My turn to ask some rules questions :) [Should I put LSJ in the subject?]

Not a newbie by far, and I've been looking at the rulings and errata and everything else (I think). Yet some questions remain. Most likely I've just missed stuff, or it's been corrected in cardtext that I just did not find yet. Yet I'm still wondering since I only use Jyhad cards.... So, here's a few (and to be clear, we do have rulings about these in our local group, just trying to find the official positions): 1.a. Once a vampire is a blood doll, you can transfer pool to it even if it's in torpor. True or not? 1.b. Can you play Blood Doll on a vampire in torpor (vampire you control is what it says)? 2.a. Hunting grounds are quite clear about it, their blood must go to a ready vampire. But The Rack lacks this text. Can it feed a vamp in torpor? 2.b. Can you play The Rack on a vamp in torpor? (again it says 'controlled') 3. Can a vampire whose fangs have already been pulled have them pulled again? 4. Chainsaw is a 2 cost weapon with 3 damage once per round of combat. Sawed-off shotgun is quite the same, but ranged and with the possibility to add ammo cards. Chainsaw is Uncommon, SoS common... We have always felt as if Chainsaw was supposed to be a Melee weapon. Is it? 5. I also found something contradicting a ruling I saw this week. Where Psyche combat was still part of the same action. Yet the official rulings page has this about Psyche: # The superior can be played before or after replacing any "Do Not Replace Until After Combat" cards. [LSJ 19990322] So what's it gonna be? Part of the same action, or a new combat entirely? 6. With Malkavian Prank, is there any fixed order in which you must make your guesses? I like to psyche people out a bit first and start with the ones I do not care about so, the people that matter most (specifically prey) get a bit nervous about my guesses and my explanations about them. It usually helps to see their reactions to the numbers I'm naming with the rest and often I guess the prey right :) But someone suggested 2 games ago that I should start with the prey (it should come as no surprise that he had seen me do it before and was my prey at the time) (btw, they combine VERY well with Monocle of Clarity *evil cackle*) 7. Why was Madness of the Bard banned? I love it! Oh wait, I was asking about Jyhad cards... Never mind this one then. 8.a. We have this ruling about not using the same stealth card on one action if it gets intercepted (so no playing 4 faceless nights on one bleed attempt). Can't really find that in the rules or rulings, but just in case that is actually a rule, would you find it is allowed to use a same card after playing Mask of a thousand faces? I.e. VampX goes out to bleed, gets blocked, plays cloak, gets intercepted, VampY plays mask, gets intercepted as well, plays cloak... 8.b. When you play mask of a thousand faces, does the blocker get a chance to pull out of blocking? Or is this really the best way to get that blocker into combat with your fighting machine. (some in our group that have been on the receiving end wish to argue this) I'll come up with more later :) This will do for now. //Doc. -- "Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 05:34:20 +0200, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: >[Should I put LSJ in the subject?] If you want the official answers from the official V:TES NetRep and current designer, then yes. If you are just looking for answers, then you can leave it off, and if someone answers incorrectly, someone else will follow along and fix it. >1.a. Once a vampire is a blood doll, you can transfer pool to it even if >it's in torpor. True or not? Yes you may. Card text places no restrictions on the vampire being in the active region. >1.b. Can you play Blood Doll on a vampire in torpor (vampire you control >is what it says)? Yes. >2.a. Hunting grounds are quite clear about it, their blood must go to a >ready vampire. But The Rack lacks this text. Can it feed a vamp in torpor? Yes. >2.b. Can you play The Rack on a vamp in torpor? (again it says 'controlled') No. The Camarilla Edition of the card was changed to indicate the vampire had to be ready in order to gain control of The Rack. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Cardlist.html "the controller chooses a ready vampire " >3. Can a vampire whose fangs have already been pulled have them pulled >again? No. With Sabbat War the card text was changed, it no longer does aggravated damage, and a vampire can only have one. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/migration.html "Pulled Fangs inflicts one normal (non-aggravated) damage; doesn't stack SW" http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Cardlist.html "A vampire can have only 1 Pulled Fangs." ----- If you are only playing with Jyhad cards, you may play as many Pulled Fangs as you need until you have burned the vampire. This tends to break the game, and was fixed in the Rules Team Rulings of July 7, 1998. http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR7-7.htm ----- >4. Chainsaw is a 2 cost weapon with 3 damage once per round of combat. >Sawed-off shotgun is quite the same, but ranged and with the possibility >to add ammo cards. Chainsaw is Uncommon, SoS common... We have always >felt as if Chainsaw was supposed to be a Melee weapon. Is it? No. "Melee" is a trait given to specific pieces of equipment that tend to do damage based on strength. Unless a card has "Melee" in its text, it is not a Melee Weapon. >5. I also found something contradicting a ruling I saw this week. Where >Psyche combat was still part of the same action. Yet the official >rulings page has this about Psyche: # The superior can be played before >or after replacing any "Do Not Replace Until After Combat" cards. [LSJ >19990322] > So what's it gonna be? Part of the same action, or a new combat >entirely? These things do not contradict. There can be multiple combats as part of the same action. Psyche! creates a brand new combat, that is still a part of the same original acting minions action, and no new actions can occur until that combat and that action are resolved. >6. With Malkavian Prank, is there any fixed order in which you must make >your guesses? No. >7. Why was Madness of the Bard banned? I love it! Oh wait, I was asking >about Jyhad cards... Never mind this one then. The inability of judges to sit at every table of a tournament to prove that the sentences spoken in other languages rhymed. Onomatopoeia can be a rhyme, cuplets can rhyme, individual words can rhyme. This is supposed to be a strategy game, not an English student contest (or any other language). >8.a. We have this ruling about not using the same stealth card on one >action if it gets intercepted (so no playing 4 faceless nights on one >bleed attempt). Can't really find that in the rules or rulings, but just It is in the rules. In the definition of action modifiers. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/ 1.6.3.2 Action modifier cards: A minion cannot play the same action modifier more than once during a single action. >in case that is actually a rule, would you find it is allowed to use a >same card after playing Mask of a thousand faces? Yes. Different minions can play the same action modifier. Frequent example, Command of the Beast (Sabbat) at superior dominate does not restrict further bleed modifiers from being played. If you have multiple minions with superior dominate and obfuscate, they can each Mask the action and play a Command of the Beast, with the last one playing a Conditioning. >I.e. VampX goes out to bleed, gets blocked, plays cloak, gets intercepted, VampY plays mask, >gets intercepted as well, plays cloak... Absolutely. Lost in Crowds works just as well in your example.. >8.b. When you play mask of a thousand faces, does the blocker get a >chance to pull out of blocking? No. Inferior Dawn Operation has the text that would be required to allow someone to back out of blocking. Mask of a Thousand Faces lacks that text. >Or is this really the best way to get that blocker into combat with your >fighting machine. (some in our group that have been on the receiving >end wish to argue this) I find that Bum's Rush is the better choice, but Mask will work. >I'll come up with more later :) Please do. Current Official Card Text of all cards: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Cardlist.html Current Official Rulebook: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/ Official List of cards that have changed, and when: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/migration.html History of how the Rules Team Rulings changed the game: http://www.thelasombra.com/rules.htm Current rulings as they are made are posted here: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/vtes-rules/ General V:TES FAQ: http://www.thelasombra.com/vtes_faq.htm Newsgroup FAQ: http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/newsgroupFAQ.html Clan Newsletter FAQ: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e5snb05mpuci7ap6v40t1grhnd5drrtmjh%404ax.com VTES: An Electronic Survival Guide http://nosferatustuff.com/vtes/survival_guide.htm Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

The Lasombra wrote: > > No. > The Camarilla Edition of the card was changed to indicate the vampire > had to be ready in order to gain control of The Rack. And Blood Doll was not changed? >>3. Can a vampire whose fangs have already been pulled have them pulled >>again? > > No. > With Sabbat War the card text was changed, it no longer does > aggravated damage, and a vampire can only have one. Hmm, now how about this eh? I like the non-stacking change, but why take away the aggro? >>4. Chainsaw is a 2 cost weapon with 3 damage once per round of combat. >>Sawed-off shotgun is quite the same, but ranged and with the possibility >>to add ammo cards. Chainsaw is Uncommon, SoS common... We have always >>felt as if Chainsaw was supposed to be a Melee weapon. Is it? > > > No. > "Melee" is a trait given to specific pieces of equipment that tend to > do damage based on strength. Unless a card has "Melee" in its text, > it is not a Melee Weapon. I should have posed it more clearly. I am looking for designer intent here. It is blatanlty obvious the card does not say 'melee' :) >>5. I also found something contradicting a ruling I saw this week. Where >>Psyche combat was still part of the same action. Yet the official >>rulings page has this about Psyche: # The superior can be played before >>or after replacing any "Do Not Replace Until After Combat" cards. [LSJ >>19990322] >> So what's it gonna be? Part of the same action, or a new combat >>entirely? > > > These things do not contradict. They do if you've read this weeks LSJ posts. He claimed in one of these that you did not get to replace cards untill the action resolved. This one says you do, since you can simply hold off playing Psyche untill after you have replaced the cards. >>8.a. We have this ruling about not using the same stealth card on one >>action if it gets intercepted (so no playing 4 faceless nights on one >>bleed attempt). Can't really find that in the rules or rulings, but just > > It is in the rules. > In the definition of action modifiers. > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/ > > 1.6.3.2 > Action modifier cards: A minion cannot play the same action modifier > more than once during a single action. Ah, must have missed it during skimming. I kinda felt like it wasn't a rule we made up ourselves :) > Frequent example, Command of the Beast (Sabbat) at superior dominate Ghe, funney, I am telling you I only use Jyhad and you come up with an example of Sabbat :) I have absolutely no clue what the card does. (and I don't need to know either btw, the answer was clear enough even without the example) >>I.e. VampX goes out to bleed, gets blocked, plays cloak, gets intercepted, VampY plays mask, >>gets intercepted as well, plays cloak... > > Absolutely. > Lost in Crowds works just as well in your example.. In the case of LoiC: Wouldn't the same blocker be allowed to block anyway? And what exactly would be the use of playing two LoiC. Tapped is tapped... I'd rather keep that one around for situations where I can benefit from it :) Oh, since we were on Cloak the Gathering anyway: It's also fine to have a vamp with obf play cloak and his buddy with OBF play a cloak to get a total of +2, right? > I find that Bum's Rush is the better choice, but Mask will work. I find that Bum's Rushes get blocked by Other Vamps[tm] OTOH, it was about a situation with OBF available, so you can just stealth into the actual rush. Punch the victim around a bit with Immortal Grapple, then use the manouevre to throw that well-aimed car (just for effect, it's not really a good card) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 06:31:09 +0200, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: >The Lasombra wrote: [snip] >And Blood Doll was not changed? No. Why would it have been? [Pulled Fangs] >> No. >> With Sabbat War the card text was changed, it no longer does >> aggravated damage, and a vampire can only have one. > >Hmm, now how about this eh? I like the non-stacking change, but why take >away the aggro? The following is pure speculation. You're probably going to get "designer intent" from LSJ. Or you could search google groups for "7/7 pulled fangs", and there will probably be an explanation of some sort. The change was actually made prior to Sabbat War, but SW included the first printing as such. Compare to Disarm. Disarm sends to torpor (the usual effect of 1 agg), but it requires a discipline and has a (usually) less detrimental effect. Pulled Fangs is disciplineless, so therefore should probably not be as strong (for most intents and purposes) as a card that requires a discipline. [Chainsaw] >I should have posed it more clearly. I am looking for designer intent >here. It is blatanlty obvious the card does not say 'melee' :) It might have been intended to be a melee weapon, but since Gas-Powered Chainsaw was later printed as a melee weapon, there doesn't seem to have been much need to change Chainsaw. Pretty much no one uses either Sawed-off Shotgun *or* Chainsaw, so it's not likely to ever happen. >>>5. I also found something contradicting a ruling I saw this week. Where >>>Psyche combat was still part of the same action. Yet the official >>>rulings page has this about Psyche: # The superior can be played before >>>or after replacing any "Do Not Replace Until After Combat" cards. [LSJ >>>19990322] >>> So what's it gonna be? Part of the same action, or a new combat >>>entirely? >> >> >> These things do not contradict. > >They do if you've read this weeks LSJ posts. He claimed in one of these >that you did not get to replace cards untill the action resolved. This >one says you do, since you can simply hold off playing Psyche untill >after you have replaced the cards. The "before or after" has probably been overruled as simply "before", unless I miss my guess. >>>I.e. VampX goes out to bleed, gets blocked, plays cloak, gets intercepted, VampY plays mask, >>>gets intercepted as well, plays cloak... >> >> Absolutely. >> Lost in Crowds works just as well in your example.. > >In the case of LoiC: Wouldn't the same blocker be allowed to block >anyway? And what exactly would be the use of playing two LoiC. Tapped is >tapped... I'd rather keep that one around for situations where I can >benefit from it :) Uh. Lost in Crowds is +1/+2 stealth. More stealth, not double-tapping. >Oh, since we were on Cloak the Gathering anyway: >It's also fine to have a vamp with obf play cloak and his buddy with OBF >play a cloak to get a total of +2, right? Yes. The prohibition on a vampire not playing the same action modifier applies to each vampire in turn, it does not prevent another vampire from playing an action modifier that the acting vampire has already played. >> I find that Bum's Rush is the better choice, but Mask will work. > >I find that Bum's Rushes get blocked by Other Vamps[tm] Meh. Sooner or later, they all fall down. Xian

