*NEW* Official FAQ for Jyhad, April 95 version

In article <3mhu1a$h...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: thanks for posting, tom; some stuff here we really wanted to see (fame as a unique fixes it, though i suspect people will complain that there were better fixes [there were, but this is both effect and does the least violence to the existing text and rules framework]). some stuff here i'd like to take issue with or have clarified: >Compiled by: Chris Ferris, Paul Peterson, Bob Kruger, Matt Burke, >Jeff Harris, Shawn F. Carnes, Rich Redman, Scott Hungerford >Edited by: JD Wiker > Out-of-Turn could we get a ruling on the out-of-turn cards? can you play them on your turn? the argument's driving the group bugfuck. >Charming Lobby: 1) This card requires three vampires to be >effective: one to play Charming Lobby, another to call the first >vote, and the third to call the second vote. >2) The vote must be succesfully called for it to pass. so it (a) essentially has no superior version and (b) is a lame excuse for cryptic rider? surely the design team could have done better. >Rotschreck: This card affects the vampire doing the damage. yeehaw! i feel so vindicated. >Q: Chainsaw and Talbot's Chainsaw aren't ranged but don't say >Melee Weapon. Are they a special class of non-ranged non-melee >weapon, or should they have errata adding "Melee"? >A: The Chainsaw and Talbot's Chainsaw are not considered melee >weapons, because cards that add to melee damage (such as Growing >Fury) do not add to the damage done by chainsaws. um, tom? that's a bogus answer. 'strike: use hand or melee weapon at +n damage' cards do not apply to chainsaw and tc _because_ they're not melee weapons, not the other way around. this seems circular, and is not (imo) a valid reason to state for their non-melee-itude. is the design team aware of the chainsaw's vast inferiority on a pool-for-pool and damage-for-damage basis when compared to the sawed-off shotgun? can you (or anyone on the design team) give a reason why any player (even a malkavian) would use a chainsaw when a shotgun was available? also, would a lucky blow with a rowan ring do one damage in addition to paralysis? it's a melee weapon. >Q: If I have one blood left in my pool and I am blocked by a >vampire with Aching Beauty, do I go into combat? >A: No you are ousted before combat. you misspelled 'blocking.' >Master Cards: Skills > >Q: If I have a superior Discipline, can I use both the bold type >and the normal type on my card? >A: No. The superior Discipline gives you a choice between the two >options. shouldn't this go under 'general rules,' since it's not a question about master: skill cards at all? >Q: Vampire "Astrid Thomas": Is "abstain" a vote? i.e. must all >Tremere vote with her, or can they abstain? >A: You can abstain from the vote, but if they do vote, they must >vote in her favor, and if they already voted against, they must >change their vote. but if astrid abstains, must all tremere abstain with her? >Q: Is the First Tradition cumulative? >A: Yes, they would happen at the same time. So if you paid two >blood, you would still have to skip a turn unless you paid another >two. But if you just skipped three turns it would satisfy both of >them. eww. that's _evil_. now i must get another one. >Cloak the Gathering: "+1 stealth" should be bolded and the >explanation of the card should not. <blink>. does that mean that transferring stealth to an acting minion from someone else is at regular obfuscate, and giving +1 stealth to itself is superior? i'm uncertain as to what text you're referring to by 'explanation of the card,' as all the text i remember on cloak the gathering is either the unbolded '+1 stealth' up top and 'usable by...to give that minion +1 stealth. does not tap the playing vampire.' on the bottom, in bold. if this latter text is being unbolded (i.e., being made to come into play at regular obfuscate) i am at a total loss. well, that's the questions. heckler -- "A global village is NOT supposed to be an anarchic tyranny of the discourteous!" pers...@athena.mit.edu, vox clamans

Personal comments on the new FAQ... : Charming Lobby: 1) This card requires three vampires to be : effective: one to play Charming Lobby, another to call the first : vote, and the third to call the second vote. : 2) The vote must be succesfully called for it to pass. Sigh. Still pretty much wallpaper then. At least it makes a little more sense now. : Eagle's Sight: Eagle's Sight can not allow you to block : unblockable actions. Nice to see this returned to its former status. : Fame: Fame is considered unique. Multiple Fames are not : cumulative. Interesting. So by 'unique', does this mean that there can only ever be one famous vampire, or that one vampire can only ever be singly famous? Does it follow the regular rules for unique cards, i.e. contesting? : Malkavian Madness Network: If a Malkavian takes an action on your : turn using Madness Network, you may not use reaction cards, since : the rules state that reaction cards may not be used on your turn. Would have been nice to see the clarification about 'no action cards may be played' here as well - it _is_sort of buried deep within the rulebook. : Rotschreck: This card affects the vampire doing the damage. Yeah. Sure. Whatever. I'll Tell this to all the people that don't have net access and have seen the opposite said in two successive Duelists magazines. I'm _sure_ they'll believe me. : Q: (Sec 17.1, "Voting") The rule book implies that you cannot play : additional political vote cards if you used a vote card to call a : vote. "Additional political cards can also be used by any of the : other Methusulahs for votes". Can you play additional political : vote cards? : A: Yes, all Methusulahs can use political vote cards. Well, at least this has been officially answered now. Sorry to disappoint you, Curt... :-) : Q: When can I play a reaction card? : A: A reaction card can only be played in response to the actions : of another Methuselah's minion. BZZZT! Contradiction alert. This looks suspiciously like the ruling that was in place _before_ the 'clarification' of Malk.Madness Network... : Q: How does aggravated damage work? : A: Aggravated damage automatically sends your vampire to torpor. : The first point of Aggravated Damage doesn't cause the vampire to : spend a point of blood to heal, but every point after that does. : If Aggravated Damage totals more than your vampire has blood to : heal, your vampire is destroyed. This does not count as Diablerie. Well, Scott - looks like the 1 agg + Pulled Fangs will burn a 0-blood vamp after all, under this ruling... : Card Errata: : Cat Burglary: This card reads incorrectly. It will be fixed in the : next version. If you know, care to give us a hint as to what it's going to say so that all the ones out there right now aren't just so much expensive wallpaper? : Fame: This should be considered a unique master. Well, I guess this clarifies the questions I had above. This'd make it _really_ hard for it to be cumulative, now wouldn't it? :-) : The Blood Doll Edition is accurate as of August 31, 1994. Might wanna change this date now... Shane Travis | Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits sht...@duke.usask.ca | are objects of scorn to Americans who blow horns Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | to break up traffic jams. | -- Mary Ellen Kelly

