be found in the V:tES rulebook that supports or acknowledges it. I do not know if this was an oversight, or deliberate behavior on the part of one who did not agree with the current ruling. In section 6.3.1, where Directed Actions are defined: Cards that involve directed actions have a (D) in the card text. The only directed action in the Basic Game that does not require a card is bleeding. And in section 18.1 Directed Actions directly affect another Methuselah or one of his minions. They may only be blocked by the minions of that Methuselah. Directed actions are noted on cards with a (D) in the card text. Again, the purpose of the (D) symbol is to identify a "directed action" so it can be determined who is allowed to attempt to block. No other purpose is indicated. Under 6.4 (Minion Actions): Bleed (no card required): Bleeding is one of the most fundamental directed actions in the game. [...snip metaphorical description of bleeding...]. To have one of your minions commit a bleed action: 1) Tap the minion and announce to your prey that your minion is attempting to bleed. 2) If your prey's minions cannot block, or are unsuccessful in their attemps to stop you, your prey burns one pool. There are also cards that allow your minions to bleed your prey for more than one pool. Note again that it is not stated that the above applies only to cardless bleeds. Bleed action cards are handled precisely as above, with the only difference being that you play the bleed card as the action is announced (as is done for all carded actions), with card text as always modifying the base rules. Note also how the last sentence takes care to indicate that one's prey is still the target even when cards are involved. The words "your prey" are not necessary to the sentence, and I cannot help wondering if they were put in deliberately by a writer that disagreed with the then-current ruling. In the V:tES edition, there was only one acknowledgement of the then-current ruling, and it was not in the rulebook. Rather, Cat Burglary was corrected, in accordance with then-current errata lists, such that the (D) symbol at inferior was removed. Note that, with the (D) gone, this card now violates the promise make in the rulebook that directed actions will be identified by the (D) symbol. It should have been revised to say "(D) Bleed your prey..." Nonetheless, the V:tES text has been cited by persons in this NG as evidence that the (D) symbol was originally intended to allow for bleeding any target... thus it's conspicuous absence in the inferior version of Cat Burglary. I trust this little history puts the matter in a better perspective. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > I'm not arguing in favour of c-t bleeds. It may be difficult to follow the > purpose through an entire thread, but I mean only to prove that the "original > intent" in the case of (D) bleeds is ambiguous. In that case, you are clearly wrong. I can understand why some people would want CT bleeds. Perhaps they, unlike me, are very good at games like Diplomacy and Risk. Perhaps they, unlike me, find the kingmaker effect ("may the best man lose") to be amusing. I, however, am an introvert who has trouble with social strategy. This is a matter of taste. However, it is absolutely clear from the Jyhad rulebook, the V:tES rulebook, and other available evidence that all bleeds were intended to target one's prey only unless card text explicitly indicated to the contrary. > Any argument which says "bleeds were *obviously* meant to go against > your prey" also, as far as I can tell, precludes any means ever being > used to have anyone bleed someone besides their prey. I don't see why. The game designers *obviously* meant for only the targetted Methuselah to be able to block a directed bleed, since they wrote a rule explicitly stating this. This however did not stop them from designing the card "Eagle's Sight" to overcome this restriction. > The fact that c-t bleeds have been ruled to not be allowed is enough, as > I grudginly have agreed they are bad for the game. But the argument > that the new ruling follows "original intent" is garbage, as I have > tried to prove. Well, in that case I have just written a long post of "garbage" under the heading "Original Intent". Please read it and let me know if you are convinced. > Original intent, difficult to prove in any instance, is especially > flimsy in the case of bleeds, as the only "proof" seems to be an > implication introduced in the intstructions for a cardless bleed, which > assumes that all bleeds will affect your prey. There are no instructions for a "cardless bleed". There is an instruction for bleeds, an basic action that does not require an action card (but does not preclude one either). Action cards that instruct you to "Bleed" are handled according to the same rules. Indeed, there would be no point at all in using the word "Bleed" in the card text at all if the intent was not to refer you to these rules. Cart text will tell you how the bleed will be different than normal. This will change or modify the rules somewhat, of course, but this is true of any card you play. If the V:tES bleed rules do not apply to carded bleeds, then I have no way of knowing what a carded bleed does. Perhaps Computer Hacking removes blood from a minion rather than from Methuselah's pool? If I am going to ignore what the rules say a bleed does (on the grounds that they only apply to "cardless bleeds") then this seems the most reasonable assumption -- since "bleed" seems to associate better with "blood" than with "pool". [ quoted text not captured ]

> What does it say in the Jyhad rulebook? Original intent can't be proven from > an expansion. (Well, original intent can't be "proven" at all, but it can at > least be supported beyond a reasonable doubt. My only goal is to show that > original intent is not obvious.) Same thing, only clearer. I thought we were discussing the current rules/rulebook, not the original intent, sorry. Jyhad rulebook: 12.3.1. Minion Actions You may attempt to bleed the player who is your prey by declaring a bleed action. If unblocked, this action removes one blood from the blood pool of the bled player to the blood bank. -- And, as an aside, what's the reason for treating "default" as "default if no card is used"? "Default" is intended to apply by default. That is, unless something explicitly changes the default. If, when I bleed, I can bleed only my prey (by default), then why is it that, when I have a card that says "bleed" suddenly I can bleed anyone I choose. What has changed to override the default? -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > I submit Cat Burglary as evidence, m'lud. > > Why not just "(D) Bleed"? > > Ok, since you brought it up, let's take a look at Cat Burglary: > > Card Title: Cat Burglary > Blood/Pool: n/a > Clan/Discip.: cel > Card Type: Action > Card Text: Bleed your prey for 1 pool at +1 stealth. If more > than 1 pool is bled with this action, ignore the excess. > (S) Bleed any Methuselah as a +1 stealth (D) action. > If more than 1 pool is bled with this action, ignore > the excess. > Artist: Dave Roach and Pete Burges > Rarity: Rare > > Now, if you'll notice, in the inferior, it states that you Bleed your > prey for 1 pool at +1 stealth. It doesn't say that this action is a > (D) action. However, in the superior where it says that we can bleed > any Methuselah, it specifies that this bleed _is_ a (D) action. > This seems to me that it is associating (D) Bleed with Bleeding any > Methuselah... He was talking about the Jyhad version, not the messed-up V:tES version. The V:tES version is messed up, because the rulebook (Jyhad and V:tES) promises that all directed actions are supposed to have this symbol. This remained in effect despite the (erroneous) ruling that the (D) symbol, by default, indicates that the bleed can effect anyone. It should have said "(D) Bleed your prey..." and card text would have been adequate to over-ride this ruling (as it does in a great many cards), while still making it clear that this was a directed action. In the Jyhad version the inferior says "(D) Bleed,...." while the Superior says "(D) Bleed any Methuselah,...." Otherwise, the superior and inferior versions are identical. [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > Ok, since you brought it up, let's take a look at Cat Burglary: [V:tES card text] > > Card Title: Cat Burglary > > Blood/Pool: n/a > > Clan/Discip.: cel > > Card Type: Action > > Card Text: Bleed your prey for 1 pool at +1 stealth. If more > > than 1 pool is bled with this action, ignore the excess. > Actually, the Jyhad card text (don't know about V:tES) states: > +1 Stealth. (D) Bleed, but if more than 1 pool.... > It doesn't say anything about prey. By card text with your interpretation > of bleeds, the inferior and superior are identical. The especially important thing to note here is that the VtES text was changed to reflect the previous rulings and keep the card text in line with the (D)-Bleed rulings of the time. If you look at the _original_ Jyhad text, Cat Burglary's text and the texts of a few other cards, uphold the intent of (D)-Bleeds to be only prey-directable (as per definition of (D)-bleed) without explicit text. @#$ Adrian Sullivan $#@ Game Theorist Coffee Addict Hedonist @#$ Cabal Rogue Team Rogue $#@ Opinionated Gynophile Eccentric Geek @#$ V:EKN Prince of Madison $#@ heterotranshomotransexual - got that? @#$ The Corrupter $#@ GAT/WS C(+++)$ N++ PS++@+ R+++*$ z++**? [ quoted text not captured ]

> What does it say in the Jyhad rulebook? Original intent can't be proven from > an expansion. (Well, original intent can't be "proven" at all, but it can at > least be supported beyond a reasonable doubt. My only goal is to show that > original intent is not obvious.) Let's see... Original Booklet, p.21 [12.3.1](tm) ---------- Bleed (no card required): Bleeding is one of the most fundamental actions of the game. It is the basic action of your minion to undermine the power and influence of another player and represents your vampire... (same as VtES text)..., spreading rumors, etc. You may attempt to bleed the player by declaring who is your prey by declaring a bleed action. If unblocked, this action removes one blood from the blood pool of the bled player to the blood bank. If your vampire has a modifier to its bleed, it may remove extra blood from your prey to the blood bank. Whenever a minion successfully bleeds a Meth, the controller of that minion gains control of the Edge. ---------- And now, Jyhad Corrected Rules, p.5 [12.3.1] .. says exactly the same thing, with the addition of specifying it is a Directed Action, and a reference on who can block a Directed Action. ---------- I'm not sure if it would help more, though... :) Frederic.