>>> 5. I also found something contradicting a ruling I saw this week. >>> Where Psyche combat was still part of the same action. Yet the >>> official rulings page has this about Psyche: # The superior can be >>> played before or after replacing any "Do Not Replace Until After >>> Combat" cards. [LSJ 19990322] >>> So what's it gonna be? Part of the same action, or a new combat >>> entirely? >> >> >> >> These things do not contradict. > > > They do if you've read this weeks LSJ posts. He claimed in one of these > that you did not get to replace cards untill the action resolved. This > one says you do, since you can simply hold off playing Psyche untill > after you have replaced the cards. They do not because "DNR Until After Combat" (Dodge, Fake Out) is not the same as "DNR Until The End Of The Action" (Bum's Rush, Arson). >>> I.e. VampX goes out to bleed, gets blocked, plays cloak, gets >>> intercepted, VampY plays mask, gets intercepted as well, plays cloak... >> >> >> Absolutely. >> Lost in Crowds works just as well in your example.. > > > In the case of LoiC: Wouldn't the same blocker be allowed to block > anyway? And what exactly would be the use of playing two LoiC. Tapped is > tapped... I'd rather keep that one around for situations where I can > benefit from it :) I believe you are mistaking Lost in Crowds for Faceless Night here. FN is the one that leaves you tapped if you fail to block. > Oh, since we were on Cloak the Gathering anyway: > It's also fine to have a vamp with obf play cloak and his buddy with OBF > play a cloak to get a total of +2, right? Yes, the Action Mod restriction is 'one per minion per action', *not* 'one per action (total)'. Flux

The Doctor wrote: > 6. With Malkavian Prank, ...<snip> > (btw, they combine VERY well with Monocle of Clarity *evil cackle*) Check current text on the Monocle, questions about the future are no longer binding so that combination doesn't work anymore (and when it did, there were much nastier plays available with the Monocle anyway). Flux

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: >>>5. I also found something contradicting a ruling I saw this week. Where >>>Psyche combat was still part of the same action. Yet the official >>>rulings page has this about Psyche: # The superior can be played before >>>or after replacing any "Do Not Replace Until After Combat" cards. [LSJ >>>19990322] >>> So what's it gonna be? Part of the same action, or a new combat >>>entirely? >> >> >> These things do not contradict. > They do if you've read this weeks LSJ posts. He claimed in one of these > that you did not get to replace cards untill the action resolved. This > one says you do, since you can simply hold off playing Psyche untill > after you have replaced the cards. There is a difference between "Do not replace until after combat" (i.e. Dodge) and "Do not replace until the end of this action." (Bum's Rush). If you are going to play Psyche, you can replace your Dodge, but you can't replace your Bum's Rush until after all the resulting combats are over.

The Doctor wrote: > The Lasombra wrote: >> The Camarilla Edition of the card was changed to indicate the vampire >> had to be ready in order to gain control of The Rack. > > And Blood Doll was not changed? The nly change to Blood Doll is that only the controller of the vampire (who may not be the controller of the Blood Doll card) can use it. >> "Melee" is a trait given to specific pieces of equipment that tend to >> do damage based on strength. Unless a card has "Melee" in its text, >> it is not a Melee Weapon. > > I should have posed it more clearly. I am looking for designer intent > here. It is blatanlty obvious the card does not say 'melee' :) Current designer intent is as Lasombra says. I do not know the original designer(s) intent. >>> 5. I also found something contradicting a ruling I saw this week. >>> Where Psyche combat was still part of the same action. Yet the >>> official rulings page has this about Psyche: # The superior can be >>> played before or after replacing any "Do Not Replace Until After >>> Combat" cards. [LSJ 19990322] >>> So what's it gonna be? Part of the same action, or a new combat >>> entirely? >> >> These things do not contradict. > > They do if you've read this weeks LSJ posts. He claimed in one of these > that you did not get to replace cards untill the action resolved. This > one says you do, since you can simply hold off playing Psyche untill > after you have replaced the cards. You're thinking of the ruling on "Do Not Replace Until the end of the action" cards. These cards are not replaced until the end of the action (after all combats). The cards covered by the ruling above are the "Do not replace until after combat" cards (like Dodge, Fake Out, etc.) These cards are replaced when combat ends. > Oh, since we were on Cloak the Gathering anyway: > It's also fine to have a vamp with obf play cloak and his buddy with OBF > play a cloak to get a total of +2, right? Yes. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> >>5. I also found something contradicting a ruling I saw this week. Where > >>Psyche combat was still part of the same action. Yet the official > >>rulings page has this about Psyche: # The superior can be played before > >>or after replacing any "Do Not Replace Until After Combat" cards. [LSJ > >>19990322] > >> So what's it gonna be? Part of the same action, or a new combat > >>entirely? > > > > > > These things do not contradict. > > They do if you've read this weeks LSJ posts. He claimed in one of these > that you did not get to replace cards untill the action resolved. This > one says you do, since you can simply hold off playing Psyche untill > after you have replaced the cards. Are you possibly getting cards that say "Do not replace until the end of this action" vs cards that say "Do not replace until after combat" mixed up here? The former would not be replaced after the Psyche!, as although the combat has ended, the action has not. The latter are replaced, as the combat has ended. The Psyche! combat is a new combat, but is still part of the same action (as shown by the fact that the acting minion could play Form of Mist in the combat generated by the Psyche! to continue the original action). - Rafe

Xian <xi...@visi.com> wrote in message news:<27u7c0ptbcp5jh2r6...@4ax.com>... > On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 06:31:09 +0200, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> > wrote: > > >The Lasombra wrote: > [snip] > >>>5. I also found something contradicting a ruling I saw this week. Where > >>>Psyche combat was still part of the same action. Yet the official > >>>rulings page has this about Psyche: # The superior can be played before > >>>or after replacing any "Do Not Replace Until After Combat" cards. [LSJ > >>>19990322] > >>> So what's it gonna be? Part of the same action, or a new combat > >>>entirely? > >> > >> > >> These things do not contradict. > > > >They do if you've read this weeks LSJ posts. He claimed in one of these > >that you did not get to replace cards untill the action resolved. This > >one says you do, since you can simply hold off playing Psyche untill > >after you have replaced the cards. > > The "before or after" has probably been overruled as simply "before", > unless I miss my guess. ummm...you get to replace cards that are not replaced after *combat*, yes. you don't get to replace cards that are replaced after the *action* is over

The Doctor wrote: > Hmm, now how about this eh? I like the non-stacking change, but why take > away the aggro? 'Cause it was a disciplinless, really easy card to play that resulted in vampires burning left and right. The arrgivated damage rules changed multiple times in the evolution of the game since Jyhad, and at some point, it became *really* easy to burn a vampire with PF--you hit them till they had zero blood and were going to torpor, play PF, and poof, they are gone. No necessary disciplines, no additional blood cost, nothing. PF was just too powerful as a zero cost, zero discipline card that coule regularly burn vampires. Compared to current cards, you have Disarm--in many ways very similar to PF, but simply sends to torpor instead of doing aggro damage *and* requires a discipline; Decapitate--burns a vampire, but costs 2 blood and requires superior Potence. PF was a nightmare doing aggro damage. > I should have posed it more clearly. I am looking for designer intent > here. It is blatanlty obvious the card does not say 'melee' :) Designer intent on Chainsaw vs Sawed Off Shotgun was unclear. But current designer intent is more clear, as Chainsaw no is no longer in print, and Gas Powered Chainsaw, a 1 cost weapon that does 3 damage once per combat (and might be a melee weapon, I don't remember off hand) has replaced it. And I think Combat Shotgun has pretty much replaced Sawed Off Shotgun (2 pool, 3R once per round). > Oh, since we were on Cloak the Gathering anyway: > It's also fine to have a vamp with obf play cloak and his buddy with OBF > play a cloak to get a total of +2, right? Yup. One of a given action modifier per minion per action. -Peter

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:43:46 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >The Doctor wrote: [snip] > >> Oh, since we were on Cloak the Gathering anyway: >> It's also fine to have a vamp with obf play cloak and his buddy with OBF >> play a cloak to get a total of +2, right? > >Yes. also, the buddy with OBF can be tapped when he plays the cloak, too. a lot of people don't know that at first. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email) "I like to play the field"-LSJ

On 7 Jun 2004 04:44:53 -0700, pd...@lightlink.com (Peter D Bakija) scrawled: [snip] >hand) has replaced it. And I think Combat Shotgun has pretty much >replaced Sawed Off Shotgun (2 pool, 3R once per round). 3 pool. Combat Shotgun [Sabbat:C, SW:C] Cardtype: Equipment Cost: 3 pool Weapon, Gun. 3R damage each strike, only usable once each round. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40C3EF8D...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >The Lasombra wrote: >> >> No. >> The Camarilla Edition of the card was changed to indicate the vampire >> had to be ready in order to gain control of The Rack. > >And Blood Doll was not changed? Vampires in torpor are typically empty. Putting a Blood Doll on one signifies intent to push pool through to the Doll in preparation for a rescue; no reason to change something that is a net pool negative. >>>3. Can a vampire whose fangs have already been pulled have them pulled >>>again? >> >> No. >> With Sabbat War the card text was changed, it no longer does >> aggravated damage, and a vampire can only have one. > >Hmm, now how about this eh? I like the non-stacking change, but why take >away the aggro? Far, far too easy to burn vampires with Pulled Fangs when it's aggro. See Peter's post about Potence and Beatings. Also, you make the Ventrue the best combat monsters in the land -- prevent all damage, hands for 1, Pulled Fangs, Amaranth, and you have vote lock because you're the Ventrue. No, Pulled Fangs is much better this way. >>>4. Chainsaw is a 2 cost weapon with 3 damage once per round of combat. >>>Sawed-off shotgun is quite the same, but ranged and with the possibility >>>to add ammo cards. Chainsaw is Uncommon, SoS common... We have always >>>felt as if Chainsaw was supposed to be a Melee weapon. Is it? >> >> >I should have posed it more clearly. I am looking for designer intent >here. It is blatanlty obvious the card does not say 'melee' :) We don't know designer intent. We do know that plenty of other cards say "Melee" weapon, and Gas-Powered Chainsaw was printed later as a melee weapon with a different pool cost; indicating that Chainsaw was obviously ill-designed in a number of ways. In this case, the benefits of making Chainsaw a melee weapon (ie play not-as-printed) are not visible; it's still better to have a Bastard Sword, Bang Nakh, or just the Sawed-off Shotgun in the first place. Therefore it's never risen to the threshhold of being worth errata. >They do if you've read this weeks LSJ posts. He claimed in one of these >that you did not get to replace cards untill the action resolved. This >one says you do, since you can simply hold off playing Psyche untill >after you have replaced the cards. You are confusing "action" and "combat". His ruling stated that you can hold off playing Psyche until after you have replaced any "do not replace until after combat" cards. Multiple combats can occur in the same action. This means that you can replace Fake Out, and then play a Psyche! that you drew up. You CANNOT replace Bum's Rush, however (which has new text reading "do not replace until the end of this action"). >>>I.e. VampX goes out to bleed, gets blocked, plays cloak, gets intercepted, VampY plays mask, >>>gets intercepted as well, plays cloak... >> >> Absolutely. >> Lost in Crowds works just as well in your example.. > >In the case of LoiC: Wouldn't the same blocker be allowed to block >anyway? And what exactly would be the use of playing two LoiC. Tapped is >tapped... I'd rather keep that one around for situations where I can >benefit from it :) Of course, because the blocker does not tap unless a successful block occurs. >> I find that Bum's Rush is the better choice, but Mask will work. > >I find that Bum's Rushes get blocked by Other Vamps[tm] They'll all die eventually. =) >OTOH, it was about a situation with OBF available, so you can just >stealth into the actual rush. Punch the victim around a bit with >Immortal Grapple, then use the manouevre to throw that well-aimed car >(just for effect, it's not really a good card) -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

arden mcbathan expounded: > > >> These things do not contradict. > > > > > >They do if you've read this weeks LSJ posts. He claimed in one of these > > >that you did not get to replace cards untill the action resolved. This > > >one says you do, since you can simply hold off playing Psyche untill > > >after you have replaced the cards. > > > > The "before or after" has probably been overruled as simply "before", > > unless I miss my guess. > > ummm...you get to replace cards that are not replaced after *combat*, yes. > you don't get to replace cards that are replaced after the *action* is over NB Bum's Rush now waits for the end of the action.1