In article <3mimej$f...@tribune.usask.ca>, Shane Hamish William Travis <sht...@duke.usask.ca> wrote: >Personal comments on the new FAQ... > >: Q: How does aggravated damage work? >: A: Aggravated damage automatically sends your vampire to torpor. >: The first point of Aggravated Damage doesn't cause the vampire to >: spend a point of blood to heal, but every point after that does. >: If Aggravated Damage totals more than your vampire has blood to >: heal, your vampire is destroyed. This does not count as Diablerie. > >Well, Scott - looks like the 1 agg + Pulled Fangs will burn a 0-blood >vamp after all, under this ruling... I wish they could at least act like they spent some time on a rule before they post: >From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) >Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad >Subject: Re: Pulled Fangs >Date: 4 Mar 1995 20:20:33 GMT >Message-ID: <3jai2h$m...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> > >A vampire with X blood on it will require X + 2 aggravated damage to >burn outright. The first point always sends it to torpor, then you need >another X to use up its blood, and then you need another point for the >outright burn. Note that the "+ 2" must come from a single aggravated >source; two 1-point aggravated shots won't cut it. But, you can use >non-aggravated damage to make up the X (useful with Dragon Breath Rounds). Only a month ago it took more than pulled fangs to accomplish a burn. >: The Blood Doll Edition is accurate as of August 31, 1994. > >Might wanna change this date now... They don't know what the rules are, you want them to tell time as well? :-)

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Malkavian Madness Network: If a Malkavian takes an action on your >turn using Madness Network, you may not use reaction cards, since >the rules state that reaction cards may not be used on your turn. Also, the Malkavian may not play Action Cards, since these may only be played "On your turn". ("My shirt's on inside-out? Oh, yeah. It's the new style, you didn't know?") >Minor Boon: If a vampire is going to torpor due to combat and a >minor boon is played, thus saving it, combat is still over. Can you Minor Boon, then pull fangs (thus sending him to torpor again?). >Q: Who do you bleed? And if I have a card with the D in the >circle, who then? And wasn't bleeding a direct action anyway? >A: Usually the only one you bleed is your prey. That action is >direct, that is, it can only be blocked by your prey. If, >however, a card allows you to bleed as a directed action, then you >can bleed any Methuselah you like. It's still a direct action, so >only the target of the bleed can attempt to block. Now it's a "direct action" eh? Where did that come from? Creating new terminology won't fool all of the people, you know. A bleed is always "directed", and always has been. Screwing up the definition of directed doesn't even warrant changing the bleed to a "direct" action. [13.3.1]: "The only *directed* actions that do not require a card are bleeding and..." ("Dig faster! We're almost out of this hole!") >Q: How do I get out of torpor? >A: If your vampire went into torpor with counters still on it (by >paralyzation or by aggravated damage), then it can, as an action, >rescue itself at the cost of two blood. If it doesn't have enough, >then it can be rescued by another minion. The rescuing minion taps >to visit the vampire in torpor and must spend two of its blood, or >both the rescuing vampire and the rescued vampire spend one blood >each. Or by spending two blood from the vampire being rescued, right? (Thanks for setting me straight on this earlier, SHWT). [16.3] is very clear in this respect. >Q: When does my vampire heal itself with stolen blood? The example >in the book I got in my card pack is confusing. The example is not confusing at all, it was simply overturned. The example was crystal clear, and matched the rules above it. >Master Cards: Locations >Q: I have a unique location master card, and someone else just >played one. How does this work? >A: (Sec. 8, "Contested Cards") Just like contested vampires: they >go face down and each owner loses one blood each untap until he >yields his card, or until his card is the only one remaining, at >which point it is put into play on his side. If someone wants to >burn a contested unique location as a direct action, he or she is >automatically successful. She puts the card into play on her side at the *point* (instant) hers is the only one remaining? The rules clearly state that you do not bring the card back into play until the start of your turn. >Q: OK, so it's been established that I could use Govern the >Unaligned, or a similar action, to put blood on someone else' >uncontrolled vampire. Would that vampire pop out at the end of my >influence phase, or at the end of the other player's influence >phase? How would you know that the vampire is younger? >A: The vamp would pop out at the end of its Methuselah's >influence. >Q: When can I play a reaction card? >A: A reaction card can only be played in response to the actions >of another Methuselah's minion. Unless that action is taken on your turn [fnord]. >Q: If the acting minion plays a Combat Ends strike card, does the >combat end instantly, or does it end in the "resolve strike" step? >A: Combat ends instantly, so you cannot play a strike card >afterward. Note that this is the only example of a strike card taking effect when announced rather than when resolved - for no good reason. >Q: How does aggravated damage work? >A: Aggravated damage automatically sends your vampire to torpor. >The first point of Aggravated Damage doesn't cause the vampire to >spend a point of blood to heal, but every point after that does. >If Aggravated Damage totals more than your vampire has blood to >heal, your vampire is destroyed. This does not count as Diablerie. you mean "Every point after that *from the same source*" right? >Q: Fast Hands: Can you attempt to steal equipment if your opponent >has none? >A: Yes. No. - You may attempt to steal *weapon* if your opponent has none. >p. 20, Section12.3.1. Bleed: Bleeding is a directed action. So you can always bleed anyone on the table (since directed actions can be directed at any Methuselah) [13.3.1]: Directed Actions ... allow you to direct the action at any Methuselah." ("Dig Faster!") >p. 21, Section12.3.1. Encounter vampire in torpor: This is a >directed action. Unless you use it to encounter your own vampire, in which case it is a +1 stealth, undirected action. >Cloak the Gathering: "+1 stealth" should be bolded and the >explanation of the card should not. What?! - Come on guys, stick with the program. The +1 Stealth is the regular (non-superior) effect. You'd think you didn't know the difference between an action and an action modifier. (cf: hidden lurker). >The Blood Doll Edition is accurate as of August 31, 1994. ... and not since :-).