> Cat Burglary > <Action> <Celerity> > *+1 stealth* > (D) Bleed, but if more than one pool is bled with this action, > ignore the excess. > *(D) Bleed any Methuselah, but if more than 1 pool is bled with > this action, ignore the excess.* > > This card is convincing evidence that carded bleeds were never intended to > normally permit the bleeding of any Methuselah, (D) symbol or no. The > only difference between the inferior and inferior version of this card is > that the Superior explicitly allows the bleeding of "any Methuselah". > The inferior version has no explicit restriction preventing this, but > merely fails to explicitly allow it -- just like Computer Hacking. > > If inferior Cat Burglary is interpreted as only allowing bleeding of one's > prey (as it clearly must be--for otherwise the superior and inferior > versions are identical), then to be consistent, Computer Hacking must be > interpreted similarly. > > Cat Burglary is rare card. It was intended to do something rather usual > and special (*if* you had Superior Celerity), by overriding the > restrictions on who you could bleed, just as Eagle's Sight, at superior, > was able to over-ride restrictions on what actions one was allowed to > attempt to block. This is the only real convincing thing in your argument (the others support enough to make this viable though). I guess I have to agree with you that other bleed actions were not intended to bleed cross table. You are absolutely right, this card makes no sense if *any* (D) bleed can be sent at any methusula. This helps me accept the new ruling anyway - original intent does mean quite a bit. I still don't think it is that clear based on the rules but this card certainly shows what they meant. Good argument (you know I don't think I even have cat burglery - or maybe I just never used it and forgot about it). Kevin

Hey, Chris, could you please keep the attributes of who you are quoting... I'm losing information I think is important from the thread... ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: [> someone wrote:] > > My argument is better stated as: > > "In the absence of overriding instruction, the rules apply" > > (implication of the Golden Rule for Cards, sec. 12). [snip] > > The rulebook is clear that this action is directed > > against the player's Prey. The ambiguity arises only when the rules are > > ignored. > Well, for just a moment, I'll assume that's true. (The rulebook actually > says that bleeds are your way of reducing a methuselah's pool (doesn't > mention prey there), and then goes on to describe how you execute the default > cardless bleed (which *is* restricted to your prey).) Actually, the original Jyhad rulebook _defines_ it to be against your prey. > So, "bleed" is defined > to be against your prey? In that case, any card which says, "(D)Bleed your > predator" would be nonsensical. If bleed by definition targets only prey, > then this whole statement is a contradiction. Which is fine. By the "Golden Rule", this is fine, for it allows cards to contradict the rules. > Another stupid analogy... "Fishing" is defined, rather loosely, as catching > fish. If I said, "go fishing," you would know pretty much what I meant > (note: I don't care if you go fly fishing or trout fishing or whatever... > ignore that). If I instead said, "go fishing for deer," the statement does > not make sense. You might figure some way around that and decide I meant > "hunting" but that's not the same thing. There is no way to strictly > interpret my instructions such that they make sense. "Go catch fish for > deer?!?" If you had a Card Game about game hunting, called, for example, "Ned and Jimbo Huntin' Game", and things like Hunting and Fishing were defined terms, but a card said, "Fish for Deer", it might not make sense from a strict English interpretation or from a strict logical interpretation, but the cards supercede the rules to allow this to happen. Most CCGs are designed so that specifics of rules can be _overruled_ by card text (Reckless Assault, in Magic, which allows 2 attack phases, even though the rules allow only one). I don't see your point here, at all. It is fairly antithetical to the entire concept of the CCG industry. > That said, since there *are* ways to bleed other methuselahs (including bleed > bounce, some carded bleeds, and I think a particular vampire's special > ability), it is not possible for the term "bleed" to automatically indicate > your prey. The word "bleed" is used in those circumstances to indicate the > burning of blood from another methuselah's pool. *That* it seems is the > definition of "bleed." So, a card which says "(D) Bleed" cannot carry any > more restrictions than the word "bleed" does. And if "bleed" carries the > restriction of "prey" then "(D) Bleed your predator" makes no sense. Actually, according to the Golden Rule of Cards, it does. > Personally, I make myself feel better by telling myself that this new > restriction against ct-bleeds is errata to all (D) bleed cards to make them > say, "(D) Bleed your prey." That way, I can accept the ruling (which I have > grudgingly admitted is best for the game) without losing sleep at night (you > don't want to know the sort of things that keep me up at night... sad, > really). Not to be a jerk about it, Chris, but what games have you been playing?!! The Golden Rule of Cards and the idea that card text explicitly overrides general rules has been a part of Jyhad since its inception, and been an idea in numerous games for quite some time (Talisman, for example). This is hardly an aspect of the argument that should even be coming up at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > > Yeah, but that's not exactly what he's saying. I hate joining an argument > where I don't really have a strong opinion, but to be a good parallel, the > card would need to be: > > Suck It Up, Fanboy! > Master > Choose one: Your prey loses 3 pool, OR one of your prey's vampires takes 8 > damage. > > This is a little bit more difficult to choose. Whether or not you believe > that it is that much easier to burn blood than pool, that's more true to the > arguement. The idea is, causing 8 pool loss is more devastating than causing > 8 blood loss, but it's much easier to cause 8 blood loss. Thus, averaging in > difficulty (as seen in disciplines/capacity/title required, and cards and > blood burned) with damage, the two may be approximately equal. This is *exactly* my point, but I can see that this *is* probably a metagame issue (although it has really *always* been a part of my play group that I remember). > I disagree a > little, but he does have a point. There are a lot more permanent ways of > dealing more damage, and there are more ways of dealing damage/torporizing > minions without much risk. Plus, if you are bleeding, you'll likely need to > add stealth cards into the combo. That is probably part of it too. I was just pointing out that is my play group you hit someone hard it you get a good 3 bleed on them. Higher than that requires serious timing, good card combos, etc. Bashish a hugh vampire into torpor seems easy in comparison. Kevin PS. great card name