Xian wrote: >>And Blood Doll was not changed? > > No. Why would it have been? Well, since it sortof deals with the same problem. Never mind. > Compare to Disarm. No thanks. Not in Jyhad :) > [Chainsaw] > >>I should have posed it more clearly. I am looking for designer intent >>here. It is blatanlty obvious the card does not say 'melee' :) > > It might have been intended to be a melee weapon, but since > Gas-Powered Chainsaw was later printed as a melee weapon, there Ah, thanks for convincing me even more :) > doesn't seem to have been much need to change Chainsaw. Pretty much > no one uses either Sawed-off Shotgun *or* Chainsaw, so it's not likely > to ever happen. Well, it gets used if you play Jyhad only :) > Uh. Lost in Crowds is +1/+2 stealth. More stealth, not > double-tapping. Erm oops. Bit confused there. Was thinking Faceless Night there :) My bad. [ quoted text not captured ]

arden mcbathan wrote: > > ummm...you get to replace cards that are not replaced after *combat*, yes. > you don't get to replace cards that are replaced after the *action* is over Which do not exactly exist if you use only Jyhad cards :) I find that card changes seem to be less accurately documented then rulings and such. Or is it just my lack of searchiing ability? [ quoted text not captured ]

Flux wrote: >>>> 5. I also found something contradicting a ruling I saw this week. >>>> Where Psyche combat was still part of the same action. Yet the >>>> official rulings page has this about Psyche: # The superior can be >>>> played before or after replacing any "Do Not Replace Until After >>>> Combat" cards. [LSJ 19990322] >>>> So what's it gonna be? Part of the same action, or a new combat >>>> entirely? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> These things do not contradict. >> >> >> >> They do if you've read this weeks LSJ posts. He claimed in one of >> these that you did not get to replace cards untill the action >> resolved. This one says you do, since you can simply hold off playing >> Psyche untill after you have replaced the cards. > > > They do not because "DNR Until After Combat" (Dodge, Fake Out) is not > the same as "DNR Until The End Of The Action" (Bum's Rush, Arson). This "DNR until end of action" is new to me :) Jyhad only remember? Trying to catch up to see if official rules make more sense now then they did in 1997. > I believe you are mistaking Lost in Crowds for Faceless Night here. FN > is the one that leaves you tapped if you fail to block. Yes, I was :) [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > > also, the buddy with OBF can be tapped when he plays the cloak, too. a > lot of people don't know that at first. Where exactly would you get this from? This would not make sense to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor wrote: > Where exactly would you get this from? > This would not make sense to me. 1.6.3.5 states that only untapped minions can play reaction cards (barring card text, of course), but there's no corresponding rule for action modifiers, and Cloak the Gathering has no text requiring the minion to be untapped. --Colin McGuigan

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dcp7c090m399o3ibk...@4ax.com... > On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 05:34:20 +0200, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> > wrote: > > >[Should I put LSJ in the subject?] > > >3. Can a vampire whose fangs have already been pulled have them pulled > >again? > > No. > With Sabbat War the card text was changed, it no longer does > aggravated damage, and a vampire can only have one. > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/migration.html > "Pulled Fangs inflicts one normal (non-aggravated) damage; doesn't > stack SW" > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Cardlist.html > "A vampire can have only 1 Pulled Fangs." > > ----- > If you are only playing with Jyhad cards, you may play as many Pulled > Fangs as you need until you have burned the vampire. > > This tends to break the game, and was fixed in the Rules Team Rulings > of July 7, 1998. This is incorrect. The change from Jyhad to Vtes to Sabbat alterned the method of handling agro damage. Under Jyhad rules only, pulled fangs and all sources of agro damage were handled in packets and any single packet had to be able to burn the vampire, so additional Pull Fangs only made the vampire impossible hard to get fixed. To Sum up the onld PF did 1 agro each and each was healed individually, so you never crossed the threshold of needed 2 agro damage from a single source to send to torpor with an additional unhealed agro point of damage. All in all I do prefer the current method of handling damage, although I still think PF should be agro damage. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] Define the future. In our group, it works until the next untap phase, and questions have to be about the game. Works fine this way. (No "Are you gay?" questions and such :P ) [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Doctor" <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:40C4C767...@freemail.nl... > Xian wrote: > >>And Blood Doll was not changed? > > > > No. Why would it have been? > > Well, since it sortof deals with the same problem. > Never mind. > > > Compare to Disarm. > > No thanks. Not in Jyhad :) > OK. Compare, then, to Boxed In, Fake Out, Amaranth, Dead-End Alley, Dodge, Lucky Blow, Open Grate, Ritual of the Bitter Rose, or Trap. Which non-disciplined combat card has the least-balanced (original) effect? PF, by a country mile... Old Pulled Fangs is a legacy of the erroneous WotC assumption that rarity is an adequate (sole) restriction to card power. > > doesn't seem to have been much need to change Chainsaw. Pretty much > > no one uses either Sawed-off Shotgun *or* Chainsaw, so it's not likely > > to ever happen. > > Well, it gets used if you play Jyhad only :) > Does it really? In my Jyhad days, anyone would pick up a .44 before a Shotgun, unless it was a limited format event... DaveZ Atom Weaver

"The Doctor" <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:40C4C843...@freemail.nl... > Flux wrote: > This "DNR until end of action" is new to me :) > > Jyhad only remember? Trying to catch up to see if official rules make > more sense now then they did in 1997. DNR = Do Not Replace Raille

Derek Ray wrote: > Far, far too easy to burn vampires with Pulled Fangs when it's aggro. > See Peter's post about Potence and Beatings. I think, in retrospect, the evolution of aggro damage has alot to do with it, and as The Doctor seems to only be using Jyhad rules, and PF could never burn a vampire under the original aggro rules, he is likely to not see the issue. -Under Jyhad (i.e. the original rules set), IIRC, a single point of aggro could *never* burn a vampire. Even multiple points of aggro, as long as each single point was from a seperate source, couldn't burn someone--it took multiple points of aggro damage from a single source to ever be able to burn someone. So in a situation where a vampire is at zero blood, and he gets hit, all at the same time by a hand strike for 1 with Wolf Claws, a Ghoul Retainer firing the Ivory Bow, and a Wolf Companion during a Dawn Operation is taking 3 individual points of aggro from 3 different sources, which, again IIRC, under the original Jyhad rules would only send you to torpor, as each single point of aggro would just send you to torpor. Multiple points of aggro from a single source *could* burn you, but was very difficult to arrange, and the only natural source in the original set was the Flamethrower (see: costs 4 pool). Also IIRC, under this same situation, multiple PF at one time had the same effect as the mad Gangrel combat above--you'd take X individual points of aggro, where X was the number of PF, and each one would send you to torpor, but none of them would burn you. -When the VTES rules (? Might have been Sabbat) came out, aggro was changed to a situation where a vampire with zero blood taking a single point of aggro would burn. Under this situation, burning vampires became preposterously easily--Pulled Fangs and Wolf Claws and the Ivory Bow became *immensely* more powerful than originally intended (and the Flamethrower became immensely more expensive than justified...)--a single point of aggro on a dude with zero blood burned him. Meaning that a Gangrel with a Trap and Wolf Claws could vaporize folks easily. And the Ivory Bow became a tactical nuke, which was absurd given its cost of 1 pool. And PF became the table sweeper for a Potence Rush deck--hit someone to zero blood, play PF, burn them. Nice and easy. -At some point, the current Aggro rules came out (same time as the 7/7 rulings?) and they are what they are--you currently need to do, effectively, N+2 damage where at least one is aggro to burn someone, where N is the vampires current blood--the first point of aggro "wounds" them (i.e. sends them to torpor), and any aggro done to a wounded vampire results in burning blood or burning the vampire. It is easier to burn vampires now that it was under the original Jyhad rules (as I think individual points add up, rather than each being single points, like under the Jyhad rules), but still pretty difficult. If PF did aggro, it would still be pretty easy to burn folks--hit them for N+1 regular damage, where N is their current blood level (i.e. send them to torpor),and then play PF, doing the extra burning damage. So under the Jyhad rules, PF never burned anyone (and neither did the Ivory Bow), aggro or no. Under the current aggro rules, a PF doing aggro would burn folks. Not ok. > > Also, you make the Ventrue the best combat monsters in the land -- > prevent all damage, hands for 1, Pulled Fangs, Amaranth, and you have > vote lock because you're the Ventrue. And even without the burning issue, this was also a very significant problem with PF, even under the Jyhad rules. Especially considering the PF is a zero cost (well, ok, minor opportunity cost), zero discipline card. Lucky Blow was a zero cost (well, ok, minor hand slot cost), zero discipline card that also did 1 extra damage, but where PF did 1 aggro damage and prevented you from hunting, Lucky Blow did, umm, 1 extra point of damage? > > No, Pulled Fangs is much better this way. Wildly agreed. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

The Doctor wrote: > Where exactly would you get this from? > This would not make sense to me. Tapped vampires play action modifiers all the time--a vampire taps to take an action. During the action, when they are tapped, they play stealth, bleed modifiers, whatever. There is nothing that prevents a tapped vampire from playing an action modifier. Generally speaking, however, only the acting minion may play modifiers on a given action. Cloak the Gathering has explicit text to over ride this restriction. It doesn't need explicit text to be playable by a tapped minion. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > We don't know designer intent. We do know that plenty of other cards > say "Melee" weapon, and Gas-Powered Chainsaw was printed later as a > melee weapon with a different pool cost; indicating that Chainsaw was > obviously ill-designed in a number of ways. This does convince me even more that the original Chainsaw should have been melee. > In this case, the benefits of making Chainsaw a melee weapon (ie play > not-as-printed) are not visible; it's still better to have a Bastard > Sword, Bang Nakh, or just the Sawed-off Shotgun in the first place. > Therefore it's never risen to the threshhold of being worth errata. Well, in a Jyhad-only world, there's a benefit to having a melee weapon Chainsaw, really. We'll stick to our local ruling making it melee then :) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > ummm...you get to replace cards that are not replaced after *combat*, yes. > > you don't get to replace cards that are replaced after the *action* is over > > Which do not exactly exist if you use only Jyhad cards :) > Not true. Many of the cards from Jyhad have had their texts changed over the years. > I find that card changes seem to be less accurately documented then > rulings and such. Or is it just my lack of searchiing ability? > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Cards.html http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Cardlist.html http://monger.vekn.org

In message <40C4D181...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> We don't know designer intent. We do know that plenty of other cards >> say "Melee" weapon, and Gas-Powered Chainsaw was printed later as a >> melee weapon with a different pool cost; indicating that Chainsaw was >> obviously ill-designed in a number of ways. > >This does convince me even more that the original Chainsaw should have >been melee. Alternately, from an RPG standpoint, a chainsaw doesn't do damage based on the striking minion's strength (as compared to Sword, Nakh, etc) -- it does damage based on the spinning of the chain itself. This would indicate that a Chainsaw is NOT a melee weapon, and is correctly printed. >> In this case, the benefits of making Chainsaw a melee weapon (ie play >> not-as-printed) are not visible; it's still better to have a Bastard >> Sword, Bang Nakh, or just the Sawed-off Shotgun in the first place. >> Therefore it's never risen to the threshhold of being worth errata. > >Well, in a Jyhad-only world, there's a benefit to having a melee weapon >Chainsaw, really. Honestly, I don't see why. It's a shoddy, overcosted weapon, even if you COULD play Undead Strength with it for a miserable once-per-combat four points. A Bastard Sword does only one less damage, but if someone presses, you can at least hit them with the Sword again... and you have the option of pressing yourself, whereas with the Chainsaw you know you can't use it twice. Alternately, a Fists of Death stacks better with a Bastard Sword, since FoD won't affect Chainsaw. And the Brujah/Toreador are all in favor of Blurs combined with weaponry. All of this pales next to the need to avoid close-range combat in Jyhad, since IG really pees all over melee weapons and Claws/Fortitude don't make things happy either. In a Jyhad-only environment, melee weapons are junk, and the .44 is king... the maneuver makes all the difference. >We'll stick to our local ruling making it melee then :) Up to you. We have found that avoiding actual card-text changes for cards which are wallpaper is generally a good idea. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