gomi no sensei (pech...@nunki.usc.edu) wrote: : Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: : some stuff here i'd like to take issue with or have clarified: : > Out-of-Turn : could we get a ruling on the out-of-turn cards? can you play them on : your turn? the argument's driving the group bugfuck. You seem to have missed the point of the argument. Nobody involved in the argument (AFAIK) is unaware of the _official_ rule, which is that OOTM cards may only be played when it is not your turn. Says so right in the revised rulebook. What people are arguing is whether or not the _original_ rules (the booklet that comes with a starter) said the same thing, and if the English Language/game-specific jargon can bs used one way or the other to support either ruling. In essence - the debate is over, but we're having too much fun arguing to stop. :-) : can you (or anyone on : the design team) give a reason why any player (even a malkavian) would use : a chainsaw when a shotgun was available? Tom has shown the willingness to hazard a guess at the thought behind certain portions of the rules or DT decisions, but the DT itself has never been known for anything other than handing down proclamations without any justification whatsoever. They got people frustrated when they did it with Magic, and now they are getting people frustrated here... : >Q: Vampire "Astrid Thomas": Is "abstain" a vote? i.e. must all : >Tremere vote with her, or can they abstain? : >A: You can abstain from the vote, but if they do vote, they must : >vote in her favor, and if they already voted against, they must : >change their vote. : but if astrid abstains, must all tremere abstain with her? The above ruling woud seem to be indicating that voting is an _active_ process; one can sit on the sidelines. Abstaining is not the same as voting, so it would be fine for Astrid to abstain and other Tremere to vote. [ quoted text not captured ]

>: Q: (Sec 17.1, "Voting") The rule book implies that you cannot play >: additional political vote cards if you used a vote card to call a >: vote. "Additional political cards can also be used by any of the >: other Methusulahs for votes". Can you play additional political >: vote cards? >: A: Yes, all Methusulahs can use political vote cards. >Well, at least this has been officially answered now. Sorry to >disappoint you, Curt... :-) Oh, I was aware of this. My comment was that this permits an apparently problem degenerate deck (weenies and nothing but votes) whereas the rules seem to have been carefully written to bar it. Very dangerous to change rules if they've been put in from playtesting. I have no problem with this ruling per se if people can show that the above mentioned deck is controlled in fairly ordinary play situations. At present there has been only argumentation. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Rotschreck: This card affects the vampire doing the damage. Does this totally contradict what the latest duelist says, and what the card says? pl...@umr.edu

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Rotschreck: This card affects the vampire doing the damage. WRONG what if an Ally (Minion) as the card says is dealing the the damage to the "Vampire" as the card says, are you gonna send youre ivory bow wielding street gang to torpor??? : Q: If I have one blood left in my pool and I am blocked by a : vampire with Aching Beauty, do I go into combat? : A: No you are ousted before combat. WRONG not if you are blocked by Ach Bt, but if your minion blocks a Ach Bt vamp when you have 1 pool then your ousted. Meth's don't lose pool for being blocked by Ached vamps. : Q: If I have a superior Discipline, can I use both the bold type : and the normal type on my card? : A: No. The superior Discipline gives you a choice between the two : options. HUH?? I guess he meant yes : p. 21, Section12.3.1. Encounter vampire in torpor: This is a : directed action. What about encountering your own torpor that's not directed towards yourself is it? because then no one could stop you from rescuing your own vamps : Fame: This should be considered a unique master. Does this mean only one vamp in the entire game can be famous?? These are the things that I find to be incomplete with tom's faq sheet. x

In article <3mj06r$6...@news.nevada.edu>, SCALAR NORSE <wa...@nevada.edu> wrote: >Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: >: Rotschreck: This card affects the vampire doing the damage. > WRONG what if an Ally (Minion) as the card says is dealing the > the damage to the "Vampire" as the card says, are you gonna send youre >ivory bow wielding street gang to torpor??? listen, munchkin-boy. we're not here to listen to your magic-rules-weenie spouting. it's just not usable in the case you (elegantly and clearly) outline. and just saying 'WRONG' is hardly strong argumentation. 'nyah, you have to play my way 'cause i SAID so, so there!' not impressive. >: Q: If I have one blood left in my pool and I am blocked by a >: vampire with Aching Beauty, do I go into combat? >: A: No you are ousted before combat. >WRONG not if you are blocked by Ach Bt, but if your minion blocks a Ach >Bt vamp when you have 1 pool then your ousted. Meth's don't lose pool >for being blocked by Ached vamps. it was a typo. deal. >: Q: If I have a superior Discipline, can I use both the bold type >: and the normal type on my card? >: A: No. The superior Discipline gives you a choice between the two >: options. > HUH?? I guess he meant yes he meant no, as you'd be able to tell if you'd paid attention in remedial reading instead of fondling yourself. pay attention, SCALAR NORSE. this is tricky. tom said you can use EITHER one OR the other, but not BOTH. can you wrap your tiny brain around that concept, prize-winning magic player? >: Fame: This should be considered a unique master. > >Does this mean only one vamp in the entire game can be famous?? why, yes. that's exactly what it means. you really *weren't* paying attention in remedial reading, were you? >These are the things that I find to be incomplete with tom's faq sheet. that WAS tom's faq sheet, you invertebrate. go away. [ quoted text not captured ]