> > I'm not arguing in favour of c-t bleeds. It may be difficult to follow the > > purpose through an entire thread, but I mean only to prove that the "original > > intent" in the case of (D) bleeds is ambiguous. > > I do not believe such a position is defensible. The original state of the > rules is quite clear. If you do not mind, I will present the situation to > you anew. I'm not sure I am saying anything you have not heard already, > but perhaps a coherent chronological account will be more convincing than > alot of snippets. > Man am I getting sick of this thread. I'm going to reply to this one and then ignore anything else in this thread, unless I really can't help it, or unless someone says something like "please respond." Anyway... No you're not saying anything I haven't already heard. Let me see if I can explain to you why these are not convincing arguments. > Bleed (no card required): [...snip metaphorical descriptions of > bleeding...]. > You may attempt to bleed the player who is your prey by declaring > a bleed action. If unblocked, this action, this action removes one > blood from the blood pool of the bled player to the blood bank. If > your vampire has a modifier to its bleed, it may remove extra blood > from your prey to the blood bank. > > Note that, while it says no card is required, this text does not say it > applies only to cardless bleeds. It implies that it only applies to cardless bleeds, because it is included in after "Bleed (no card required)." *This* bleed, which does not require a card says explicitly "Bleed your prey." *Other* bleeds only say "Bleed." While you might take the implication that this is meant to be your prey, it is about as far from "obvious" as is humanly possible. > Obviously, it is intended to apply to > all bleeds, or otherwise there would be no rules to say what carded bleeds > do. Obviously you've been sniffing paint thinner. 8) > It ought to be clear that the rule that bleeds target your prey remains in > effect, unless there is card text to contradict that. The rules say, > quite clearly, that a "bleed" targets your prey. The rules also > state that card text can break the base rules. > The rules say, quite clearly, that the bleed which does not require a card may only target your prey. No where is there a clear definition of what "bleed" means when it is printed on a card. There is no reason to believe that the word bleed contains within it any restrictions, and thus may do anything that "bleed" allows. Since "bleeds" can possibly be sent to other methuselah's, there's no reason to believe that the word "bleed" restricts you to a particular methuselah. > There is no card text on "Computer Hacking" which states that this > particular bleed does not have to target prey...that is, unless that > mysterious (D) symbol can be taken as meaning something to this effect. I > move on to that subject. > Oh no... not the (D) symbol crap. The (D) symbol is simply a reminder that the action is directed. Of course, there's no reason why a directed action can not be sent at any target (except for restrictions on the card). I'm not going to bother responding to the most of the (D) controversy. The rules team made a mistake in this instance, but their mistake is not at all the only reason to think that bleeds can be directed cross-table. > > Night Moves > <Action> <Obfuscate> > (D) Bleed your predator or prey at +3 stealth. If more than one > pool is bled with this action, ignore the excess. > *(D) As above but at +6 stealth.* > > In light of later rulings, the "predator or prey" text had been > interpreted as a restriction preventing one from bleeding accross the > table as the (D) symbol was then interpreted as normally allowing. The > text was actually intended to grant a special privilege. The original > interpretation seems more appropriate to the card, as it is hardly > overpowered enough for a cross-table bleed restriction to be justified, or > even meaningful. Those who dread cross-table bleeds are hardly going to > breathe easier knowing that they are safe from Night Moves. > And *you* know that the text was meant to grant a special privilege why? Like the +3/+6 stealth wasn't enough? The fact is, "predator or prey" makes just as much (if not more) sense as a special restriction to balance out the huge advantage of the card. And it's not the (D) symbol that mystically allows omni-targetting, but simply the fact that "bleeds" can possibly effect those other than your prey. Look, you'll admit that it makes sense to bleed someone other than your prey (via a card that says "bleed any methuselah" or "bleed your predator"), right? So why is it so hard to imagine that "bleed" doesn't carry restrictions in and of itself. So, a card that says "(D) Bleed" also doesn't carry restrictions. {Cat Burglary} > This card is convincing evidence that carded bleeds were never intended to > normally permit the bleeding of any Methuselah, (D) symbol or no. The > only difference between the inferior and inferior version of this card is > that the Superior explicitly allows the bleeding of "any Methuselah". > The inferior version has no explicit restriction preventing this, but > merely fails to explicitly allow it -- just like Computer Hacking. > Here you go again, trying to convice me that there are no misprints in Jyhad. On a similar note, Blood Rage is convincing evidence that Fortitude was meant to deal damage. The errata-ing of the fortitude symbol was a mistake and should be changed back. The best explanation I've heard is that during playtesting, they were undecided whether or not to allow ct-bleeds, and when they decided in favour, they forgot to change the text on Cat Burglary. > If inferior Cat Burglary is interpreted as only allowing bleeding of one's > prey (as it clearly must be--for otherwise the superior and inferior > versions are identical), then to be consistent, Computer Hacking must be > interpreted similarly. > Nope. To be consistent, Cat Burglary must be errated to read "(D) Bleed you prey at +1 stealth... yada, yada, yada." > Cat Burglary is rare card. It was intended to do something rather usual > and special (*if* you had Superior Celerity), by overriding the > restrictions on who you could bleed, just as Eagle's Sight, at superior, > was able to over-ride restrictions on what actions one was allowed to > attempt to block. > Yes, it's unusual and special ability was to get stealth out of Celerity. It had a whole bunch of restrictions because Celerity was already a really great combat discipline. > Bleed (no card required): Bleeding is one of the most fundamental > directed actions in the game. [...snip metaphorical description of > bleeding...]. To have one of your minions commit a bleed action: > > 1) Tap the minion and announce to your prey that your minion is > attempting to bleed. > 2) If your prey's minions cannot block, or are unsuccessful in their > attemps to stop you, your prey burns one pool. There are also cards > that allow your minions to bleed your prey for more than one pool. > > Note again that it is not stated that the above applies only to cardless > bleeds. Bleed action cards are handled precisely as above, with the only > difference being that you play the bleed card as the action is announced > (as is done for all carded actions), with card text as always modifying > the base rules. > But the card played isn't described above. If you want to read this stuff literally, then you must read it completely literally. There is no step above where an action card may be played. You simply tap the minion and announce you are attempting to bleed. On the other hand, when declaring an action with a card from hand, you tap your minion, play the card and follow the instructions on the card. The card just says bleed, not "bleed your prey." It doesn't say anything about following the rules for a cardless bleed, it only does that which is fundamental and inseparable from the word "bleed," i.e. (D) action, remove pool if successful, gain edge if successful. Since the target is not inherent in the word "bleed," no target is specified, unlike the cardless action. > I trust this little history puts the matter in a better perspective. > Nope, can't say it has. Thanks for trying, though, I suppose. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6s6et1$ej5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, thecor...@yahoo.com wrote: > Hey, Chris, could you please keep the attributes of who you are quoting... I'm > losing information I think is important from the thread... > But... I don't like that stuff, it clutters up my reply, and I always hate when other people leave those things in. I read the original post, I know who wrote it. Besides, it makes the post so much more... mysterious... 8) > > If you had a Card Game about game hunting, called, for example, "Ned and > Jimbo Huntin' Game", and things like Hunting and Fishing were defined terms, > but a card said, "Fish for Deer", it might not make sense from a strict > English interpretation or from a strict logical interpretation, but the cards > supercede the rules to allow this to happen. Most CCGs are designed so that > specifics of rules can be _overruled_ by card text (Reckless Assault, in > Magic, which allows 2 attack phases, even though the rules allow only one). > Hehe... "Ned and Jimbo Huntin' Game." I think I'm gonna market that. And there's gonna be a card that says "Fish for Deer." And I'll be sure not to have any rules that describe how to do that. 8) > I don't see your point here, at all. It is fairly antithetical to the entire > concept of the CCG industry. > Okay, let's take the analogy a little closer to the source material. What if there were a card that said, "(D) Enter combat with one of your minions." Further, let's assume that this is back in the day when (D) actions couldn't be directed at yourself. Okay, we *could* interpret this. First off, directing a (D) action against one of your minions is a problem, but we'll just interpret that to mean that no one may block the action without Eagle's Sight, etc. This is consistent with the self-directed Rampage ruling. Next, we must break the rule that your minions cannot enter combat with each other. Okay, so they do. I'm not sure how, and I'm not really sure about the mechanics. Can the minion you're entering combat with play Reaction cards? What about Action Modifiers? I suppose not, since it's your turn and he's not acting. What if he plays Mask of 1K Faces on the action? (Okay, that last one isn't fair, because nothing similar exists in the "bleed your predator" case, but it's fun to think about...) Now you're in combat. Something in one of the rulings says that if 2 minions controlled by the same methuselah are in combat together, combat immediately ends. Does that happen in this case? Because the card is specifically instigating a combat between two of your minions, is it alright if we break that rule (note that the card doesn't *say* it is breaking that rule, so what do we do)? What about playing a card to look at the opposing methuselah's hand? Do you look at your hand? I guess so. Sure, we can probably figure out what to do, and even make sense out of the card, but it's not easy, and someone else might have a different interpretation. If "prey" is included in "bleed," then I say that a strict adherence to the rules will lead to similar problems. If bleeds can *ever* be directed at anyone else, then "(D) Bleed" (with or without the (D) symbol; I don't want anyone else trying to instruct me that the (D) symbol is just a reminder... I know it is) would imply an omni-directable bleed. This is easily solved by ruling that bleeds are directed at prey only by default, but that's *not* original intent. The original rules do not and cannot restrict where unrestricted bleeds are directed, and thus original intent cannot be proven from the rulebook. That's what my argument is. [ quoted text not captured ]