David Zopf wrote: >>>doesn't seem to have been much need to change Chainsaw. Pretty much >>>no one uses either Sawed-off Shotgun *or* Chainsaw, so it's not likely >>>to ever happen. >> >>Well, it gets used if you play Jyhad only :) >> > > Does it really? In my Jyhad days, anyone would pick up a .44 before a > Shotgun, unless it was a limited format event... It's the biggest bang in a concealed weapon. But I was referring more to Chainsaw :) It's gotten more use since we ruled it to melee. And it's fun :) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I may be behind times, but I'm not daft, thank you :) It's the 'end of action' bit that is new to a Jyhad player. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > The Doctor wrote: > > >>Where exactly would you get this from? >>This would not make sense to me. > > > Tapped vampires play action modifiers all the time--a vampire taps to take > an action. During the action, when they are tapped, they play stealth, bleed > modifiers, whatever. > > There is nothing that prevents a tapped vampire from playing an action > modifier. Generally speaking, however, only the acting minion may play > modifiers on a given action. Cloak the Gathering has explicit text to over > ride this restriction. It doesn't need explicit text to be playable by a > tapped minion. No, I'd say it needs new text restricting it's use to an _un_tapped vampire... Quite like Mask of a Thousand Faces It doesn't make sense that a tapped (tired, already did an action) vampire could use his obfuscate to aid another does it? It gets worse, coz it sortof implies that a tapped vampire IN TORPOR could use cloak the gathering to give stealth. Come to think of it, that gets even worse if you use a mask with an untapped vampire in torpor. A vamp with OBF could rescue itself by masking over the vamp that was rescueing it? Eek, this is making less sense by the second, somebody stop me! [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: > > >>Far, far too easy to burn vampires with Pulled Fangs when it's aggro. >>See Peter's post about Potence and Beatings. > > > I think, in retrospect, the evolution of aggro damage has alot to do with > it, and as The Doctor seems to only be using Jyhad rules, and PF could never > burn a vampire under the original aggro rules, he is likely to not see the > issue. > > -Under Jyhad (i.e. the original rules set), IIRC, a single point of aggro > could *never* burn a vampire. So far so good. 1st point of aggro only sends em to torpor. > Even multiple points of aggro, as long as each > single point was from a seperate source, couldn't burn someone--it took Nope. Adds up nicely. Main prob is you have to do X+2 damage, where X is the amount of blood on the vamp and _at least_ the added 2 are aggro damage. You can never ever reach that amount with just a pulled fangs, since it does only 1 aggro. (we never allowed it to stack in a single combat) > -When the VTES rules (? Might have been Sabbat) came out, aggro was changed > to a situation where a vampire with zero blood taking a single point of > aggro would burn. Eek. Sounds scary. > nuke, which was absurd given its cost of 1 pool. And PF became the table > sweeper for a Potence Rush deck--hit someone to zero blood, play PF, burn > them. Nice and easy. Now in that environment, I'd rule PF to not do aggro indeed! > -At some point, the current Aggro rules came out (same time as the 7/7 > rulings?) and they are what they are--you currently need to do, effectively, > N+2 damage where at least one is aggro to burn someone, where N is the > vampires current blood--the first point of aggro "wounds" them (i.e. sends > them to torpor), and any aggro done to a wounded vampire results in burning Ah, back to Jyhad rules then? > blood or burning the vampire. It is easier to burn vampires now that it was > under the original Jyhad rules (as I think individual points add up, rather > than each being single points, like under the Jyhad rules), but still pretty > difficult. If PF did aggro, it would still be pretty easy to burn folks--hit > them for N+1 regular damage, where N is their current blood level (i.e. send > them to torpor),and then play PF, doing the extra burning damage. Ah no. Under Jyhad, you always applied the first aggro to going to torpor. Even if you do N normal damage on the side, the vamp would not burn if you add 1 aggro. It burned fine if you add 2 though. Empty vamps burn at 2 aggro in Jyhad. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 04:09:43 +0200, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: >It doesn't make sense that a tapped (tired, already did an action) >vampire could use his obfuscate to aid another does it? Perhaps the side effects of his action caused the blockers to be confused. There is no reason to bring role-playing into any discussion of rules. The rule is that you play action modifiers while tapped. Cloak specifically allows you to play this action modifier when the playing vampire is not the acting vampire. It does not make any restrictions based on the tapped status of the playing vampire. >It gets worse, coz it sortof implies that a tapped vampire IN TORPOR >could use cloak the gathering to give stealth. Nope. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/ 6.5.1 covers this. "can play action modifiers during his actions." >Come to think of it, that gets even worse if you use a mask with an >untapped vampire in torpor. A vamp with OBF could rescue itself by >masking over the vamp that was rescueing it? There is no "rescue self" action. There is a "rescue other" action and a different "leave torpor" action. Mask does not enable a vampire in torpor to overcome the restrictions based upon its being in torpor. "A vampire in torpor can take no action except the "leave torpor" action." 6.5.1 again. >Eek, this is making less sense by the second, somebody stop me! Stopped. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

The Doctor wrote: > It doesn't make sense that a tapped (tired, already did an action) > vampire could use his obfuscate to aid another does it? A lot of things don't make sense, but then again, this isn't an RPG, it's a card game. Does it make sense that Vamp A bleeds, tapped Vamp B with a Sports Bike plays Wake With Evening's Freshness blocks, Vamp A plays superior Form of Mist, Vamp B can still block again without another card? > It gets worse, coz it sortof implies that a tapped vampire IN TORPOR > could use cloak the gathering to give stealth. No. Cloak the Gathering: "Usable by a *ready* vampire..." > Come to think of it, that gets even worse if you use a mask with an > untapped vampire in torpor. A vamp with OBF could rescue itself by > masking over the vamp that was rescueing it? No, because "rescue from torpor" and "leave torpor" are two distinct actions. --Colin McGuigan

The Lasombra wrote: > >>It gets worse, coz it sortof implies that a tapped vampire IN TORPOR >>could use cloak the gathering to give stealth. > > Nope. > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/ > > 6.5.1 covers this. > > "can play action modifiers during his actions." 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. Wouldn't you say that an untapped vampire in torpor meets the 'vampire other than an acting minion you control' demand on the Cloak? Or the 'untapped vampire other than an acting minion you control' of the Mask. Adding 'ready' in there might help a bit I guess. Still, since 'leave torpor' is an action a vamp in torpor is allowed to take, you could have your full vamp in torpor take the leave torpor action and pay for it, then have the empty OBF vamp next to it in torpor take over with a Mask. All kind of silly :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Colin McGuigan wrote: > The Doctor wrote: > >> It doesn't make sense that a tapped (tired, already did an action) >> vampire could use his obfuscate to aid another does it? > > > A lot of things don't make sense, but then again, this isn't an RPG, > it's a card game. Does it make sense that Vamp A bleeds, tapped Vamp B > with a Sports Bike plays Wake With Evening's Freshness blocks, Vamp A > plays superior Form of Mist, Vamp B can still block again without > another card? Hell no, why did anyone even change the rules so they can do that? That's plain silly. > No. Cloak the Gathering: "Usable by a *ready* vampire..." Haven't seen that in the changed cardtexts. Mine don't have no 'ready' on them. Would be a good idea though, so if this change slipped by the webpages, I'm all too happy to incorporate it in our Jyhad games. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40C52CBF...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Colin McGuigan wrote: >> The Doctor wrote: >> >>> It doesn't make sense that a tapped (tired, already did an action) >>> vampire could use his obfuscate to aid another does it? >> >> >> A lot of things don't make sense, but then again, this isn't an RPG, >> it's a card game. Does it make sense that Vamp A bleeds, tapped Vamp B >> with a Sports Bike plays Wake With Evening's Freshness blocks, Vamp A >> plays superior Form of Mist, Vamp B can still block again without >> another card? > >Hell no, why did anyone even change the rules so they can do that? >That's plain silly. What rules change? Original Jyhad rules permit this. Wake with Evening's Freshness, as all reaction cards, lasts for the remainder of the action. Form of Mist only continues the action. There's no silliness about it, it's plain old card text. Normally, however, it's seen when the reacting vampire must play additional intercept to get by the extra +1 stealth on Form of Mist. >> No. Cloak the Gathering: "Usable by a *ready* vampire..." > >Haven't seen that in the changed cardtexts. Mine don't have no 'ready' >on them. Would be a good idea though, so if this change slipped by the >webpages, I'm all too happy to incorporate it in our Jyhad games. Not necessary in the card text. Per some damn rules section or other that many people can quote and I can't, only ready minions may play action modifiers, reactions, etc. by default. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 05:01:05 +0200, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: >1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards >Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. Exactly. The card must contradict the rules. >Wouldn't you say that an untapped vampire in torpor meets the 'vampire >other than an acting minion you control' demand on the Cloak? Nope. The card does not specifically overcoming the rule that requires vampires in torpor to play action modifiers on their own actions only. >Or the 'untapped vampire other than an acting minion you control' of the >Mask. Nope. The card does not specifically overcoming the rule that requires vampires in torpor to play action modifiers on their own actions only. >Adding 'ready' in there might help a bit I guess. Redundantly, yes, it would aid understanding. It would not change the function of the cards. >Still, since 'leave torpor' is an action a vamp in torpor is allowed to >take, you could have your full vamp in torpor take the leave torpor >action and pay for it, then have the empty OBF vamp next to it in torpor >take over with a Mask. No, you cannot. Actions are not paid for until they are complete. You cannot Mask an action after it is complete. >All kind of silly :) Only if you want it to be. The rules and cards are actually quite clear on these points. [ quoted text not captured ]

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<wpydnXTi4cm...@speakeasy.net>... > A lot of things don't make sense, but then again, this isn't an RPG, > it's a card game. Does it make sense that Vamp A bleeds, tapped Vamp B > with a Sports Bike plays Wake With Evening's Freshness blocks, Vamp A > plays superior Form of Mist, Vamp B can still block again without > another card? Well then. The blocking minion may have used the Sport Bike only for convenience until the FoM. So when the pesky Gangrel turns to mist, the added speed really comes handy in catching up with him. Since he is up early anyway, a little extra riding won't make that big of a difference... Let's just hope the Gangrel does not decide to go beneath the surface! ;) Bye, Daneel

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:03:37 +0200, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> scrawled: >Flux wrote: >> The Doctor wrote: >> >>> 6. With Malkavian Prank, ...<snip> >>> (btw, they combine VERY well with Monocle of Clarity *evil cackle*) >> >> >> Check current text on the Monocle, questions about the future are no >> longer binding so that combination doesn't work anymore (and when it >> did, there were much nastier plays available with the Monocle anyway). > >Define the future. > >In our group, it works until the next untap phase, and questions have to >be about the game. Works fine this way. >(No "Are you gay?" questions and such :P ) monocle question (i am sure others can think of worse ones): while i am holding up my middle finger, will you try and block my actions? if you say yes, i lead with crap actions with my finger up until you're tapped out, then come in with the big bleed. if you say no, i do a big bleed with my finger up straight away. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email) "I like to play the field"-LSJ

[ quoted text not captured ] When trying to make sense of this rule for the first time, it is often useful to note that action modifiers are played by tapped minions in the general case, since acting minions tap when the action is begun/attempted. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