/* ** Note that anything in this FAQ overrides previous design team rulings, ** should there be a conflict. For example, this FAQ contains the official ** interpretation of Fame... */ FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions about Jyhad Compiled by: Chris Ferris, Paul Peterson, Bob Kruger, Matt Burke, Jeff Harris, Shawn F. Carnes, Rich Redman, Scott Hungerford Edited by: JD Wiker This list of questions is intended to clarify the Jyhad rules. These questions and answers are not meant to supercede or substitute for the rules. If any answer below actually modifies or corrects the published rules it will be made clear. Contents: General Rulings General Questions Vampires Allies / Retainers Equipment Master Cards Locations Out-of-Turn Skills Political Actions Actions Action Modifiers Reactions Combat Rules Errata Card Errata General Rulings: First an important overall ruling: A card can be played, even if only part of its requirements are covered. For example Anarch Troublemaker can be played even if your prey only has one vampire in play. Please note that this is completely opposite how we rule on Magic cards. (12/2) Betrayer: 1) You must guess the name of the Vampire. 2)If a player takes control of the vampire that is the target of the betrayer, that player takes the pool loss. If the vampire that is the target of the Betrayer becomes contested, the pool loss stops. Blood Doll: You can draw from a Blood Doll immediately after placing the card on a vampire. Blood Doll gives blood to whomever controls the vampire, even if controller changes. Brainwash: You can not transfer blood off either. Bum's Rush: Being directly attacked does not cause a vampire to become tapped. Charming Lobby: 1) This card requires three vampires to be effective: one to play Charming Lobby, another to call the first vote, and the third to call the second vote. 2) The vote must be succesfully called for it to pass. Cryptic Rider: The vote must be succesfully called for it to pass. Cultivated Blood Shortage: Cultivated Blood Shortage is cumulative. Diablerie: You can fill up your current blood capacity with diablerie, but not the extra point you get from the new skill. Dread Gaze vs. Pulling Strings: Pulling Strings will cancel the Dread Gaze vote. Dodge: This will cancel a first strike. Eagle's Sight: Eagle's Sight can not allow you to block unblockable actions. Fame: Fame is considered unique. Multiple Fames are not cumulative. First Strike: If an opponent declares strike with a weapon, and you play steal weapon with a first strike, the opponent's strike fizzles. Flak Jacket: Flak Jacket cannot protect a retainer. Malkavian Dementia: If the player is ousted before their next untap the Malkavian returns to the original controller. If the Malkavian is under Dementia by one Methuselah and someone else plays Dementia, when they both wear off the Malkavian returns to the original controller, however if someone else takes permanent control before they wear off, than it stays with the new controller. Malkavian Madness Network: If a Malkavian takes an action on your turn using Madness Network, you may not use reaction cards, since the rules state that reaction cards may not be used on your turn. Minor Boon: If a vampire is going to torpor due to combat and a minor boon is played, thus saving it, combat is still over. Ousting: If you manage to oust your prey and your prey's prey at the same time (with a Conservative Agitation vote for example) you only get the six blood and one victory point. Your prey dies, but also gets a victory point. Retainers: When the vampire attacks, the retainer must take their action unless the card states otherwise. Rotschreck: This card affects the vampire doing the damage. Telepathic Counter: You can still block after Telepathic Counter is played. Voting: The Vote card must be shown before blocking is declared. General Questions: Q: How does the sequence of play run? A: (Sec. 12, "What You Can Do On Your Turn") There are five phases to each Methuselah's turn: UNTAP: At the beginning of each turn you must untap any cards that are tapped, including any vampires in torpor. MASTER: You can then play one master card, and any effects generated by master cards also occur. MINION: The minion phase is next, and any untapped minions may take an appropriate action. INFLUENCE: After the minion phase is over, the four transfers allotted for the influence phase may be spent. DISCARD: Once all or any influence is used, the last action a Methuselah may take is to discard one card from her hand and replace it with one from her library. Q: How do I replenish my pool? Can't I take blood off my ready vampires? A: Currently the only time you can remove blood from a ready vampire and place it in your pool is when it has a Blood Doll or a Minion Tap card played on it. Otherwise the Methuselah cannot feed off of his or her minions. There are cards that allow pool increases, and ousting your prey pays off as well. Q: In the section "Winning the Game," (Sec. 18.1) it says that the predator gets the victory point and the blood. What if I bleed someone as a directed action who is not my prey and oust him or her? Shouldn't I get the points and blood? This must be a error. A: Actually, it's not a error. The predator will still get the point and the blood; this encourages everyone to concentrate on his or her prey. Q:What happens when I run out of cards? A:(Sec. 11.4, "Organizing the Cards," and Sec. 18.2, "Withdrawing from the Game") Play continues when you use the last of your library cards. The only time you are out of the game is when you are reduced to zero pool or when you successfully withdraw from the game. Q: When a player is ousted or withdraws, do they take all their cards with them, including those which might have been under the control of some other player? A: Yes, they take all of their cards with them. Q: Who do you bleed? And if I have a card with the D in the circle, who then? And wasn't bleeding a direct action anyway? A: Usually the only one you bleed is your prey. That action is direct, that is, it can only be blocked by your prey. If, however, a card allows you to bleed as a directed action, then you can bleed any Methuselah you like. It's still a direct action, so only the target of the bleed can attempt to block. Q: How fast are cards replaced? For example, suppose I play an Action. Do I immediately draw a card to replace it, so that if it were an appropriate act to the Action? A: Action cards are replaced immediately after they are played. You can use the drawn card to modify the action. Q: What's the deal with contested cards? A: You cannot affect contested cards in any way. (The older FAQ is incorrect in this respect.) Q: Can you do something that is doomed to fail? For example, can you play an Anarch Troublemaker when your prey has no vampires in play? A: Yes. Vampires: Q: What happens when my vampire has no blood counters on it? A: Your vampire only goes into torpor when it is reduced below zero blood. If it is reduced to zero, then the next turn it must hunt as an action; a vampire can take no other action unless it has at least one blood. Q: How do I get out of torpor? A: If your vampire went into torpor with counters still on it (by paralyzation or by aggravated damage), then it can, as an action, rescue itself at the cost of two blood. If it doesn't have enough, then it can be rescued by another minion. The rescuing minion taps to visit the vampire in torpor and must spend two of its blood, or both the rescuing vampire and the rescued vampire spend one blood each. The vampire so rescued is then active again, but if it has no blood, it must hunt the next turn. Q: My vampire went into torpor tapped but he had enough blood to get himself out. How can he get himself out if he's tapped? A: Even vampires in torpor untap during the untap phase. Q: If someone has a vampire in torpor with Haven Uncovered played on it, can I diablerize it or attack it with +1 stealth? A: Once a vampire is in torpor it is no longer "ready," so it cannot be the object of the Haven Uncovered. Once the vampire escapes torpor, however, it is prey to the effects of the