the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Regardless of whether or not a ct-bleed will oust, it contributes (often > substanitally) to the eventual ousting of the target. Furthermore, even if it > doesn't oust, it does not allow many standard bleed defenses an opportunity > to work, particularly defenses of the proactive variety have no opportunity > to defend, thus any CTB results in one particular player having two > predators, and therefore being unfairly targetting an individual player. Yes it does hurt proactive defenses more that others but most people put in bleed defense of some nature an it should work about the same regardless of where the bleed comes from (except proactive - of course - but even they *could* defend against it proactively, it just takes some foresight and the assumption that players act intelegantly in their own best interests - addmittedly a HUGE assumption.) > > BUT: losing a minion cannot lose you the game. Taking this in terms of > secondary and primary resources, the only way to be ousted is to lose all > your primary resource - your pool. Any other actions targetted at you just > make you less likely to be able to defend your primary resource. The aim of > the game is to reduce your prey's pool - the main (and most effective) way to > do this is with bleeds - so why should (oustside of particular cards > CB,NM,etc) a player be allowed to target someone other than their prey? I still say that losing a minion *can* be a much bigger detriment than losing some blood. This is very situational but I think I can come up with at least as many situations where losing a particular minion is much more detrimental in the long run than losing some blood. > ????? Big bleeds are far easier than big damage???? > Given Dominate: GtU + Cond = 6+any permanents (7 pool for 2 blood) > Given Potence : Fists of Death, Pushing the Limit (7 damage for 2 blood) I'm not going to quote back cards to you as I think these cards are very situational and not as easy as just paying the cost and causing it to happen (they aren't masters). I am just saying in my experience this has been the case. This of course has much to do with my particular play groups. > but there are far more effective combat defenses than bleed defenses. Arguable either way. Against a good rush, they will fight someone, the most you can hope for is to pick who and hopy you have the defenses. Against a big bleed, besides the normal defenses, you can always block it and other than bruise and bleed decks if blocked there probably won't be a big fight. > > directly as important as pool but there are many ways to make it become > > pool, but only if you have excess blood to begin with. > > ?Powerbases, Investments, edge, etc? You missed the point here. I was saying that blood on minions *can* become pool which makes their regenerative capabilities even more helpful (ie. you can use that minion to get back the pool you just lost to that bleed). I was not saying that is the only way to get back pool. > Pool damage is more effective at removing a player from the game, and it is > harder to defend against. For example there is no card which reduces damage > from any bleed to zero, whereas such a card exists for damage (skin of > steel). Furthermore, a combat attempt can be cancelled (S:CE), whereas the > only card to do that for bleeds, AI is broken. There is obviously a difference of opinion here. There are many times when eliminating a particular minion is *much* more effective at eliminating a playing in the long run. > > Again, you are assuming that if I am losing pool I am being ousted. Of > > And you assume that you are not. Regardless of how little pool you lose it > directly contributes to your ousting, and there are _very_ few defenses > against it. It is not "regardless of how little pool you lose" except for in the most techical of ways. Bleeding me for 1 pool means almost nothing to me. If I have to choose between that and losing a vampire, in *most* cases I'll take the pool loss. (don't come back and say "even if you only have one pool?" - no of course not but that seldom happens. > > course being ousted is the worst. But assume I have 6 blood. If I have > > the choice of being bleed for 3 or losing my last vampire I will lose > > the blood. At this point I am in poor shape one way or the other but > > with a vampire up I at least may have a shot at recovery. If pool was > > so much more important why would I ever influence a vampire to begin > > with - which obviously makes no sense. > > In this particular example, I would agree with you - but only if I didn't have > another vamp of capacity less than 4 - or the vampire is I am losing is bigger > than 6 (with plenty of blood) otherwise, I would consider the loss of the > vampire lucky. When would a directed rush *not* attack a vampire you didn't want to lose? If they are attacking you it is to make you lose you most valuable vampire (most of the time). > So powerful vote decks dominate, but people don't paly with vote defence > cards? No, powerful vote decks do not dominate. Neither do bleed decks, or rush decks, etc... If they did then maybe enough people would use these cards to make them usefule. > > You're right. What I meant to say was that I am usually ready to block > > a bleed (intending from my pred but could be from anywhere). It's true > > Even if they dumped a single stealth card on it? say +2 stealth with LiC? > people with proactive defense couldn't even hope to block this much, and +2 > stealth is probably the minimum any decent bleed deck would consider. I'll agree with you here. It is very difficult to stop any focused deck at its primary ability. Its hard to fight a rush deck, its hard to stop a vote deck passing a vote (although easier now), and its hard to catch a steath bleed deck. The later has always, IMO, been a little unbalanced because it is good at the only thing you *really* need to be good at but that has little to do with cross table bleeds. A little aside to the comment I wrote above: if the reason people don't want ct-bleeds is because it gives one more tool to those stealth bleed decks then I guess it might be a good idea. I generally don't see that perspective right away because my group stopped using focused stealth bleed decks long ago because they are *boring*. Its just not fun to play one. One will pop up once in a while and not be used again. Because of this, I am looking at this whole argument a little skewed (and I admit it). Without the need to limit steath bleed decks, this just becomes: taking a useful (but not focus, so not to powerful) tool away from other decks. So please, someone let me know if the crux of this has to do with limiting stealth bleed decks. > I don't care whether you are ousted, a single CT bleed can take away resources > that you should have been able to use to hold off your predator. And I don't > understand your insistence that non-ousting CTBs are justified. I'm not saying justified or not, I simply saying that losing a minion is often just as bad. > > Again, this is just different from my experience where the reaction vote > > cards are seldom used. > > If they exist, and your group is not using them, this is not an excuse for not > using them. These cards easily stymie vote decks, and are readily available - > unlike the bleed defenses, which require disciplines. They only easily stop vote decks if *many* people use them. I can throw all the suprise influence I want into my hand but that two votes just won't help against a good vote deck (although it may help more with no vote push.) This is obviously a metagame issue because if everyone played with them then I could see them being useful. That takes up a lot of card slots when you also have to "hope" that someone else uses them too. > Remember that by using any of these bleed cards, you are having an effect > equal to two or more (many more!) single action bleed. good point. > > design your deck to effectivly be able to bleed anywhere and this really > > doesn't pay off. Therefore c-t bleeds are an occational tool you can > > use to help your situation (I am disregarding random c-t bleeds which I > > agree are anoying). > > But CTB can be beyond annoying. You and I agree that it has a minimal > strategic impact for the acting meth (except in certain circumstances, where > you are taking advantage of something that is not in the original rules, to > gain a strategic advantage which you should have had to gain through > competition or diplomacy), and you agree that idiots can abuse it (whether it > is for spite, out of game reasons, or other irrelevancies), you say that you > rarely use it, so _why_ should we keep it? Particularly since it was not part > of the original game, and gives an unfair advantage to a particular deck > strategy? You might be right, and I guess I am willing to give it a try to see how it plays. I have only recently begun to agree that it may have been the original intent (please don't start that argument again - it is already discussed to death). I only have one idiot I play with occationally (and we usually don't let him) so that is not a big deal for me. Is the deck strategy you refer to a focused stealth bleed? If so I probably agree, although it has been a long time since I saw one that was any good - I don't play tourn. and nobody around here likes to play them. Anyway, like I said, you may be right. Kevin