The Doctor wrote: > Come to think of it, that gets even worse if you use a mask with an > untapped vampire in torpor. A vamp with OBF could rescue itself by > masking over the vamp that was rescueing it? No. The is no "rescue self" action. The rescue action can only be taken by a ready vampire. A vampire in torpor cannot Mask it. The "leave torpor" action can only be taken by a vampire in torpor (and a ready vampire could not Mask it). But, beside the point, there's an additional rule that says that action modifiers can only be played by the acting minion and that any action modifiers that can be played by other minions by card text can only be played by ready minions, so a vampire in torpor could no even Mask another vampire's "leave torpor" action. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor wrote: > Colin McGuigan wrote: >> A lot of things don't make sense, but then again, this isn't an RPG, >> it's a card game. Does it make sense that Vamp A bleeds, tapped Vamp >> B with a Sports Bike plays Wake With Evening's Freshness blocks, Vamp >> A plays superior Form of Mist, Vamp B can still block again without >> another card? > > [...] no, why did anyone even change the rules so they can do that? > That's plain silly. That's never changed. It's always been that way. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor wrote: > arden mcbathan wrote: > >> >> ummm...you get to replace cards that are not replaced after *combat*, >> yes. >> you don't get to replace cards that are replaced after the *action* is >> over > > > Which do not exactly exist if you use only Jyhad cards :) > > I find that card changes seem to be less accurately documented then > rulings and such. Or is it just my lack of searchiing ability? http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/migration.html [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra wrote: > > The rules and cards are actually quite clear on these points. Well, I figured the rules were quite clear about things like parlyze as well, yet many people did not understand and they kicked it out. Just because you think it's clear does not mean it is. And for the record: I don't agree that the rules are "clear" about these action modifiers that we just discussed about. There are plenty of things not explicitly mentioned that are rules anyway, so I don't see why the text should specifically state something about torpor. You guys do not worry about Blood Doll not having a text stating it works in torpor, just because there's nothing about it "in the rules". Sure, there's an obvious way to deal with them, but many rulings seem to deal with people rying to take the less obvious interpretation of things. Oh an by the way, I would never have allowed Cloak to be used by a tapped vamp in torpor anyway, I was just making up examples. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > and that > any action modifiers that can be played by other minions by card > text can only be played by ready minions, I have not been able to find this in the online rulebook. http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/ Even if it is in the book: there's Rule 1.4, and the cardtext to Cloak the Gathering (for example) just does not have 'ready' in it, or did that cardtext change? (and btw, I would agree wholeheartedly with changing the cardtext for Cloak to read 'ready vampire', even if it has not changed to that already) [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: >>In our group, it works until the next untap phase, and questions have to >>be about the game. Works fine this way. >>(No "Are you gay?" questions and such :P ) > > monocle question (i am sure others can think of worse ones): > while i am holding up my middle finger, will you try and block my > actions? According to our local rules, this is not a legal question. Your holding up a middle finger has nothing to do with the game :) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > The Doctor wrote: > >> arden mcbathan wrote: >> >>> >>> ummm...you get to replace cards that are not replaced after *combat*, >>> yes. >>> you don't get to replace cards that are replaced after the *action* >>> is over >> >> >> >> Which do not exactly exist if you use only Jyhad cards :) >> >> I find that card changes seem to be less accurately documented then >> rulings and such. Or is it just my lack of searchiing ability? > > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/migration.html Ah, useful link. I was looking through http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/Checklist_Jyhad.html But it seems there's been migrations that are not listed in the migration list. My Jyhad-copies of Cloak the Gathering (yup, we were talking about them in another part of this thread) do not have 'ready' on them, while the checklist says it does say ready. I would expect this in the migration list then, but there's no notes for either Cloak or Mask of a thousand faces (the two obvious examples I checked) Also funny to note how it seems some texts have migrated away from Jyhad text only to be corrected back, like Malkavian Prank for example ;) (my Pranks already have the 'other methuselah' clause) [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor wrote: > Nope. Adds up nicely. Not so much under the official rules at the time. The "packet" rule for aggro was probably a clarification/errata at some point (i.e. it is probably unclear in the actual Jyhad rulebook), but it certainly was a rule at some point. But mostly moot, as it is no longer a rule. > Now in that environment, I'd rule PF to not do aggro indeed! And now it all makes sense :-) > Ah, back to Jyhad rules then? Sort of, but not really, due to the lack of "packeting". And also under the Jyhad rules, a single point of aggro could never burn anyone in any circumstance. Under the current rules, a single point of aggro can burn someone, as long as they are already going to torpor with zero blood. -Peter

The Doctor also wrote: > Ah no. Under Jyhad, you always applied the first aggro to going to > torpor. Even if you do N normal damage on the side, the vamp would not > burn if you add 1 aggro. It burned fine if you add 2 though. > Empty vamps burn at 2 aggro in Jyhad. I wasn't so much talking about the Jyhad rules here--just why it is still necessary for Pulled Fangs to not do aggro under the current aggro rules--currently, if someone is at zero blood and going to torpor, and they take a single point of aggro, they burn. So for instance, if someone has 3 blood, they get hit for 4 mundane damage, and then they also get hit by the Ivory Bow fired by the convinient Ghoul Retainer at the same time, the 4 damage will remove all of their blood and the extra point of damage will send them to topror, and then the 1 point of aggro will end up burning them. -Peter

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: > No, I'd say it needs new text restricting it's use to an _un_tapped > vampire... Quite like Mask of a Thousand Faces > > It doesn't make sense that a tapped (tired, already did an action) > vampire could use his obfuscate to aid another does it? But it does make sense that an untapped vampire could Cloak another vampire and then act himself? That's the same amount of exertion (total tiredness). Or do you mean to add "and tap this modifying vampire" to the effect of superior Cloak as well? > It gets worse, coz it sortof implies that a tapped vampire IN TORPOR > could use cloak the gathering to give stealth. No. Vampires in torpor can only play action modifiers when acting. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Doctor" <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:40C51D68...@freemail.nl... > David Zopf wrote: > >>>doesn't seem to have been much need to change Chainsaw. Pretty much > >>>no one uses either Sawed-off Shotgun *or* Chainsaw, so it's not likely > >>>to ever happen. > >> > >>Well, it gets used if you play Jyhad only :) > >> > > > > Does it really? In my Jyhad days, anyone would pick up a .44 before a > > Shotgun, unless it was a limited format event... > > It's the biggest bang in a concealed weapon. > > But I was referring more to Chainsaw :) > It's gotten more use since we ruled it to melee. And it's fun :) > Jyhad only, or VTES. In the game or out... I think we can all agree that chainsaws are, indeed, much fun ;-) DaveZ Atom Weaver

In message <40C5A1A0...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >salem wrote: >>>In our group, it works until the next untap phase, and questions have to >>>be about the game. Works fine this way. >>>(No "Are you gay?" questions and such :P ) >> >> monocle question (i am sure others can think of worse ones): >> while i am holding up my middle finger, will you try and block my >> actions? > >According to our local rules, this is not a legal question. Your holding >up a middle finger has nothing to do with the game :) While Navar is untapped, will you attempt to block my actions? [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mrbac0p8l866uquft...@4ax.com>... > ... Per some damn rules section or other > that many people can quote and I can't, only ready minions may play > action modifiers ... You don't have to be ready to play an action modifier, which is why superior Cloak has the "ready" clause. I know Derek knows that, for example, you can use Lost In Crowds on a leave torpor action; I'm just clarifying for the people asking questions.

David Zopf wrote: > > Jyhad only, or VTES. In the game or out... I think we can all agree that > chainsaws are, indeed, much fun ;-) I mean, use your immortal strength to grab your way in, which seems like a mighty way to grab your opponent, then keep grappling till the second round. Quickly let go, to pull a chainsaw from under your jacket and shove it in your opponents face with your growing fury. Superior potence required for maximum effect of course. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] In the old days, you applied the aggro first. It would send to torpor and then the 'mundane' damage would then empty it up, with excess damage doing nothing. These new rules sure make it easier to burn a vamp. I think we'll have to put good thought into this, coz at first glance I do no like it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > While Navar is untapped, will you attempt to block my actions? Nice and nasty :) I'd love that question, and the deal as well. You better hurry up in screwing the vamp with the monocle if the controller comes up with good questions like that :) [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor wrote: > Hell no, why did anyone even change the rules so they can do that? > That's plain silly. [Where "that" is the bleed/wake and block/form of mist/block again thingee] They didn't change the rules. It's the natural result of the card text. Wake says the vampire may block as if untapped for the rest of the action. > Haven't seen that in the changed cardtexts. Mine don't have no 'ready' > on them. Would be a good idea though, so if this change slipped by the > webpages, I'm all too happy to incorporate it in our Jyhad games. Too lazy to drag out my old Jyhad cards, but I could've sworn it always said that. Anyways, monger is great for getting the most recent printing of a card: http://monger.vekn.org --Colin McGuigan

"The Doctor" <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:40C59DE4...@freemail.nl... > The Lasombra wrote: > > > > The rules and cards are actually quite clear on these points. > > Well, I figured the rules were quite clear about things like parlyze as > well, yet many people did not understand and they kicked it out. > > Just because you think it's clear does not mean it is. > > And for the record: I don't agree that the rules are "clear" about these > action modifiers that we just discussed about. > There are plenty of things not explicitly mentioned that are rules > anyway, so I don't see why the text should specifically state something > about torpor. > You guys do not worry about Blood Doll not having a text stating it > works in torpor, just because there's nothing about it "in the rules". The rules set a template. a Card needs specific card text to break that. Raille

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: > In the old days, you applied the aggro first. Not officially. Aggro has always been handled after the normal, officially (maximizing the cases in which the vampire would burn). e.g.: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3mhu1a%24h3g%40darkstar.UCSC.EDU (close to the end) If there were ever any official rules/answers/rulings given to the contrary, I'd be very interested to receive references to them. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/migration.html > > Ah, useful link. I was looking through > http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/Checklist_Jyhad.html > > But it seems there's been migrations that are not listed in the > migration list. My Jyhad-copies of Cloak the Gathering (yup, we were > talking about them in another part of this thread) do not have 'ready' > on them, while the checklist says it does say ready. > I would expect this in the migration list then, but there's no notes for > either Cloak or Mask of a thousand faces (the two obvious examples I > checked) The migration list only lists functional changes, not changes for clarity. Since action modifiers played by non-acting minions can only be played by ready non-acting minions per the general ruling, the change in text to Cloak is just a clarification, redundant with the ruling (which has since been incorporated into the rulebook, as well). [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:<40C5A12A...@freemail.nl>... > LSJ wrote: > > and that > > any action modifiers that can be played by other minions by card > > text can only be played by ready minions, > > I have not been able to find this in the online rulebook. > http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/ http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html (second item under the first heading: "Action Modifiers".) I had thought that had been moved from the rulings to the rules, but I guess not. > Even if it is in the book: there's Rule 1.4, and the cardtext to Cloak > the Gathering (for example) just does not have 'ready' in it, or did > that cardtext change? 1.4 doesn't help, since Cloak doesn't include "may be played by a vampire in torpor" text to override the rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:<40C59DE4...@freemail.nl>... > The Lasombra wrote: > > > > The rules and cards are actually quite clear on these points. > > Well, I figured the rules were quite clear about things like parlyze as > well, yet many people did not understand and they kicked it out. AIUI: Paralyze was "kicked out" because keeping it in wasn't justified (too few cards for so much rules text), not because people didn't understand it. > You guys do not worry about Blood Doll not having a text stating it > works in torpor, just because there's nothing about it "in the rules". ? There's no ruling saying that cards on vampires in torpor lose their function. There exists a rule (not an absence of text) saying that action modifiers played by non-acting minions can only be played by ready non-acting minions. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:<40C5A1A0...@freemail.nl>... > salem wrote: > >>In our group, it works until the next untap phase, and questions have to > >>be about the game. Works fine this way. > >>(No "Are you gay?" questions and such :P ) > > > > monocle question (i am sure others can think of worse ones): > > while i am holding up my middle finger, will you try and block my > > actions? > > According to our local rules, this is not a legal question. Your holding > up a middle finger has nothing to do with the game :) > > //Doc. Bijdehand:) ok rephrase it too while this vamp/ally is untapped or while i have this pool amount. Another thing were do you play in groningen, i am gonna be in Hoogezand and wouldnt mind going into groningen too have a game. This weekend of course. Dino(utrecht)

The Doctor wrote: > No, I'd say it needs new text restricting it's use to an _un_tapped > vampire... You'd then be wrong, what with vampires playing action modifiers while tapped all the time. In fact, I think pretty much tha vast majority of action modifiers are played by tapped vampires. > > It doesn't make sense that a tapped (tired, already did an action) > vampire could use his obfuscate to aid another does it? Of course it does. 'Cause the rules let tapped vampires play action modifiers. Most action modifiers can only be played by the *acting* minion, but Cloak specifically works around this. It has no need to specifically circumvent anything else. > > It gets worse, coz it sortof implies that a tapped vampire IN TORPOR > could use cloak the gathering to give stealth. Vampires in torpor can specifically only use action modifiers on their own actions. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