card again. Q: What happens to my equipment, etc., when my vampire becomes an invalid target (i.e., it goes into torpor)? A:The equipment and all modifiers stay on a vampire when it goes into torpor. Q: When does my vampire heal itself with stolen blood? The example in the book I got in my card pack is confusing. A: The example in the rules prior to the "Duelist Companion" rules release refers to an early conception of the rules. The example is in error. Stolen blood can immediately heal a vampire. This may prevent a vampire's going into torpor on the strike phase during which it stole the blood, as long as the vampire striking it does not do enough "first strike" damage to send it into torpor. In that case, the vampire attempting to steal blood is considered to have not even gotten the opportunity to steal blood before being sent to torpor. Q: In Section 7.2.2 Minion Cards, it says the same action modifier or reaction card cannot be used twice in the same action by the same MINION, but in Sections 13.2 and 14 it says the same card cannot be used twice in the same action by the same PLAYER. Which is correct? A: Minion is correct. The same action modifier or reaction card may not be played by the same Minion in the same action. Q: Is Caitiff a "clan" for the purposes of cards where you choose a clan (such as Consanguineous Boon)? A: Caitiff are clanless. Q: If something gives control of a vampire to a different player, do all cards played on that vampire stay on it? A: Yes. Q: Sabine Lafitte: Can you transfer blood onto an uncontrolled Tremere, or does "in the game" mean "in play"? A: Not to an uncontrolled vampire, but you can to a vampire in torpor. It should read "in play." Q: Uriah Winter will still defect (if appropriate) if he's in torpor, right? And I assume that if so, he will go to the new controller's torpor region. A: This is correct. Q: If I have a vampire that has no blood on it; can I skip the Minion phase to avoid hunting? A: No. Allies / Retainers: Q: Are allies linked to one vampire? How are they different from retainers? A: Allies are not linked to vampires as retainers are; allies are simply called to the service of a Methuselah by a vampire capable of taking an action. Both allies and retainers are mortal, but retainers are not considered minions. In fact, retainers are the equivalent of vampire modifier cards that can be destroyed by ranged damage only. Allies, however, can take actions of their own accord. Q: In Section 12.3.1 Minion Actions/Recruit Ally, it says allies can block and bleed. Are these the only actions they can take, i.e., can allies be equipped, employ retainers, or encounter vampires in torpor? A: Allies can be equipped as they are minions, they may employ human retainers (it says so in the second sentence of Employ Retainer), but they cannot encounter vamps in torpor (16.3 says only vamps may do so). Q: Please explain Wolf Companion. A: Note: All of these also apply to Murder of Crows except [c]: a) The Wolf's damage is not a strike, and therefore cannot be prevented by Dodge. b) Combat Ends will stop it, since you never reach the damage- dealing part. c) It only deals damage at close range. d) The Wolf does its damage each round of combat, but not during "additional strike" strikes. e) Its number of lives depends only on the skill of the recruiting vampire at the time it is recruited; if the skill changes later, the Wolf doesn't change. f) If the vampire goes to torpor due to a First Strike with aggravated damage, the Wolf does not do its damage. Q: Suppose a vampire is in torpor, has no blood, but has Charnas on it. The vampire untaps; does anything bad happen to the vampire? A: Charnas does nothing to a minion with no blood that untaps in torpor. Q: Is the Ghoul retainer that same as the Wolf companion? That is, if I attack do I have to use its ability? A: Yes. Equipment: Q: Chainsaw and Talbot's Chainsaw aren't ranged but don't say Melee Weapon. Are they a special class of non-ranged non-melee weapon, or should they have errata adding "Melee"? A: The Chainsaw and Talbot's Chainsaw are not considered melee weapons, because cards that add to melee damage (such as Growing Fury) do not add to the damage done by chainsaws. Master Cards: Q: I have a vampire with Blood Doll played on her but the vampire is contested. Can I still get blood from her? A: No. The vampire is considered out of the influence of either Methuselah. Q: My opponent gains control of one of my vampires with Blood Doll played upon it. Do I get the blood, or does my opponent? A: Your opponent now gets the blood from the Blood Doll. Q: Vast Wealth: If you use this ability, are you forced to purchase the weapon you locate or can you look at what it is and then decide whether to purchase it or not? If the latter, what happens when the weapon costs 5 blood and you only have 4 blood left in your pool? A: If you choose to use the Vast Wealth, then you must use the weapon you pull out. If you do not have enough blood to pay, then you are ousted. Q: Anarch Troublemaker: Can you use this if your prey has only one untapped vampire? A: Yes. You may tap up to two minions. Q: Can Gird Minions be used to put blood on a vampire in torpor? It sort of seems like one shouldn't be able to, but there's nothing in the rules or on the card stopping this. Can this be done, and if not, exactly where does it say that it can't be done? And is it the same for Minion Tap? A: Yes, it can be done, for both Gird Minions and Minion Tap. Q: Deal with the Devil: Do I draw a new card (to replace Deal with the Devil) and then discard my hand? A: No You discard your remaining cards, then draw the new hand. Q: If I have one blood left in my pool and I am blocked by a vampire with Aching Beauty, do I go into combat? A: No you are ousted before combat. Master Cards: Locations Q: I have a unique location master card, and someone else just played one. How does this work? A: (Sec. 8, "Contested Cards") Just like contested vampires: they go face down and each owner loses one blood each untap until he yields his card, or until his card is the only one remaining, at which point it is put into play on his side. If someone wants to burn a contested unique location as a direct action, he or she is automatically successful. Q: Can I play multiple Hunting Ground cards? It says on the Hunting Ground cards that "only one blood can be given to a vampire from Hunting Ground cards each turn"? A: Yes. What it should say is that each vampire can "receive" no more than one blood from Hunting Ground cards each turn. If you have two vampires out that are below capacity and you have two Hunting Ground cards out, you can give each vampire a blood point during untap: one point to one vampire for one Hunting Ground. Q: In the FAQ, it says that if one contested unique location is burned, then all cards contesting the location are burned. Why? A: This is a mistake. Contested cards may not be affected by any card that does not specifically do so. Q: Maybe I'm just missing something in the rules, but what happens if one person wants to use Elysium, and another person wants to use Trap? Who goes first? Would it be acting player