Kevin Kelly (kke...@atlantic.net) wrote: : I still say that losing a minion *can* be a much bigger detriment than : losing some blood. This is very situational but I think I can come up : with at least as many situations where losing a particular minion is : much more detrimental in the long run than losing some blood. But 'losing' the minion only applies (I think) when the vampire is actually burned, since if it's only torporized it can come back relatively easily. Burning a vamp takes even more 'work' (in terms of cards used etc.) than sending it to torpor, and as in my previous comparison of bleeds vs combat, it seems to me that torporizing takes at least as much 'work' as performing a large bleed. : Arguable either way. Against a good rush, they will fight someone, the : most you can hope for is to pick who and hopy you have the defenses. : Against a big bleed, besides the normal defenses, you can always block : it and other than bruise and bleed decks if blocked there probably won't : be a big fight. Most bleed decks I've seen try to have some method of not being blocked, except for bruise/bleed decks. : I'll agree with you here. It is very difficult to stop any focused deck : at its primary ability. Its hard to fight a rush deck, its hard to stop : a vote deck passing a vote (although easier now), and its hard to catch : a steath bleed deck. The later has always, IMO, been a little : unbalanced because it is good at the only thing you *really* need to be : good at but that has little to do with cross table bleeds. : A little aside to the comment I wrote above: if the reason people don't : want ct-bleeds is because it gives one more tool to those stealth bleed : decks then I guess it might be a good idea. I generally don't see that : perspective right away because my group stopped using focused stealth : bleed decks long ago because they are *boring*. Its just not fun to : play one. One will pop up once in a while and not be used again. : Because of this, I am looking at this whole argument a little skewed : (and I admit it). Without the need to limit steath bleed decks, this : just becomes: taking a useful (but not focus, so not to powerful) tool : away from other decks. So please, someone let me know if the crux of : this has to do with limiting stealth bleed decks. It doesn't for me; I can't speak for anyone else. Regarding the boringness/effectiveness of focused stealth bleed decks: This is a classic 'problem' with 4-card-limit games. If you're playing no limits (I don't know if you are), focused stealth bleed decks are typically extremely vulnerable to well-constructed combat decks (especially Immortal Grapple combat decks). If you don't have highly effective combat decks in your group, that could be what causes stealth bleed to seem overly effective. In my experience, focused stealth bleed decks may be boring to play in that they tend to be pretty predictable, but they aren't boring in the sense of being too good, so as to make the game no fun. I do think it's true that bleed decks of any variety have an advantage in that they directly attack the primary resource of their prey, and no one else can typically interfere - that is, the task they specialize in is the one that gets victory points. But for the most part, they are still balanced with vote and combat decks in a well-evolved environment. Josh kimi ga kureta daisetsu na, tsuyosa dakara...

James Hamblin wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] So what Official, Unofficial he simply gives an opinion which can and should be disputed if a substantial part of the gaming community feel "HIS" concepts are in error. Years ago D&D did not support the natural 20 double damage rule now they do because it was widely used by the gaming community. Same concept. Get a new word besides "whatever" it gets old. -Chris

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > Bleed (no card required): > > You may attempt to bleed the player who is your prey by declaring > > a bleed action. If unblocked, this action, this action removes one > > blood from the blood pool of the bled player to the blood bank. If > > your vampire has a modifier to its bleed, it may remove extra blood > > from your prey to the blood bank. > > > > Note that, while it says no card is required, this text does not say it > > applies only to cardless bleeds. > > It implies that it only applies to cardless bleeds, because it is included in > after "Bleed (no card required)." You're treating "no card required" as "absence of a card required". It actually means "a card is not required", and does not exclude the use of a card. > *This* bleed, which does not require a > card says explicitly "Bleed your prey." *Other* bleeds only say "Bleed." > While you might take the implication that this is meant to be your prey, it > is about as far from "obvious" as is humanly possible. Kindred Spirits (inferior) says "(D) bleed any methuselah." But, it doesn't say for how much. The default (cardless) bleed removes one pool, but that doesn't apply here, since this is a card. Therefore, if the presence of a card means that I can pick any target I want (in the absence of a restriction in card text, as is the case for Computer Hacking), then the presence of a card likewise means that I can pick any amount that I want (in the absence of a restriction given in card text), right? Of course not. The default attributes of a bleed are the defaults. They apply unless some other effect changes the default. The default is: prey is the target. The default is: one pool. > The rules say, quite clearly, that the bleed which does not require a card > may only target your prey. It says that the bleed action doesn't require a card. And it says that the bleed action is directed at your prey. The cardless action can only target the prey, yes (unless card text says otherwise - Rafaele Giovanni). The carded bleed is still a bleed action. That same action that didn't require a card but that can be done with a card. That same action that is directed at your prey by default. Unless some effect (like card text) allows you to bleed some other Methuselah, you can only bleed your prey, as described in the rules. > No where is there a clear definition of what > "bleed" means when it is printed on a card. There is no reason to believe > that the word bleed contains within it any restrictions, and thus may do > anything that "bleed" allows. Since "bleeds" can possibly be sent to other > methuselah's, there's no reason to believe that the word "bleed" restricts > you to a particular methuselah. "Bleed", when printed on a card, means the same thing as "bleed" when not. It is a term. The presence of a card doesn't change the term. There is no reason to believe that any of the default behavior of a "bleed" is changed by the fact that the word "bleed" appears on a card. Quite the opposite, in fact. There is every reason to assume that "bleed" means "bleed" in all the usual (default) ways, except as exceptions are noted on card text. "Bleed" restricts you to your prey because of the rules on "bleed". > > There is no card text on "Computer Hacking" which states that this > > particular bleed does not have to target prey...that is, unless that > > mysterious (D) symbol can be taken as meaning something to this effect. I > > move on to that subject. > > Oh no... not the (D) symbol crap. The (D) symbol is simply a reminder that > the action is directed. Not to the people that brought you the "Computer Hacking can be used to bleed any Methuselah." That ruling was justified by their interpretation of the rules that said "the (D) symbol gives omni-directability." That rule/errata is the only way thing that could allow Computer Hacking to be directable at any Methuselah (outside of card-specific errata, of course). (As explained by Tom, in <3fsrbe$7...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, January 1995: "The D symbol overrides the normal rules for who you can bleed." - note the "normal rules for who you can bleed" part. It is not the card, but the (D) symbol, that used to allow the change in the default bleed.) With the (D) symbol as only a reminder, which is now is, Computer Hacking can only target your prey, as indicated in the rules. > [Cat Burglary] > Here you go again, trying to convice me that there are no misprints in Jyhad. > [...] The best explanation I've heard is that during > playtesting, they were undecided whether or not to allow ct-bleeds, and when > they decided in favour, they forgot to change the text on Cat Burglary. And forgot to change the text in the rulebook, apparently, since that still said that bleeds are directed at one's prey, and fails to say that playing a card changes that default behavior, even after three revisions (Printed Jyhad, Corrected Jyhad, VTES, Corrected VTES). Again, the old ruling was based on the fact that the (D) symbol itself granted omnidirectability. That is, the (D) symbol was overriding the rules on who could be the target of a bleed. > [snip] > But the card played isn't described above. If you want to read this stuff > literally, then you must read it completely literally. There is no step > above where an action card may be played. You simply tap the minion and > announce you are attempting to bleed. > > On the other hand, when declaring an action with a card from hand, you tap > your minion, play the card and follow the instructions on the card. The card > just says bleed, not "bleed your prey." It doesn't say anything about > following the rules for a cardless bleed, it only does that which is > fundamental and inseparable from the word "bleed," i.e. (D) action, remove > pool if successful, gain edge if successful. Since the target is not > inherent in the word "bleed," no target is specified, unlike the cardless > action. The amount is also not inherent in the word "bleed". So, by your argument, it could be for any amount (unless card text specifies an amount). Fortunately, that's not how it works. You bleed your prey by default. You bleed for one by default. Card text is required to change these defaults. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

>Cross-table bleeds beget cross-table bleeds. YES they do!!! It's not just for spitefulness. Just to teach that person a leson -> "DON"T MESS WITH ME". ct-bleeds can be done "reliably". In our group their an important part of the game, be it a bleed or a vote. JMS (Prince of Charming)

>A cross-table rush can be very handy indeed. HERE HERE!! At least some people know what they're talking about. JMS