In message <75bdf7ed.04060...@posting.google.com>, emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] Explains why I can't quote it, at least. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40C5C2D8...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> While Navar is untapped, will you attempt to block my actions? > >Nice and nasty :) >I'd love that question, and the deal as well. > >You better hurry up in screwing the vamp with the monocle if the >controller comes up with good questions like that :) This is V:TES, not a parlor game. I can come up with many more questions, all of which break the game and at least one of which must be read off a 3x5 index card. Monocle restricting ANY future actions is just a bad plan, unless you intend to allow munchkins to overrun the environment. =/ In the case above, Navar will not be taking that many actions, and I can always use The Barrens instead of Navar -- meaning that either you pack Arsons and enough stealth to get past, or you get sleazed to death. What fun... not. This is also part of the reason why Madness-of-the-eternal-shit-Bard is banned, although the language complexities are the primary reason. It's a strategy game, not a parlor game. I happen to be pretty darn good at coming up with rhymes off the top of my head, and even original ones too; but I still don't ever want to see Madness of the Bard in a game. Just sucks the fun right out of it, as everyone quits talking. Garfield had some good ideas, but everyone makes mistakes, and Monocle (original form) and Madness were two of them. Fortunately, he tended to make really obvious mistakes that are easy to fix. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40C5C128...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >David Zopf wrote: >> >> Jyhad only, or VTES. In the game or out... I think we can all agree that >> chainsaws are, indeed, much fun ;-) > >I mean, use your immortal strength to grab your way in, which seems like >a mighty way to grab your opponent, then keep grappling till the second >round. Quickly let go, to pull a chainsaw from under your jacket and >shove it in your opponents face with your growing fury. Immortal Grapple, as printed in Jyhad, lasts for the duration of combat. You cannot use a Chainsaw in later rounds, because it is hand-strikes-only forever. Alternately, I just play the Majesty on round 2 that I couldn't on round 1, because I was Grappled. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: >>You better hurry up in screwing the vamp with the monocle if the >>controller comes up with good questions like that :) > > This is V:TES, not a parlor game. I can come up with many more > questions, all of which break the game and at least one of which must be > read off a 3x5 index card. Monocle restricting ANY future actions is > just a bad plan, unless you intend to allow munchkins to overrun the > environment. =/ In the case above, Navar will not be taking that many > actions, and I can always use The Barrens instead of Navar -- meaning > that either you pack Arsons and enough stealth to get past, or you get > sleazed to death. What fun... not. Erm, you could simply answer 'yes' and block everything?? > This is also part of the reason why Madness-of-the-eternal-shit-Bard is > banned, although the language complexities are the primary reason. It's > a strategy game, not a parlor game. I happen to be pretty darn good at > coming up with rhymes off the top of my head, and even original ones > too; but I still don't ever want to see Madness of the Bard in a game. > Just sucks the fun right out of it, as everyone quits talking. > > Garfield had some good ideas, but everyone makes mistakes, and Monocle > (original form) and Madness were two of them. Fortunately, he tended to > make really obvious mistakes that are easy to fix. =) Well, I happen to think cards like Monocle and Madness of the Bard ADD fun actually. I can imagine they are not so in a tournament environment with everyone willing to sell their mother to win the tournament. But I m used to playing games to have fun. I'd rather build a losing deck and have loads of fun trying to talk my way into something reasonable, then having the all-winningest deck ever. Winning is no fun, it's just income. The fun is in the surprised faces when you are doing something completely stupid. And even better are the faces of surprise when it later turns out to have been a good thing (even if you had not even planned it like that) Too many of those rulings are to stop stupid assholes from ruining the "fun", because they abuse something that should be funny and get some overly powerful use out it. That's only funny the first time it happens. Not when it becomes a focus. I've never felt game rules would have to be a watertight as laws, common sense (that what I named my large hammer) usually fixes those people that want to abuse the rules. I loved Unglued in Magic as well, and I am a Malkavian forever :) Crazy stuff that surprises people is fun. Crazy stuff that throws them off-balance. Artsy stuff, like having to talk in rhymes. Coming up with silly questions for the monocle and having to think about the answer is fun, especially when it has to be in rhyme as well :P Jeez do you people even have fun at all when you are not winning? I do! [ quoted text not captured ]

Nova_Arpad wrote: > Another thing were do you play in groningen, i am gonna be in > Hoogezand and wouldnt mind going into groningen too have a game. This > weekend of course. Well there's a coincidence. We happen to be playing this weekend. Sunday 13th of June. I am going to teach a few new players the game, and we want to play afterwards of course. The venue opens at 14:00u, and is called De Walrus. Address is Pelsterstraat 25, in the city of Groningen. We'll probably be playing all through to the evening, I guess. These new players are basically in training for the Sealed Deck tournament on July 11th. //Doc. PS If you bring your own deck, please have the courtesy to use only cards from Jyhad set (we don't care about the backs, just as long as there's a sortof even mix). But we'll have enough decks there. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: : Derek Ray wrote: :> This is also part of the reason why Madness-of-the-eternal-shit-Bard is :> banned, although the language complexities are the primary reason. It's :> a strategy game, not a parlor game. I happen to be pretty darn good at : Well, I happen to think cards like Monocle and Madness of the Bard ADD : fun actually. I can imagine they are not so in a tournament environment : with everyone willing to sell their mother to win the tournament. But I I take it you don't play in tournaments very often :p Winning is not only fun, but even more is going for the win with a style. Income? You play for money where you live? Good grief. The way I see it from the local tournaments and from what I've read here about tournaments held elsewhere, V:tES must have one of the most friendliest tournament atmospheres among the CCGs. I can't imagine that people here come to the tournaments so much as to win as to have fun. When it comes to the Madness, the joke gets old and boring pretty fast. "Oh, it's the card that makes us talk in funny verses. Ha ha. Again. Ha ha. Oh, and again. Ha ha." It's a comic relief metagame effect for those who need funny pictures and silly effects. Playing the Madness isn't funny, and learning the funny verses has no relation to playing the game whatsoever. If you want bad and silly poetry, join a poetry club. : I've never felt game rules would have to be a watertight as laws, common : sense (that what I named my large hammer) usually fixes those people : that want to abuse the rules. In your dreams. Besides, banning Madness has little to do with "abuse". It has more to do with "having fun playing the game", which you too seem to promote. //T

Derek Ray wrote: > > Alternately, I just play the Majesty on round 2 that I couldn't on round > 1, because I was Grappled. =) You mean I forgot to mention I drew out your beast? AW! too bad ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: > >>In the old days, you applied the aggro first. > > > Not officially. Aggro has always been handled after the normal, > officially (maximizing the cases in which the vampire would burn). > > e.g.: > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3mhu1a%24h3g%40darkstar.UCSC.EDU > (close to the end) > > If there were ever any official rules/answers/rulings given to the > contrary, I'd be very interested to receive references to them. I am not choosing my words carefully enough :) I meant the first damage of aggro(and in PF case that would be the only one). It just sends to torpor, so for convenience you just deducted that effect first. "Ok it'll be going to torpor, but how much blood does it lose?" [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > Immortal Grapple, as printed in Jyhad, lasts for the duration of combat. Nit: In Jyhad, the printed card text didn't specify. It was ruled to last the whole combat. That ruling was placed in card text in the following year. It was later errata'ed to last for the current round and subsequently printed as such. (Or maybe directly MRP'ed without the intervening errata, I forget). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 05:00:28 +0200, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> scrawled: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> Alternately, I just play the Majesty on round 2 that I couldn't on round >> 1, because I was Grappled. =) > >You mean I forgot to mention I drew out your beast? AW! too bad ;) you can still majesty if your beast has been drawn.... salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email) "I like to play the field"-LSJ

In message <40C647D0...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >>>You better hurry up in screwing the vamp with the monocle if the >>>controller comes up with good questions like that :) >> >> This is V:TES, not a parlor game. I can come up with many more >> questions, all of which break the game and at least one of which must be >> read off a 3x5 index card. Monocle restricting ANY future actions is >> just a bad plan, unless you intend to allow munchkins to overrun the >> environment. =/ In the case above, Navar will not be taking that many >> actions, and I can always use The Barrens instead of Navar -- meaning >> that either you pack Arsons and enough stealth to get past, or you get >> sleazed to death. What fun... not. > >Erm, you could simply answer 'yes' and block everything?? And I run you out of blockers and Wakes by generating meaningless actions OR I send in a bunch of small-caps to bleed. Once you finally fail to block because you no longer can, I wind up one or two big bleeds; game over for you. Wasn't that fun? Either you stopped the action to get the Monocle (not necessarily easy), you Arsoned my Barrens, or you took a shot to the dome from my sleazemobile. Awesome. >> This is also part of the reason why Madness-of-the-eternal-shit-Bard is >> banned, although the language complexities are the primary reason. It's >> a strategy game, not a parlor game. I happen to be pretty darn good at >> coming up with rhymes off the top of my head, and even original ones >> too; but I still don't ever want to see Madness of the Bard in a game. >> Just sucks the fun right out of it, as everyone quits talking. >> >> Garfield had some good ideas, but everyone makes mistakes, and Monocle >> (original form) and Madness were two of them. Fortunately, he tended to >> make really obvious mistakes that are easy to fix. =) > >Well, I happen to think cards like Monocle and Madness of the Bard ADD >fun actually. I can imagine they are not so in a tournament environment >with everyone willing to sell their mother to win the tournament. But I I like the current Monocle, where you can't break it. That adds fun. Madness just causes the people who can't easily rhyme to stop talking. I absolutely do not see how this is fun for anyone. Alternately, it causes everyone to simply repeat their sentences twice (rhyming, but lame), or speak in brief couplets like "need to bleed". This, too, is extremely non-fun. >m used to playing games to have fun. I'd rather build a losing deck and >have loads of fun trying to talk my way into something reasonable, then >having the all-winningest deck ever. Winning is no fun, it's just Actually, winning CAN be fun, as long as everyone else is playing to win. It's a game of strategy, push-pull, clever trickery and manipulation. The interaction between decks and players, with one eventually emerging on top. Winning for the sake of winning itself is fun for some people, but usually not fun for the people they're playing against. And that's what a lot of these rules are designed to do; preserve the fun for EVERYONE. >income. The fun is in the surprised faces when you are doing something >completely stupid. And even better are the faces of surprise when it >later turns out to have been a good thing (even if you had not even >planned it like that) If it turns out to be a good thing, that is good. If it is just disruptive, then you are obtaining YOUR fun at the cost of everyone else's and should consider that carefully. I find players who say "I'm using my M4lKav1an!! deck this time", and who then play completely at random around the table, to be the worst players EVER to play a game with; given the option, I will never sit down with them, because they are all about ruining everyone else's game to have fun. I also don't buy the shit RPGer argument that says "Malkavians are crazy, so I should play crazy!!" 1) This is a card game, not an RPG. 2) Malkavians aren't crazy, they're demented. Difference. 3) Malkavians aren't random, they have very clear goals in mind. Other people often cannot tell what those goals are, because the Malkavian's insight (trait) allows them to see things more clearly. >Too many of those rulings are to stop stupid assholes from ruining the >"fun", because they abuse something that should be funny and get some >overly powerful use out it. That's only funny the first time it happens. >Not when it becomes a focus. Well, these are gamers, you know? You get more than your share of stupid assholes in this crowd, as well as more than your share of people who want to win at all costs. >I've never felt game rules would have to be a watertight as laws, common >sense (that what I named my large hammer) usually fixes those people >that want to abuse the rules. That works well for small groups of 10 players. But when you're trying to write rules that apply to thousands across multiple countries, you have to assume that not everyone has the same definition of common sense. For example, "play to win" would seem to be common sense as well. >I loved Unglued in Magic as well, and I am a Malkavian forever :) I liked Unglued as a temporary diversion. I'd NEVER want to play it on a regular basis. >Crazy stuff that surprises people is fun. Crazy stuff that throws them >off-balance. Artsy stuff, like having to talk in rhymes. So the fun for you is all about disrupting people's game? >Coming up with silly questions for the monocle and having to think about >the answer is fun, especially when it has to be in rhyme as well :P So the fun for you is all about disrupting people's game? >Jeez do you people even have fun at all when you are not winning? I do! I wouldn't have fun at a table with you. I would probably choose to never play with you again after the first couple times, actually -- it depends how much of what you're saying here you really do when you play, or if you actually do at least make an attempt to get VPs. I'm in the game for the strategy aspect, honestly. I find that it has a ton of depth; much more depth than people realize at first glance. I am quite capable of making wacky deck ideas that also try to win; maybe they don't do a very good job of it, but they do at least try to play the game, and they can be very funny in some respects. The "wacky seat switcher" deck, though, where you put out a Madness Network and play Dramatic Upheaval every single turn during the Network, so you go after EVERY player's turn? That's funny once, and then I never want to see it played again. Not because it wins (it often doesn't), but because it completely ruins the game and wastes everyone's time standing up and pissing around swapping seats, instead of playing the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40C67D4...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> Alternately, I just play the Majesty on round 2 that I couldn't on round >> 1, because I was Grappled. =) > >You mean I forgot to mention I drew out your beast? AW! too bad ;) Majesty ends combat, whether or not your Beast was drawn out. Drawing out the Beast only stops the opponent from pressing to end combat. It doesn't stop Majesty from being played. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem expounded: > On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:03:37 +0200, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> > scrawled: > > >Flux wrote: > >> The Doctor wrote: > >> > >>> 6. With Malkavian Prank, ...<snip> > >>> (btw, they combine VERY well with Monocle of Clarity *evil cackle*) > >> > >> > >> Check current text on the Monocle, questions about the future are no > >> longer binding so that combination doesn't work anymore (and when it > >> did, there were much nastier plays available with the Monocle anyway). > > > >Define the future. > > > >In our group, it works until the next untap phase, and questions have to > >be about the game. Works fine this way. > >(No "Are you gay?" questions and such :P ) > > monocle question (i am sure others can think of worse ones): > while i am holding up my middle finger, will you try and block my > actions? > > if you say yes, i lead with crap actions with my finger up until > you're tapped out, then come in with the big bleed. > > if you say no, i do a big bleed with my finger up straight away. This is not a yes/no question. The correct answer is almost invariably: "it depends what your action is" or similar. The onus is on the asker to ask a question to which the answer is yes or now not on the questioned to answer any question with one of those responses.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:VEvxc.30702$Gx4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Derek Ray wrote: > > Immortal Grapple, as printed in Jyhad, lasts for the duration of combat. > > Nit: > In Jyhad, the printed card text didn't specify. > It was ruled to last the whole combat. > That ruling was placed in card text in the following year. > It was later errata'ed to last for the current round and > subsequently printed as such. (Or maybe directly MRP'ed > without the intervening errata, I forget). Errataed in the notorious 23-Jun-1998 rulings, of course. :-) http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=358FED8E.446B%40wizards.com And that change was most-recent-printed into card text in the Sabbat War reprint. Josh she turned me into a nit!