then blocking/victim player than all other players in the game, or what? A: The order is: acting player, blocking player, and then clockwise from the acting player. Q: Another "slap" situation. One player has Elysium, and another has the vampire Mariel. Each of these must be used at the beginning of combat, before range is determined, and each of them ends the combat immediately. So using one makes using the other illegal. What if both players try to use them simultaneously -- who gets priority? A: The order is: acting player, blocking player, and then clockwise from the acting player. Q: The Barrens: Can you use it if you have no cards in your hand? A: Yes. Q: Is using the Chantry optional? A: Yes Master Cards: Out-of-Turn Q: Sudden Reversal doesn't retroactively undo the card being burned, it just gives the master's controller any pool back, right? So for example, if I use Sudden Reversal to burn someone else's out-of-turn card as they play it, they would still lose their next master phase, right? A: This is correct. It still counts as being played for Giant's Blood or out-of-turn Master cards. Q: In the list of official rulings, it said that Sudden Reversal could be used to burn a card in play as well as one being played. Can you confirm this ruling? A: You cannot use it to burn a card in play. Q: Brujah Frenzy: Can you have the Brujah attack someone who is already tapped (like a directed attack) or not? A: You can have the Brujah attack a tapped minion. Master Cards: Skills Q: If I have a superior Discipline, can I use both the bold type and the normal type on my card? A: No. The superior Discipline gives you a choice between the two options. Political Actions: Q: When can a vote be called? A: (Sec. 17.1, "Voting") Calling a vote is an action that must be taken by one of your minions. The only other vote in Jyhad besides ones written out on cards is for a bloodhunt (Sec. 16.3, "Diablerie"). Q: My vote card says Prince or Justicar. Now what? A: The only minion that can call that particular vote would be a vampire with the appropriate title. Any ready vampire can call a vote that states "All Kindred." Q: Can my ally call a vote? A: Any card that states "Kindred" excludes allies. An ally is a minion but is not Kindred. (Allies are mortal.) Q: Can I just make up a referendum? The referendum for the vote is described on the vote card; you cannot arbitrarily make one up. Q: Does the vote on the vote card count towards my referendum? A:Yes, when you call a vote, the card itself is worth one vote. Q:What happens when a vote ties? A: (Sec. 17.1, "Voting") A tied vote is a failed vote. Q: (Sec 17.1, "Voting") The rule book implies that you cannot play additional political vote cards if you used a vote card to call a vote. "Additional political cards can also be used by any of the other Methusulahs for votes". Can you play additional political vote cards? A: Yes, all Methusulahs can use political vote cards. Q: If I throw in another card from my hand for one vote, do I replace it right away -- thus possibly getting another vote card? A: (Sec. 17.1, "Voting") No; cards do not get replaced until the vote is concluded. Q: Ok, I've got a Justicar, but he's tapped. Do I still get his votes? A: (Sec. 11.1, "The Playing Area") He sure does, because tapped minions are considered "ready." Q: What about my Primogen in torpor? Can't she vote? A: (Sec. 11.1, "The Playing Area" and Sec. 17.1, "Voting") Vampires in torpor are not considered "ready" and cannot lend their votes. Q: Vampire "Astrid Thomas": Is "abstain" a vote? i.e. must all Tremere vote with her, or can they abstain? A: You can abstain from the vote, but if they do vote, they must vote in her favor, and if they already voted against, they must change their vote. Q: What happens if Peace Treaty is played and I want to keep a free weapon, such as a Grenade? A: You can keep free weapons without paying any cost, including 1- cost weapons on Black Cat. Q: If a Primogen, Prince, or Justicar is given a new office by a Praxis Seizure or a Justicar card, does she keep the original title as well? Does she get the votes for both titles, for only her original title, for only the new title, or for whichever gives the higher number of votes? A: Any vampire given a new office relinquishes their old office in favor of the new -- even if this is a demotion (from Justicar to Prince, for example). Q: Is the First Tradition cumulative? A: Yes, they would happen at the same time. So if you paid two blood, you would still have to skip a turn unless you paid another two. But if you just skipped three turns it would satisfy both of them. Actions: Q: Can I use the +1 stealth on an action card to increase the stealth of another action? A: No, because you'd need an action modifier card. The action card merely indicates that that particular action has an intrinsic stealth bonus. Q: At the top of my action card it says +1 Stealth in bold typeface. Do I have to have a superior Discipline to use this card? A: The +1 stealth covers both aspects of the card, so whichever level discipline you have, and whichever one you choose, the action is still at +1 stealth. Q: OK, so it's been established that I could use Govern the Unaligned, or a similar action, to put blood on someone else' uncontrolled vampire. Would that vampire pop out at the end of my influence phase, or at the end of the other player's influence phase? A: The vamp would pop out at the end of its Methuselah's influence. Q: Kine Resources Contested: Can you divide the points by giving 4 points to one and zero points to the other? A: At least one point must be allocated to each Methuselah chosen. Q: If you take an action, no one blocks, and you play an action modifier to make it nastier, can they then decide to block after all? A: No. The decision to block or not is final. Q: If Pulse of the Canaille is played on a Vampire that has Gangrel De-Evolution played on it, what is the vampires Bleed? A: Their bleed is 2. Action Modifiers: Q: When exactly can and can't Action Modifiers be played? A: They can be used both before and after an action is blocked, so you can wait until after they decide to not block to play Conditioning. Q: In Stealth and Intercept (section 13.3.2), it says that if the intercept of the minion attempting to block is less than the the stealth of the acting minion, the blocking minion is left untapped, and another minion may attempt to block. Please confirm that the acting minion would still enjoy any increased stealth, and the second attempt to block would have to match that increased stealth. A: The acting minion would still enjoy all benefits derived from the action modifiers played earlier. Q: Can Mask of a Thousand Faces be used if the Masking vampire couldn't legally perform the current action? For example, can I attack a vampire with my Muddled Vampire Hunter and then take over with another vampire using the Mask? Part of me says that it shouldn't be able to, but I think that's just the how this all works in "reality", and I think the card would allow the vampire to Mask an "illegal" action in this manner. A: You can use the Mask of 1000 Faces to make a minion perform an