Christopher Chew wrote: > > So what Official, Unofficial he simply gives an opinion which can and should be > disputed if a substantial part of the gaming community feel "HIS" concepts are in > error. > > Years ago D&D did not support the natural 20 double damage rule now they do because > it was widely used by the gaming community. Same concept. OK, here's an analogy (a bit of a stretch, but go with me here): Congress passes a law. You disagree with the law. Since you are a citizen of the country, you feel it is your right to disobey the law. Bzzt. Sorry. Even if 99% of the people in the country disagree with a law, that doesn't make it breakable. People may think there shouldn't be laws against speeding, and they speed, but when they get pulled over, they don't say "well, I never liked this law anyway" and expect to be let off. However, if it can be shown that the law is wrong, or unconsitutional, then the Supreme Court can overturn it. But just saying "I don't like these rules" isn't really a reason to change them. If you think they need changing, then explain why you think so. But this knee-jerk "we fear change" reaction isn't going to convince anyone. Why do you think people aren't convinced that the 7/7 rules are bad? Do you think LSJ has brainwashed us? Or that we're idiots? > Get a new word besides "whatever" it gets old. I'll say again: Uh huh. Whatever. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Kevin Kelly <kke...@atlantic.net> wrote: > > the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > to defend, thus any CTB results in one particular player having two > > predators, and therefore being unfairly targetting an individual player. > > Yes it does hurt proactive defenses more that others but most people put > in bleed defense of some nature an it should work about the same What sort of defense is available for the average biff deck vs S&B beyond proactive? No deflections or reductions and little intercept are available. If you remove the proactive defenses (through CT) you require _Every_ combat deck to try and decide who might have (D) bleeds, and proactively smash their vampires as well as their own predator's and prey's vampires, in short, impossible. > regardless of where the bleed comes from (except proactive - of course - > but even they *could* defend against it proactively, it just takes some > foresight and the assumption that players act intelegantly in their own > best interests - addmittedly a HUGE assumption.) And given that we can't guarantee such an assumption, and the devastation a single (stupid) CTBleeder can cause, we need (at least in tourney situations) rules against CTB. > > > > > BUT: losing a minion cannot lose you the game. Taking this in terms of > > secondary and primary resources, the only way to be ousted is to lose all > > your primary resource - your pool. Any other actions targetted at you just > > make you less likely to be able to defend your primary resource. The aim of > > the game is to reduce your prey's pool-the main way to > > do this is with bleeds - so why should (oustside of particular cards > > CB,NM,etc) a player be allowed to target someone other than their prey? > > I still say that losing a minion *can* be a much bigger detriment than > losing some blood. This is very situational but I think I can come up > with at least as many situations where losing a particular minion is > much more detrimental in the long run than losing some blood. I think that most of these situations would be OTP or gimmick decks, or a meth already in a losing position. In almost all other situations, I think people would prefer to have a minion damaged (can't necessarily count on destroying the minion) to losing and equivalent amount of pool. > > > ????? Big bleeds are far easier than big damage???? > > Given Dominate: GtU + Cond = 6+any permanents (7 pool for 2 blood) > > Given Potence : Fists of Death, Pushing the Limit (7 damage for 2 blood) > > I'm not going to quote back cards to you as I think these cards are very > situational and not as easy as just paying the cost and causing it to > happen (they aren't masters). I am just saying in my experience this > has been the case. This of course has much to do with my particular > play groups. Granted, they are situational, but given that both were successful, which wqould you prefer? Given that you could play cards after receiving the effect. > > > but there are far more effective combat defenses than bleed defenses. > > Arguable either way. Against a good rush, they will fight someone, the No true. Elysium, Majesty (and other S:CE), Mariel, Legacy of Power, alll of which most combat decks have only one response... > most you can hope for is to pick who and hopy you have the defenses. > Against a big bleed, besides the normal defenses, you can always block Again, untrue. Almost all bleed decks worht their salt have enough stealth to get past anything other than a dedicated intercept deck. > it and other than bruise and bleed decks if blocked there probably won't > be a big fight. Except for cards such Kiss of Ra (bad example, I know, near-broken) Dawn Op, etc. > > > > directly as important as pool but there are many ways to make it become > > > pool, but only if you have excess blood to begin with. > > > > ?Powerbases, Investments, edge, etc? > > You missed the point here. I was saying that blood on minions *can* > become pool which makes their regenerative capabilities even more > helpful (ie. you can use that minion to get back the pool you just lost > to that bleed). I was not saying that is the only way to get back pool. So you are saying that a minion is more valuable than pool because, with the assistance of other cards, a minion can replenish your pool? But pool can do this in its own right, without being nearly so vulnerable. Many master cards exist which regenerate pool (Investments, powerbases, Dreams, etc) > > > Pool damage is more effective at removing a player from the game, and it is > > harder to defend against. For example there is no card which reduces damage > > from any bleed to zero, whereas such a card exists for damage (skin of > > steel). Furthermore, a combat attempt can be cancelled (S:CE), whereas the > > only card to do that for bleeds, AI is broken. > > There is obviously a difference of opinion here. There are many times > when eliminating a particular minion is *much* more effective at > eliminating a playing in the long run. <considered pause> No, I disagree. Because, unless your prey is playing a dedicated intercept deck, you can _usually_ count on your actions going unblocked (personal opinion, unsupported by hard evidence, but I think the large majority of actions are succesul/not blocked)(particularly Bleeds, since S&B go together so well). Admittedly, it uses resources, but they are easily replaced from your deck. _If_ your actions go unblocked, you can oust your prey, regardless of how many minions they have available. > > > > Again, you are assuming that if I am losing pool I am being ousted. Of > > > > And you assume that you are not. Regardless of how little pool you lose it > > directly contributes to your ousting, and there are _very_ few defenses > > against it. > > It is not "regardless of how little pool you lose" except for in the > most techical of ways. Bleeding me for 1 pool means almost nothing to Save for 2 cards, all CTBs will be for at least 2, usually 3, and sometimes _much_ more. > me. If I have to choose between that and losing a vampire, in *most* > cases I'll take the pool loss. (don't come back and say "even if you > only have one pool?" - no of course not but that seldom happens. I won't talk about one pool, but how about less than 8? -2 to -7 pool (mimum to reasonably large bleed) will incapacitate anyone, and either oust or weaken so much that ousting is merely a matter of time. > > > > course being ousted is the worst. But assume I have 6 blood. If I have > > > the choice of being bleed for 3 or losing my last vampire I will lose > > > the blood. At this point I am in poor shape one way or the other but > > > with a vampire up I at least may have a shot at recovery. If pool was > > > so much more important why would I ever influence a vampire to begin > > > with - which obviously makes no sense. > > > > In this particular example, I would agree with you - but only if I didn't have > > another vamp of capacity less than 4 - or the vampire is I am losing is bigger > > than 6 (with plenty of blood) otherwise, I would consider the loss of the > > vampire lucky. > > When would a directed rush *not* attack a vampire you didn't want to > lose? If they are attacking you it is to make you lose you most > valuable vampire (most of the time). Define most valuable. When I play rush, I usually target not necessarily the most valuable, but the most _vulnerable_, so I can guarantee a burn (and at least torporisation w/o fangs). That way, the targetted meth is slowed down much more than had one of their big vamps only been knocked down to one or two blood (which can still be enough to wreak quite considerable harm). > > > You're right. What I meant to say was that I am usually ready to block > > > a bleed (intending from my pred but could be from anywhere). It's true > > > > Even if they dumped a single stealth card on it? say +2 stealth with LiC? > > people with proactive defense couldn't even hope to block this much, and +2 > > stealth is probably the minimum any decent bleed deck would consider. > > I'll agree with you here. It is very difficult to stop any focused deck > at its primary ability. Its hard to fight a rush deck, its hard to stop But it is easy to sidestep a fight deck. Most disciplines have reasonably effective anti-combat techniques - whereas few disciplines have even tolerable bleed defense: Discipline Anti Combat Anti Bleed Potence Hit back Proactive only (ie none) Celerity Run away/Hit Back " Dominate TB, Obedience Deflection Auspex Dodge, Run away Deflection, reduction, int Obfuscate Dodge, Run away None Protean Prevention, Hit back None Fortitude Prevention, Dawn Op None Animalism DoTB, Hit back Intercept Thaumaturgy Hit back, run away None etc, etc, etc. > a vote deck passing a vote (although easier now), and its hard to catch au contraire, votes can be countered with a number of _skill less_ cards, innate abilities, and even masters. Furthermore, votes can be stopped with alliances and even more, a failed vote can punish the acting meth. > a steath bleed deck. The later has always, IMO, been a little > unbalanced because it is good at the only thing you *really* need to be > good at but that has little to do with cross table bleeds. It has much to do with CTB. If Bleed wasn't such an innately powerful strategy, people wouldn't complain so much. With Night Moves and CatB, for example, do you really feel badly hurt by the _one_ point bleed? But If GtU and all other (D) bleeds gain this same ability, CTB becomes abusable (if not abusive). > > A little aside to the comment I wrote above: if the reason people don't > want ct-bleeds is because it gives one more tool to those stealth bleed > decks then I guess it might be a good idea. I generally don't see that > perspective right away because my group stopped using focused stealth > bleed decks long ago because they are *boring*. Its just not fun to Fine. This is a metagame thing, that within your playgroup, a truce of sorts has been reached - I won't play S&B if you don't play S&B - but you can't rely on this mechanic to work in a tournament setting. > play one. One will pop up once in a while and not be used again. > Because of this, I am looking at this whole argument a little skewed > (and I admit it). Without the need to limit steath bleed decks, this > just becomes: taking a useful (but not focus, so not to powerful) tool > away from other decks. So please, someone let me know if the crux of > this has to do with limiting stealth bleed decks. Not so much limiting S&B (because that implies that it is being weakened because it was a successful strategy) but bringing into balance - and back to the elusive "Original intent". > > > I don't care whether you are ousted, a single CT bleed can take away resources > > that you should have been able to use to hold off your predator. And I don't > > understand your insistence that non-ousting CTBs are justified. > > I'm not saying justified or not, I simply saying that losing a minion is > often just as bad. Agree to disagree? > > using them. These cards easily stymie vote decks, and are readily available > > unlike the bleed defenses, which require disciplines. > > They only easily stop vote decks if *many* people use them. I can throw > all the suprise influence I want into my hand but that two votes just > won't help against a good vote deck (although it may help more with no Hmmm... Most "good" vote decks tend to pass things by approximately 3-4 votes unless totally unopposed. A single Surprise Influence reduces this margin to 1-2, and that is only one! A second one causes the vote to fail, and things like Elder Kindred Network and Political Backlash can then come into effect. Admittedly, if only one player uses them, they are weak, but if 2+ players use them, voting can quickly become dicey, with 2+ pool losses and more. This is without counting Delaying Tactics. > > Remember that by using any of these bleed cards, you are having an effect > > equal to two or more (many more!) single action bleed. > > good point. Thank you ;) > > > > design your deck to effectivly be able to bleed anywhere and this really > > > doesn't pay off. Therefore c-t bleeds are an occational tool you can > > > use to help your situation (I am disregarding random c-t bleeds which I > > > agree are anoying). > > > > But CTB can be beyond annoying. You and I agree that it has a minimal > > strategic impact for the acting meth (except in certain circumstances, where > > you are taking advantage of something that is not in the original rules, to > > gain a strategic advantage which you should have had to gain through > > competition or diplomacy), and you agree that idiots can abuse it (whether > > for spite, out of game reasons, or other irrelevancies), you say that you > > rarely use it, so why should we keep it? Particularly since it was not part > > of the original game, and gives an unfair advantage to a particular deck > > strategy? > > You might be right, and I guess I am willing to give it a try to see how > it plays. I have only recently begun to agree that it may have been the > original intent (please don't start that argument again - it is already > discussed to death). I only have one idiot I play with occationally > (and we usually don't let him) so that is not a big deal for me. Is the > deck strategy you refer to a focused stealth bleed? If so I probably Generally just Bleed, but S&B is the worst case scenario. > agree, although it has been a long time since I saw one that was any > good - I don't play tourn. and nobody around here likes to play them. > Anyway, like I said, you may be right. No, concession on my part. I can see that a (D) bleed against ones predator is a reasonable tactic - It falls within the pred-prey "Original Intent" as well. And while the strategic benefit is questionable, I don't think it is remarkably abusive. But while I wish it were possible to inflict more than 1 point bleeds on your predator, I don't see how it could be worked into a minimalist set of rules without the abusive CTB stuff. The Autarch. [ quoted text not captured ]

Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: > > Christopher Chew wrote: > > > Hence why I typed the following lines: This game no longer "belongs" > > > to the designers it belongs to the collective Jyhad community. We are its > > > lifeblood and its interpreters. [regarding LSJ as official source] > So what Official, Unofficial he simply gives an opinion which can and should > be disputed if a substantial part of the gaming community feel "HIS" > concepts are in error. And he has demonstrated an extreme receptiveness to debate on issues that make the game Jyhad a more balanced one. Whether you agree with these ideas or not is irrelevant: the forum that he drew the current rulings from (here) has debated these topics for _years_. If you don't care about topics of play balance, play at home with your playgroup you way, but don't expect that your way should become a standard. If you don't like some _particulars_ of the rules, try to argue rationally on why a particular should be changed. The current No Repeat Action and Vote Push rules were changes to the rules that were talked about and debated for some time before being adopted. There _is_ a history that _shows_ that well-argued ideas get adopted. > Years ago D&D did not support the natural 20 double damage rule now they do > because it was widely used by the gaming community. Same concept. Different concept. The primary difference here is that D&D isn't primarily a competitive game. For a competitive game, doing this kind of toadying is not a good thing. To do so is to change the game for reasons that don't necessarily impact the game in a good way. To do so allows a bunch of players who perhaps learned the basic game and thought that Steal Blood should burn a vampire the ability to make this the case, irregardless of its impact on the quality of the game, simply because they might be louder or more numerous. The quality of a game is what keeps its players. What you argue for is not conducive to keeping a high quality game. Allowing debate and change in the game based on that _sound_ debate is what keeps a high quality game. @#$ Adrian Sullivan $#@ Game Theorist Coffee Addict Hedonist @#$ Cabal Rogue Team Rogue $#@ Opinionated Gynophile Eccentric Geek @#$ V:EKN Prince of Madison $#@ heterotranshomotransexual - got that? @#$ The Corrupter $#@ GAT/WS C(+++)$ N++ PS++@+ R+++*$ z++**? -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

Bernie Bresnahan wrote: > The original Jyhad rulebook also defined a basic game > and an advanced game. This should be an obvious > clue that the original book is not infallible and "all that". I don't think so. What part of the Jyhad rulebook are you referring to? Overview of Jyhad 1 Overview of Deckmaster Card Games 2 INTRODUCTION TO WHITE WOLF'S VAMPIRE: THE MASQUERADE 3 OBJECT OF THE GAME 4 EQUIPMENT NEEDED 5 TAPPING/UNTAPPING CARDS 6 OVERVIEW OF THE CARDS 7 CONTESTED CARDS 8 THE GOLDEN RULE OF CARD OWNERSHIP 9 THE GOLDEN RULE FOR CARDS 10 GAME ENVIRONMENT AND TERMINOLOGY 11 WHAT YOU CAN DO ON YOUR TURN 12 WHAT YOU CAN DO WHEN IT IS NOT YOUR TURN 13 SUMMARY OF THE COURSE OF AN ACTION 14 COMBAT 15 POLITICS 17 ENDING THE GAME 18 GLOSSARY 19 [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] LOL ............ ;) Chris

thecor...@my-dejanews.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum >the forum that he drew the current rulings from (here) has debated these topics for _years_. And from the unanimous concensous (concerning 7/7) I can tell that they user community was definately involved in their development. The fact that I or anyone has disagreement (or agreement) with the rulings is the heart of a discussion group and establishes relavancy. >And he has demonstrated an extreme receptiveness to debate on issues that make the game Jyhad a more balanced one. When was the last time he put out a post asking others to repsond to a rule that "he" errr WoTC was thinking of changing? >If you don't care about topics of play balance, play at home with your playgroup you way, but don't expect that your way >should become a standard. I do care about balance, but by default I disagree with watering down rules to the lowest common denominator. I never said that I expect MY way to become standard hence why I used the term "gaming community" and not me. You have misinterpreted this post is you assumed that I don't care about fair and equal game play. >If you don't like some _particulars_ of the rules, try to argue rationally on why a particular should be changed. I have been arguing "rationally" (some of my detractors may disagree) .. hop off of your high horse go back and read the rest of mesages relating to these subjects... then you may address my point. >There _is_ a history that _shows_ that well-argued ideas get adopted. In the above instances (vote push and no repeat) you are correct, regarding 7/7 that point could be debated (and has been). Should we simply accept the "Official" word as law and set in stone? Should we not make our points known in hopes of changing them if we feel they are incorrect? >Different concept. Same concept. Jyhad is analagous to a roleplaying game using the strictures of card text. >The quality of a game is what keeps its players. Agreed. >What you argue for is not conducive to keeping a high quality game. What I argue for is exactly what will allow for a high quality game. The concepts that would be put into place not only have been debated and discussed but also thouroughly play tested. Play time amongst differnet groups is what truely shows wether an idea has merit. This is one reason why the NL and CL debate continues, people have found that both concepts can accomplish the same results using different rules on the front end. -Chris