The Doctor wrote: > > Derek Ray wrote: > >>You better hurry up in screwing the vamp with the monocle if the > >>controller comes up with good questions like that :) > > > > This is V:TES, not a parlor game. I can come up with many more > > questions, all of which break the game and at least one of which must be > > read off a 3x5 index card. Monocle restricting ANY future actions is > > just a bad plan, unless you intend to allow munchkins to overrun the > > environment. =/ In the case above, Navar will not be taking that many > > actions, and I can always use The Barrens instead of Navar -- meaning > > that either you pack Arsons and enough stealth to get past, or you get > > sleazed to death. What fun... not. > > Erm, you could simply answer 'yes' and block everything?? Cool, Dude! I no longer have to pack rushes into my rush combat deck. I just bleed you and you must now automatically, repeatedly, block my fist with your face! Or try another one: in order to get my Sensory Deprivation past the blocker you left untapped, I send Chandler off bleeding for one with an Earth Meld. Then I can perform any action as you're now out of blockers for the things I really need to succeed. There's a million ways to take advantage of enforcable future promises, even the victim is given the choice between, "I promise to ALWAYS do X" or "I promise to NEVER do X" - which is how this winds up working. > Winning is no fun, it's just > income. The fun is in the surprised faces when you are doing something > completely stupid. And even better are the faces of surprise when it > later turns out to have been a good thing (even if you had not even > planned it like that) Unfortunately, CCGs are effectively board games, not role-playing games or some other form of non-zero-sum entertainment. They're designed with certain assumptions in mind and their integrity tends to break down if the participants don't play to win, on some level. That doesn't mean there isn't a certain latitude in the seriousness of the attempt. Particularly in non-tournament play, the element of personal control over which path to victory a player chooses is dominant and wild experimentation can be engaged to have fun. But ultimately, the object must be to win or you're not playing Jyhad. You're just dicking around with Jyhad cards. In particular, I'd hate to ever be your grandpredator if you're a person who merely plays to see the surprise on peoples' faces when you do something "stupid". Something stupid also turns out to be handing my prey 6 more pool I have to bleed him out of and a victory point I can never get. Fred

"The Doctor" <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:40C647D0...@freemail.nl... > > Jeez do you people even have fun at all when you are not winning? I do! I only play to have fun. I do enjoy tournements and getting an official ranking, if only to see how well a *fun* player does in such a cut throat enviroment, and onver all I'm not doing to bad. I get a fair amount of respect from my peers and thats good enough for me. actually winning is like getting slagroom on desert. Raille Ah! See I remembered my dutch.

Derek Ray wrote: > > Either you stopped the action to get the Monocle (not necessarily easy), > you Arsoned my Barrens, or you took a shot to the dome from my > sleazemobile. Awesome. You forget about hosing the vamp with the monocle :) KILL ! Diablerie is an option ;) > I like the current Monocle, where you can't break it. That adds fun. So how can you make funny deals if there's no future in the questions? "Do you have a card in hand that makes you able to block even when all your vamps are tapped??" 'no' *send bleeds till tapped out, send extra bleed* Yeah, much more fun. And no, I had not put much thought in the question, there's probably much better ones. > Madness just causes the people who can't easily rhyme to stop talking. > I absolutely do not see how this is fun for anyone. Alternately, it > causes everyone to simply repeat their sentences twice (rhyming, but > lame), or speak in brief couplets like "need to bleed". This, too, is > extremely non-fun. I guess I used to play in a more creative environment :) Mind you, we've not used VTES cards for years now, we tolerated them for a while, but Sabbat really ended it, we decidede to stick to just Jyhad after that. I don't miss the cards from VTES, but some of the vamps were damn kewl. > Actually, winning CAN be fun, as long as everyone else is playing to > win. It's a game of strategy, push-pull, clever trickery and > manipulation. The interaction between decks and players, with one > eventually emerging on top. Oh I can play like that as well, but in all games I play I only use that attitude in tournaments. I've made it to the European Championships in Settlers of Catan, I played at the national championships in Magic. I know how to get competitive. I just don't particularly like it. I prefer to play for fun. > If it is just disruptive, then you are obtaining YOUR fun at the cost of > everyone else's and should consider that carefully. I find players who > say "I'm using my M4lKav1an!! deck this time", and who then play > completely at random around the table, to be the worst players EVER to > play a game with; given the option, I will never sit down with them, > because they are all about ruining everyone else's game to have fun. > > I also don't buy the shit RPGer argument that says "Malkavians are > crazy, so I should play crazy!!" > > 1) This is a card game, not an RPG. If that was the case there need not be any pictures on them just a bunch of rules, and we needn't have the rules represent anything either. We'd play Effectcard number 590 against your Actorcard number 3. There is definetly a sense of roleplay in Jyhad. Much stronger then in Magic or even the boardgame of Settlers of Catan, for example. The metagame, the length of the game, the politics, and the multiplayerness(sp?) inherent to the game of Jyhad make this so. Denying there is roleplay in the game of Jyhad is like denying this game exists. Don't YOU feel like you are a mighty vampire controlling those lesser peons? Is your prey not truly your worst enemy? For the duration of the game, you are in your role as a Methuselah. For Magic, I'd say you are right. There the pictures and names are just around so you can recognise things, they hardly ever have anything to do with a sense of the gaming world. Do you feel like a magician sitting in his ivory tower steering critters and spells? I never did anyway. The game was/is much too short to get into it. > 2) Malkavians aren't crazy, they're demented. Difference. Who ya calling demented 'ere? Sit down boy! Prepare for your doom! > 3) Malkavians aren't random, they have very clear goals in mind. Other > people often cannot tell what those goals are, because the Malkavian's > insight (trait) allows them to see things more clearly. Well doh! Of course we have an insight the others will never fathom. You don't actually believe the 'crazy' things we do that turn out to be VERY good are random coincedences, do you? Or are they really random and is a Malkavian just the luckiest bastard around? Will you ever know? It's great fun to send someone out to get some top secret information and pay them well to do so. And then when they return with the info you just tell them what they found, before they have a chance to give it... Now THAT is Malkavian. > Well, these are gamers, you know? You get more than your share of > stupid assholes in this crowd, as well as more than your share of people > who want to win at all costs. I guess I'm blessed with this group. > For example, "play to win" would seem to be common sense as well. No, play to win is a flaw in the human mind :) > So the fun for you is all about disrupting people's game? Surprising people is fun. Having to be creative is fun. People surprise me too, forcing me to be creative about a solution to the problem they pose, for example. Great fun! Having to use your mind, rather then just letting the cards play the game for you, that is fun. > I wouldn't have fun at a table with you. I would probably choose to > never play with you again after the first couple times, actually -- it > depends how much of what you're saying here you really do when you play, > or if you actually do at least make an attempt to get VPs. I quite often sweep the table ;) And it takes considerable effort to do so with some of the decks I make, but taking that effort is such a big part of the fun. Trying to stay alive, talking your way out of trouble, then later talking others into trouble, and eventually just killing. I've won too many games in our group. Especially after a while of people borrowing my decks and concluding that I could not build good decks, but simply won games in the metagame. I then built an awfully boring politics deck that has won games in many people's hands and they seem convinced now after some 6 sessions of seeing that deck run around the table that I am capable of building a winning deck as well. Back to the fun soon :) I just hope I finally get some nice cards in our Sealed Deck tournament :) I haven't been able to be good at that part of the game... > I'm in the game for the strategy aspect, honestly. I find that it has a > ton of depth; much more depth than people realize at first glance. I am > quite capable of making wacky deck ideas that also try to win; maybe > they don't do a very good job of it, but they do at least try to play > the game, and they can be very funny in some respects. That's the point. Try something wacky and new. Make it win anyway, even if others don't get it. SO MUCH FUN! > The "wacky seat switcher" deck, though, where you put out a Madness > Network and play Dramatic Upheaval every single turn during the Network, > so you go after EVERY player's turn? That's funny once, and then I > never want to see it played again. Not because it wins (it often > doesn't), but because it completely ruins the game and wastes everyone's > time standing up and pissing around swapping seats, instead of playing > the game. LOL, sounds funny though. Would love to see someone pull that one off :) It's possible to make that one even sillier and more annoying though. Just use reversal of fortunes all the time, meaning only you and your prey get turns... Now that would be much worse... [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > > actually winning is like getting slagroom on desert. > > Raille > Ah! > See I remembered my dutch. LOL. Are you still going to NL every summer? Haven't seen you around in a long long time... We should play again :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Timlagor <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote: > salem expounded: > > monocle question (i am sure others can think of worse ones): > > while i am holding up my middle finger, will you try and block my > > actions? > > > > if you say yes, i lead with crap actions with my finger up until > > you're tapped out, then come in with the big bleed. > > > > if you say no, i do a big bleed with my finger up straight away. > > This is not a yes/no question. Incorrect. It is a yes/no question. > The correct answer is almost invariably: > "it depends what your action is" or similar. That's if you attempt to get philosophical about it. The part of the (outdated cards') text that says "If the question pertains to the future, he or she must abide by the answer if possible." handles that instead of relying on philosophy. The answerer has to choose an answer of either "yes" or "no" and then, since it involves the future, must abide by that answer if possible. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > The part of the (outdated cards') text that says "If the > question pertains to the future, he or she must abide by > the answer if possible." handles that instead of relying > on philosophy. > > The answerer has to choose an answer of either "yes" or "no" > and then, since it involves the future, must abide by that > answer if possible. And to me, anything that makes you die (be ousted) if you follow the answer/deal falls under the 'not possible'. "Yeah, I told you I would not block your bleeds, but you put me down to 1 pool and you are coming in to bleed again, I have to block it to survive. It's not possible to let it go" But then again, my hammer is called 'common sense' and I like to knock it into people. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40C74DF...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> Either you stopped the action to get the Monocle (not necessarily easy), >> you Arsoned my Barrens, or you took a shot to the dome from my >> sleazemobile. Awesome. > >You forget about hosing the vamp with the monocle :) KILL ! >Diablerie is an option ;) So you must play a deck with Bum's Rush, Arson, or enough intercept? >> I like the current Monocle, where you can't break it. That adds fun. > >So how can you make funny deals if there's no future in the questions? Thanks, I've already seen what you think of as "funny". I'm good with parlor games being kept out of V:TES, and for exactly that reason. >"Do you have a card in hand that makes you able to block even when all >your vamps are tapped??" 'no' *send bleeds till tapped out, send extra >bleed* 2nd Tradition, Rat's Warning. Neither of these cards let me block when my vamps are tapped. Both of them untap a vampire, and THEN I can block, because one of my vampires is not tapped, meaning that "no" is a truthful answer. So much for that question. ;) Although yes, there are better ones. >> Madness just causes the people who can't easily rhyme to stop talking. >> I absolutely do not see how this is fun for anyone. Alternately, it >> causes everyone to simply repeat their sentences twice (rhyming, but >> lame), or speak in brief couplets like "need to bleed". This, too, is >> extremely non-fun. > >I guess I used to play in a more creative environment :) Down, boy. We've got better minds this side of the pond than you've ever seen... and a number of them DO play V:TES. We just like using those minds to play the game, not to pointlessly masturbate ourselves coming up with rhymes. Again, something that's funny once or twice, but after that, just disruptive and annoying. >Mind you, we've not used VTES cards for years now, we tolerated them for >a while, but Sabbat really ended it, we decidede to stick to just Jyhad >after that. I don't miss the cards from VTES, but some of the vamps were >damn kewl. Oddly, the new vamps are always more popular than the cards... at least until people figure out how to use the cards. Sometimes that can take years. >> Actually, winning CAN be fun, as long as everyone else is playing to >> win. It's a game of strategy, push-pull, clever trickery and >> manipulation. The interaction between decks and players, with one >> eventually emerging on top. > >Oh I can play like that as well, but in all games I play I only use that >attitude in tournaments. I've made it to the European Championships in >Settlers of Catan, I played at the national championships in Magic. I >know how to get competitive. I just don't particularly like it. I prefer >to play for fun. You know, the two are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to make a deck that is both fun AND competitive... and it's also possible to make a deck that's fun, and then try to win with it. >> If it is just disruptive, then you are obtaining YOUR fun at the cost of >> everyone else's and should consider that carefully. I find players who >> say "I'm using my M4lKav1an!! deck this time", and who then play >> completely at random around the table, to be the worst players EVER to >> play a game with; given the option, I will never sit down with them, >> because they are all about ruining everyone else's game to have fun. >> >> I also don't buy the shit RPGer argument that says "Malkavians are >> crazy, so I should play crazy!!" >> >> 1) This is a card game, not an RPG. > >If that was the case there need not be any pictures on them just a bunch >of rules, and we needn't have the rules represent anything either. We'd >play Effectcard number 590 against your Actorcard number 3. Well, you know, there are an awful lot of people who would play this game even if it were Dog Poo: The Eternal Struggle. >Denying there is roleplay in the game of Jyhad is like denying this game >exists. Don't YOU feel like you are a mighty vampire controlling those >lesser peons? Is your prey not truly your worst enemy? >For the duration of the game, you are in your role as a Methuselah. No, really, I'm not. And for a great number of other people, they aren't either. You just perceive that there _must_ be roleplay in the game, because you have a predetermined mindset to see roleplay in EVERYTHING... because you're a roleplayer as well. I was a roleplayer for a long time, but I can say that frankly, when you get down to it, it's still a card game. It has some aspects that are taken from the RPG, and it has flavor from the RPG, but it is NOT an RPG -- it has fixed rules. >> 3) Malkavians aren't random, they have very clear goals in mind. Other >> people often cannot tell what those goals are, because the Malkavian's >> insight (trait) allows them to see things more clearly. > >Well doh! Of course we have an insight the others will never fathom. >You don't actually believe the 'crazy' things we do that turn out to be >VERY good are random coincedences, do you? Or are they really random and >is a Malkavian just the luckiest bastard around? Will you ever know? > >It's great fun to send someone out to get some top secret information >and pay them well to do so. And then when they return with the info you >just tell them what they found, before they have a chance to give it... > >Now THAT is Malkavian. No, actually, I'd mark points off for this in the RPG, unless you had either shared with me a secret goal which this action furthered, or unless you picked it out of his head when he came back with the info to strike fear into him... or to confuse him, or for some other reason that again, furthered your character's perception of his progress. If you sent him out to get info while already knowing what that info would be... well, that's just random. I don't give any points for random -- I give points for roleplaying the chosen dementia WELL. And to do that, someone has to be able to describe that dementia to me in great detail. >> Well, these are gamers, you know? You get more than your share of >> stupid assholes in this crowd, as well as more than your share of people >> who want to win at all costs. > >I guess I'm blessed with this group. Sometimes it is necessary to look at things from all sides. >> For example, "play to win" would seem to be common sense as well. > >No, play to win is a flaw in the human mind :) This is just blather. We wouldn't be alive today without the competitive instinct. >> So the fun for you is all about disrupting people's game? > >Surprising people is fun. Having to be creative is fun. >People surprise me too, forcing me to be creative about a solution to >the problem they pose, for example. Great fun! You've avoided the question. >Having to use your mind, rather then just letting the cards play the >game for you, that is fun. Again, you've avoided the question. There is a middle ground between "all Dominate, all the time" (a particularly un-fun deck that wins a lot), and "12 different clans with no shared disciplines" (a deck that someone thinks of as "fun" but sucks so hard it disrupts table balance and nobody else has any fun). >> I wouldn't have fun at a table with you. I would probably choose to >> never play with you again after the first couple times, actually -- it >> depends how much of what you're saying here you really do when you play, >> or if you actually do at least make an attempt to get VPs. > >I quite often sweep the table ;) And it takes considerable effort to do >so with some of the decks I make, but taking that effort is such a big >part of the fun. Trying to stay alive, talking your way out of trouble, >then later talking others into trouble, and eventually just killing. >I've won too many games in our group. This should say something to you, by the way. >Especially after a while of people borrowing my decks and concluding >that I could not build good decks, but simply won games in the metagame. >I then built an awfully boring politics deck that has won games in many >people's hands and they seem convinced now after some 6 sessions of >seeing that deck run around the table that I am capable of building a >winning deck as well. You should spend some time teaching your opponents to play well, instead of wasting your time messing with them. I've seen this particular complex before, but I had thought it would be sufficiently rare in V:TES... >> I'm in the game for the strategy aspect, honestly. I find that it has a >> ton of depth; much more depth than people realize at first glance. I am >> quite capable of making wacky deck ideas that also try to win; maybe >> they don't do a very good job of it, but they do at least try to play >> the game, and they can be very funny in some respects. > >That's the point. Try something wacky and new. Make it win anyway, even >if others don't get it. SO MUCH FUN! And that's MY point. Try to win. Don't just ruin other people's games. Many people are forgiving of a game-wrecker strategy (Baltimore Purge) as long as it actually wins the game it sits down at. >> The "wacky seat switcher" deck, though, where you put out a Madness >> Network and play Dramatic Upheaval every single turn during the Network, >> so you go after EVERY player's turn? That's funny once, and then I >> never want to see it played again. Not because it wins (it often >> doesn't), but because it completely ruins the game and wastes everyone's >> time standing up and pissing around swapping seats, instead of playing >> the game. > >LOL, sounds funny though. Would love to see someone pull that one off :) I've seen it. It's funny once. It is never funny again. >It's possible to make that one even sillier and more annoying though. >Just use reversal of fortunes all the time, meaning only you and your >prey get turns... Now that would be much worse... I've seen that one, too. It's not even funny once. Fortunately, it typically fails to win, because your prey routinely ousts people before you do. It is very, very telling (and very disturbing) that you think preventing people from playing a game they had hoped to play for 1-2 hours is somehow "fun". It should set off big alarm bells in your head. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor wrote: > And to me, anything that makes you die (be ousted) if you follow the > answer/deal falls under the 'not possible'. To ignore accepted English definitions is certainly your prerogative, yes. But you can see why such things wouldn't work in an official environment, I hope. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ expounded: > Timlagor <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote: > > salem expounded: > > > monocle question (i am sure others can think of worse ones): > > > while i am holding up my middle finger, will you try and block my > > > actions? > > > > > > if you say yes, i lead with crap actions with my finger up until > > > you're tapped out, then come in with the big bleed. > > > > > > if you say no, i do a big bleed with my finger up straight away. > > > > This is not a yes/no question. > > Incorrect. It is a yes/no question. to be polite: rubbish > > The correct answer is almost invariably: > > "it depends what your action is" or similar. > > That's if you attempt to get philosophical about it. "Philosophical! is a pretty meaningless word here: certainly i am not 'attempting' to be philosophical; I am pointing out a gross misinterpretation of what a "yes or no" question is. The question is insufficiently specific to elicit a yes/no response that accurately predicts the future behaviour that would occur without it being forced by constraining the answer. The distinction is between answering a question honestly and having to stick by it and being forced to a position that you would not otherwise take. Not that it isn't all irrelevant anyway.