action that they normally couldn't. Q: Also, are action modifiers applied to the acting vampire, or to the action itself? For example, suppose a vampire used Earth Control to increase its stealth, then a vampire takes over with the Mask. Does it still enjoy the increased stealth? Does it matter whether the new vampire has Protean? (I don't think whether it has Protean should be relevant, but am unsure about whether the stealth would still apply.) I can really see arguments for both sides on this one. A: Modifiers are applied to the action itself. Q: Cloak the Gathering: The rules, in section 7.2.2., say "The same action modifier card type cannot be used twice by a minion during the same action." Cloak the Gathering is an odd action modifier which can be used either by the acting minion on itself, or (with superior Obfuscate) can be used by a non-acting minion on the acting minion. I believe that it is legal for two different minions to use Cloak the Gathering during the same action, but not for the same minion to use it twice. Is this correct? A: Two different minions can use Cloak of the Gathering to modify the same action. Q: Cryptic Mission: Can you play Cryptic Mission on a vampire that has no blood? A: Yes. Q: If I use the Mask of 1,000 Faces and the original Vampire had a Laptop or a Bomb, can the new vampire use them? A: No. Reactions: Q: When can I play a reaction card? A: A reaction card can only be played in response to the actions of another Methuselah's minion. Q: Can any minion play a reaction card? What if she's tapped? A: A tapped minion cannot react (bring a reaction card into play). The untapped minion that plays a reaction, however, does not become tapped. Q: If the Superior version of Form of Mist is used, then the action resumes with another +1 stealth stacked on top of it, right? So any previous stealth would be in effect, Dawn Operation would still apply if the action is blocked a second time, and so on? A: This is correct. All previous stealth bonuses still apply. Q: If Obedience is used, then the vampire which was blocked cannot perform the same action again that turn. Is each type of Bleed considered a different action? For example, if a vampire was blocked from Computer Hacking and Obedience was then used, would it be able to use Social Charm later that turn? A: Each type of Bleed is a different action. Q: Suppose the blocked vampire was trying to rescue a vampire from torpor. I assume the actual action here was "encounter a vampire in torpor", not "rescue a vampire from torpor" or "rescue Ricki from torpor", and thus it couldn't try to rescue or diablerize anything else that turn? A: You can try to rescue a different vampire. Each action is very specific: ie, rescue "Ricki" from torpor. Q: Pulled Fangs: Must the two actions be taken in the same turn, or can they be done on two separate turns? Can they be done by two different vampires, or must they be both done by the same vampire? A: It takes two actions, which can be undertaken by different vampires on different turns. Q: Just how pervasive is Eagle's Sight? I'm assuming the vampire using it would still have to raise its intercept to match the acting minion's stealth, but would it allow the reacting vampire to block "unblockable" actions such as anything modified by Day Operation? Would it allow the vampire to block after all other vampires have decided whether to block, a la Anneke? A: You must still have intercept equal to the stealth value of the acting minion, but you cannot block a Day Operation. Q: If I want to use Telepathic Counter against my opponent's bleed and he wants to use Spying Mission, who wins? A: Telepathic Counter would win, because the card reduces the bleed to 0, therefore Spying Mission would have no effect. Q: Can you play a Reaction after your opponent plays an Action Modifier, or only directly after they play the Action? (Specific situation: Rob bleeds Roy. Roy declines to block, but plays the reaction Telepathic Counter. Rob plays the action modifier Conditioning. Roy plays the reaction Telepathic Misdirection. Rob claims that this is illegal, that Roy passed his chance to play additional Reactions and so can't play one now.) A: It is legal to play reaction cards both before and after action modifiers. Combat: Q: What is the combat sequence? A: (Sec. 15, "Combat") 1. Choose Range: There are two ranges, close and long. Range starts at close and can only be changed by maneuvering. Any number of maneuvers may occur until range has been determined; however, each maneuver after the first must be played only to cancel another maneuver. (I cannot just throw out five maneuvers to allow myself to draw five new cards, for instance.) I can play a maneuver to make combat long range, my opponent can then play a maneuver to cancel mine and make the combat short, and I can then play one to cancel hers and make it long again; we play maneuvers back and forth until one of us stops. 2. Choose Strike: The second phase is to choose strike. A strike can be by hand, by weapon, or by a combat card specifically stating "strike." After each minion has declared its strike, damage is determined and combat ends unless one or the other minion "presses," which begins the whole round again. Q: What does "press to end" mean? A: Press to end allows you to counteract your opponent's press to continue combat, but does not allow you to press to continue combat. Presses can continue to be played until the final press played determines the outcome. Q: I played "Strike: Combat Ends" and my opponent played "strike: dodge." It says that dodge negates opponent's strike. What happens? A: (Sec. 15.3, "Special Combat Effects") Well, "Combat Ends" takes place before any other strike can take effect: Combat Ends beats any other card out there. (Note that the acting minion must declare its strike first.) Q: If the acting minion plays a Combat Ends strike card, does the combat end instantly, or does it end in the "resolve strike" step? A: Combat ends instantly, so you cannot play a strike card afterward. Q: How do additional strikes work? A: An additional strike allows the minion to strike two or more times in a single round. If the other minion does not have additional strikes, it cannot do damage back during strikes after the first. Range is not changed in the additional strikes. Q:What exactly does "once per combat" mean? A: Once per combat means once during the entire confrontation, including any additional rounds due to presses that may prolong the combat. If you get one maneuver per combat, and you maneuver in the first round, you've used your manuevers from that card and must find another card source if you want to maneuver again. Q: My Gun says "3R" on it. What's the "R" mean? A: It means that it delivers 3 points of damage either at long range or short range. Some cards with the "R" on it (eg, Thrown Sewer Lid) can only be effective from long range, but "R" does not mean that it must be at long range to work. Q: How does aggravated damage work? A: Aggravated damage automatically sends your vampire to torpor. The first point of Aggravated Damage doesn't cause the vampire to spend a point of blood to heal, but every point after that does. If Aggravated Damage totals more than your vampire has blood to heal, your vampire is destroyed. This does not count as Diablerie. Q: If a vampire with 1 blood is hit by a 3-point (or greater) aggravated damage strike, does the vampire go to torpor and then to the ashheap, or does it just go straight to the ashheap? (This is a critical difference if the vampire has Fame...) A: The vampire goes straight to the Ashheap. Q: If a vampire receives both aggravated and normal damage at the same time, which is applied first? A: Regular damage is applied first. Q: The rules say: "You may only use hand damage modifiers on melee-type weapons (such as knives, clubs, etc.)