Note: PLEASE stop quoting the entire message before responding to it. Christopher Chew wrote: > > >the forum that he drew the current rulings from (here) has debated these > >topics for _years_. > > And from the unanimous concensous (concerning 7/7) I can tell that they user > community was definately involved in their development. The fact that I or > anyone has disagreement (or agreement) with the rulings is the heart of a > discussion group and establishes relavancy. If you disagreed with the discussions at the time, you should have spoken up when they were being discussed. The arguments for most of the recent rulings were hashed out a long time ago; a concensus was reached among the net-people, but the rules team refused to budge. Those of us who were convinced that the game was better "our way" played with those rules in our own groups. We did so with the knowledge that if we ever played in a tournament setting, we would have to conform to the official rules, even if we didn't agree with them. The problems with the rules could be exploited, and many people who went to tournaments chose to do exactly that (note that an abusive RtI deck won at Origins 97). But since we couldn't convince the rules team that we were right, we had no other choice. Does this sound familiar? The only difference is that the current rules team (LSJ et al.) is more open to input from the community-at-large. He has said repeatedly that if you can find a problem with the rulings, some point where the game is still unbalanced under the rules, he will consider changing them. See also his reply (to you, I believe) regarding a possible abuse of RtI with table-shuffling votes. > >And he has demonstrated an extreme receptiveness to debate on issues that > >make the game Jyhad a more balanced one. > > When was the last time he put out a post asking others to repsond to a rule > that "he" errr WoTC was thinking of changing? He is the net-rep. If he wants our input, he'll ask for it. And don't think for a minute that he doesn't read every single message on this group. > >If you don't like some _particulars_ of the rules, try to argue rationally > >on why a particular should be changed. > > I have been arguing "rationally" (some of my detractors may disagree) .. hop > off of your high horse go back and read the rest of mesages relating to these > subjects... then you may address my point. Put your money where your mouth (keyboard?) is. Provide DejaNews links to or repost articles you don't think we responded to sufficiently. > >There _is_ a history that _shows_ that well-argued ideas get adopted. > > In the above instances (vote push and no repeat) you are correct, regarding > 7/7 that point could be debated (and has been). Should we simply accept the > "Official" word as law and set in stone? Why not? What did most people want out of a set of rules changes? We wanted the game to become more balanced and for problem cards to be taken care of. This has been done. Would I have liked to see some cards changed differently? Sure. But I know that no matter what set of changes got implemented, I would never be 100% satisfied with those changes. I am satisfied that the overall goals of the rulings were accomplished, so I'm happy with them. > Should we not make our points known > in hopes of changing them if we feel they are incorrect? By all means, debate. But clearly most people here are not convinced by your arguments. So, convince us. If you're right, it shouldn't be hard. > >Different concept. > > Same concept. Jyhad is analagous to a roleplaying game using the strictures > of card text. If you say so. I've played a few RPG's in my day, and this is extremely different. If you play the game with a sort of "storytelling" aspect (I know some people do), then this is the case for you. But there is also a good number of people who play the game on a strategic level; the fact that the game has something to do with vampires is incidental. > >What you argue for is not conducive to keeping a high quality game. > > What I argue for is exactly what will allow for a high quality game. The > concepts that would be put into place not only have been debated and > discussed but also thouroughly play tested. Play time amongst differnet > groups is what truely shows wether an idea has merit. This is one reason why > the NL and CL debate continues, people have found that both concepts can > accomplish the same results using different rules on the front end. I have been trying to get this point across for months now; here goes again. What's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. Just because you would have fun playing the game one way doesn't mean that those particular house rules should become the official rules. The 7/7 rulings were made in an attempt to address a situation widely viewed to be a major flaw in the game: the existence of broken cards. Perhaps you disagree that there are problem cards at all; if so, you are in the minority. And, unfortunately for you, the rules team is going to do for the game what the majority thinks is good. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu Official Jyhad/V:tES FAQ Maintainer [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin (ham...@math.wisc.edu) wrote: : Christopher Chew wrote: : > Should we not make our points known : > in hopes of changing them if we feel they are incorrect? : By all means, debate. But clearly most people here are not convinced by : your arguments. So, convince us. If you're right, it shouldn't be : hard. Well, I don't think that's entirely true. Convincing people on Usenet (or at all, really) that the opinion they've always had is actually wrong, and that your new opinion that you think they should have is actually right, is very difficult, I think. Even when you're talking to people who already agree with you on many points, the last few can be impossible to resolve. People are stubborn and set in their ways. Is this not the main reason that there are people upset about the 7/7 rulings? I mean, it took, what, at least a year I think for us to be convinced of the benefits of no card limits Jyhad, and we're upstanding right- minded people. ;-) Josh consummate contrarian

[D&D natural-20 double damage rule] > > >Different concept. > > Same concept. Jyhad is analagous to a roleplaying game using the strictures of card > text. > Actually, he's mainly correct. A closer analogy could be taken from M:T$. A few years ago, it became the rage (in my area, at least), to play "Super Games." In these, games, you started with 10 cards in hand, drew 2 cards a turn, had no hand limit, and could play unlimited land per turn. I could have argued at the time (if I had cared) that Magic should switch to this system, because it was what players were playing. That was ridiculous, however, because a) MOST players were not playing that way, and b) it made the game worse. The fact is, playing in that way virtually assured a one-turn kill, as whichever player got a Channel/Fireball on the first turn would win. This is an example of rule that had some popularity, but was not adopted by a game, because it was stupid. NRA/No vote push are examples of rules that helped the game and were adopted. These are closer in analogy to your D&D rule. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

To the best of my knowledge all of the play groups affiliated with the Michigan Jyhad League (approx 40 people) use the Victory Point Conditions. The best thing about being the last person at the table is you usually lock 2VP's (Last standing + ousting prey). We found the Last Man Standing decks usually were pretty dull in play. Ex: Intercept, S:CE, Untap, ad nauseum.. >This brings up a very intersting question. > >Who here counts victory points at the end of a game outside of a >tournament? > >For those who do, is it considered more important in you play group to >be the last at the table or the one with the most VPs? > >I'd like to see as many responses as possible so please reply - I am >very curious. > > Kevin

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > [D&D natural-20 double damage rule] > > > > >Different concept. > > > > Same concept. Jyhad is analagous to a roleplaying game using the strictures of > card > > text. > > > > Actually, he's mainly correct. A closer analogy could be taken from M:T$. A > few years ago, it became the rage (in my area, at least), to play "Super > Games." In these, games, you started with 10 cards in hand, drew 2 cards a > turn, had no hand limit, and could play unlimited land per turn. I could > have argued at the time (if I had cared) that Magic should switch to this > system, because it was what players were playing. That was ridiculous, > however, because a) MOST players were not playing that way, and b) it made > the game worse. The fact is, playing in that way virtually assured a > one-turn kill, as whichever player got a Channel/Fireball on the first turn > would win. > > This is an example of rule that had some popularity, but was not adopted by a > game, because it was stupid. > > NRA/No vote push are examples of rules that helped the game and were adopted. > These are closer in analogy to your D&D rule. > > -Chris > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum >NRA/No vote push are examples of rules that helped the game and were adopted. >These are closer in analogy to your D&D rule. The above is exactly what I am advocating..... -Chris

In article <35ED680E...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: >>NRA/No vote push are examples of rules that helped the game and were adopted. >>These are closer in analogy to your D&D rule. > >The above is exactly what I am advocating..... Well, you may believe that CT Bleeds help the game, but most people definitly don't. Similarily it's pretty easy to find a few people who think that Repeat Actions and Vote Push are good for the game, but frankly they clearly aren't. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`