Timlagor <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b3125ce3...@news.eclipse.co.uk>... > salem expounded: > > monocle question (i am sure others can think of worse ones): > > while i am holding up my middle finger, will you try and block my > > actions? > > > > if you say yes, i lead with crap actions with my finger up until > > you're tapped out, then come in with the big bleed. > > > > if you say no, i do a big bleed with my finger up straight away. > > This is not a yes/no question. The correct answer is almost invariably: > "it depends what your action is" or similar. The onus is on the asker to > ask a question to which the answer is yes or now not on the questioned > to answer any question with one of those responses. Then there are no true 'yes/no' questions. Even something as trivial as "Do I hold seven cards in my right hand?" should be correctly answered as "Depends on what is your definition of 'right hand'". If your answer is 'yes/no', it might be wrong in some cases. A 'yes/no' question is a question that can be answered with 'yes' or 'no', it is not a requisite that those are the only possible answers. Flux

Flux expounded: > Then there are no true 'yes/no' questions. > Even something as trivial as "Do I hold seven cards in my right hand?" > should be correctly answered as "Depends on what is your definition of > 'right hand'". If your answer is 'yes/no', it might be wrong in some > cases. Now you're just being silly.

"Timlagor" <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.1b33faca8...@news.eclipse.co.uk... [ quoted text not captured ] As you say: rubbish. The concept of a yes/no question is not difficult to grasp, and yet you wish to invoke some spurious convoluted dodge to get around it. This has been covered before. The unsupportable position you've adopted fared no better the first time. See, among others, this post and surrounding thread: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=36541AFD.2781%40wizards.com [ quoted text not captured ]

Totally off topic on the Monocle of Clarity: The answerer must answer truthfully, but if the question is about the future, the answer isn't binding. Is there a window in there where you could ask a question about the future, and claim that the player wasn't answering truthfully if they do something other than their answer? Eg, during my untap, I ask, "If I bleed for 2 at stealth, would you bounce it?", and they answer "no". During my minion phase, I bleed for 1, they attempt to block, I play superior bonding, they play deflection. Can I make a case to a judge that the player wasn't answering truthfully? --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan wrote: > Totally off topic on the Monocle of Clarity: > > The answerer must answer truthfully, but if the question is about the > future, the answer isn't binding. > > Is there a window in there where you could ask a question about the > future, and claim that the player wasn't answering truthfully if they do > something other than their answer? No. Not with the most recent printing (non-binding wording). > Eg, during my untap, I ask, "If I bleed for 2 at stealth, would you > bounce it?", and they answer "no". During my minion phase, I bleed for > 1, they attempt to block, I play superior bonding, they play deflection. > > Can I make a case to a judge that the player wasn't answering truthfully? No. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > Down, boy. We've got better minds this side of the pond than you've > ever seen... I guess I should have realised it a bit earlier... I'm done with you now. Have fun on your island. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40CB3E6A...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> Down, boy. We've got better minds this side of the pond than you've >> ever seen... > >I guess I should have realised it a bit earlier... If you're going to be snippy about "I guess I play in a more creative environment", then you can darn well expect some snippy back, and you can darn well deal with it when it happens. My island's nice and big. I have to wonder how the view is from your ivory tower, though... [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > My island's nice and big. I have to wonder how the view is from your > ivory tower, though... I can see the whole world from up here. Nice view. No Boeings headed this way so far ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40CD0D22...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> My island's nice and big. I have to wonder how the view is from your >> ivory tower, though... > >I can see the whole world from up here. Nice view. > >No Boeings headed this way so far ;) Classy. Exactly what I'd expect. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:<40CD0D22...@freemail.nl>... > Derek Ray wrote: > > > > My island's nice and big. I have to wonder how the view is from your > > ivory tower, though... > > I can see the whole world from up here. Nice view. > > No Boeings headed this way so far ;) > > //Doc. In Germany we have a word for someones like you: "Dummschwätzer!" They are heard once, after that mostly ignored.

"Timlagor" <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.1b33faca8...@news.eclipse.co.uk... [ quoted text not captured ] He is not. Consider this: right means correct, so Do I hold 7 cards in my correct hand? and who chooses? I could exchange right with sinister or dexter, but in both cases those words also have double meanings. Most questions simply cannot be answered by a yes or no question without fishing for additional information. Raille

Raille expounded: > > "Timlagor" <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:MPG.1b33faca8...@news.eclipse.co.uk... > > Flux expounded: > > > Then there are no true 'yes/no' questions. > > > Even something as trivial as "Do I hold seven cards in my right hand?" > > > should be correctly answered as "Depends on what is your definition of > > > 'right hand'". If your answer is 'yes/no', it might be wrong in some > > > cases. > > > > Now you're just being silly. > > He is not. > > Consider this: > > right means correct, so Do I hold 7 cards in my correct hand? and who > chooses? yah what? Giving an example of a question that isn't yes/no (in this case one that is nonsense and thereby not a question at all) is not proof that there are none.