." Does "hand damage modifiers" refer only to +N Hand Damage effects, or does it include other modifiers such as those that make hand damage aggravated? A: It only includes the +N Hand Damage. You cannot use Wolf Claws to make the Bastard Sword's damage aggravated. Q: Can you choose "no strike" as your strike, or must you choose one of "normal hand attack, weapon, or strike card"? A: You cannot choose "no strike" as your strike. Q: I have a "Strike: Steal Weapon" card. Can I take my prey's Hawg? It's got that little gun on it, right? A: Well, sure itÕs got the picture, but for the card to qualify as a weapon it must also state "weapon" in the card text. The symbol stands for "equipment" only. Q: Fast Hands: Can you attempt to steal equipment if your opponent has none? A: Yes. Q: Dragon Breath Rounds in a Zip Gun: Do the rounds add +2 aggravated damage to just the strike, or do they also add it to the damage done to the bearer of the zip gun? A: Dragon Breath Round just add to the strike damage. Q: Can Skin of Steel prevent previous damage in a round? A: No, it can only prevent current and future damage. Rules Errata: p. 20, Section12.3.1. Bleed: Bleeding is a directed action. p. 21, Section12.3.1. Encounter vampire in torpor: This is a directed action. p. 29, Section14. Summary of the Course of an Action: In the fourth step, the second sentence should read, "The Methuselah must then pay any cost associated with the action." Thus, if an action is unsuccessful, no cost is paid. p. 31 Section15.1. Choose Strike: In the fifth sentence it reads, "If weapons were not used to maneuver, then, after range is determined, the player with the acting minion first decides the manner in which the minion is blocking." It should read, "...in which the minion is striking." p. 37, Section16.1 Going Into Torpor: Add, "Any retainers and equipment stay with the vampire going into torpor." p. 38, Section16.3. Diablerie: Bloodhunts are voted upon with the usual voting procedure, except the Methuselah calling the bloodhunt does not receive an automatic vote. Card Errata: Anarch Troublemaker: Should say "During Untap..." Cat Burglary: This card reads incorrectly. It will be fixed in the next version. Cloak the Gathering: "+1 stealth" should be bolded and the explanation of the card should not. Disputed Territory: This is a political card. The Embrace: The vampire created is the same clan as its creator. Fame: This should be considered a unique master. The Fourth Tradition: The Accounting: This card should be an action card, not a master card, but it has the gray master card border. Grenade: It should read: "If grenade is used at close range, bearer suffers 1 damage." [Otherwise, it's a misplaced modifier.] Malkavian Time Auction: Should say "person who played Time Auction may not bid." The Spawning Pool: This is a master card and as such should have a gray background, but instead it has the minion card (ochre-red) background. The Third Tradition: Progeny: The vampire created is the same clan as its creator. Ventrue Justicar: If vote is successful, the vampire becomes the Ventrue Justicar, not the Tremere Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >: Q: If I have a superior Discipline, can I use both the bold type >: and the normal type on my card? >: A: No. The superior Discipline gives you a choice between the two >: options. > > HUH?? I guess he meant yes > No, he meant no. The question is using "and" as a logical operator, "can I do the bold type and the normal type at the same time with the same card" -- so I could make my hand damage agg AND get a press with one card. I would love to see someone answer the question with "No, you can use the bold type xor the normal type." I'm sure that would make the english picking ppl happy. -steve ker...@geoworks.com

gomi no sensei (pech...@phakt.usc.edu) wrote: : listen, munchkin-boy. we're not here to listen to your magic-rules-weenie : he meant no, as you'd be able to tell if you'd paid attention in remedial : reading instead of fondling yourself. : can you wrap your tiny brain around that concept, prize-winning magic : player? : that WAS tom's faq sheet, you invertebrate. Cool your jets, man, there's no need for this kind of attitude. Erik

gomi no sensei (pech...@phakt.usc.edu) wrote: : In article <3mj06r$6...@news.nevada.edu>, SCALAR NORSE <wa...@nevada.edu> wrote: : > WRONG what if an Ally (Minion) as the card says is dealing the : > the damage to the "Vampire" as the card says, are you gonna send youre : >ivory bow wielding street gang to torpor??? : listen, munchkin-boy. we're not here to listen to your magic-rules-weenie : spouting. it's just not usable in the case you (elegantly and clearly) : outline. and just saying 'WRONG' is hardly strong argumentation. : 'nyah, you have to play my way 'cause i SAID so, so there!' not impressive. His arguement was completly logical. The way the card reads, the vampire about to recieve agrivated damage should go to torper. And I can not believe what you wrote, "and just saying 'WRONG' is hardly a strong argumentation". Uhh.. he didn't just say wrong, but he had alot of words after the word wrong. : >: Fame: This should be considered a unique master. : > : >Does this mean only one vamp in the entire game can be famous?? : why, yes. that's exactly what it means. you really *weren't* paying : attention in remedial reading, were you? Oh I see, you missed his point. His point was that it doesn't really make sense that there could only be one famous vamp. It does make sense by the rules (since it is unique, there can be only one). pl...@umr.edu

>Compiled by: Chris Ferris, Paul Peterson, Bob Kruger, Matt Burke, >Jeff Harris, Shawn F. Carnes, Rich Redman, Scott Hungerford >Edited by: JD Wiker >This list of questions is intended to clarify the Jyhad rules. >These questions and answers are not meant to supercede or >substitute for the rules. If any answer below actually modifies or >corrects the published rules it will be made clear. I agree with most of the rulings here, and some of them address important issued omitted from the rules (most notably simultaneous cards). Those ruling have been omitted from the list to spare everybody lots of quotations and OK's. There are a lot of rulings I disagree with. Attached are most of the relevant rulings and my rejoinders. I have omitted some rulings where I could not state my position pithily enough for a laundry list like this. Those who care can check my positions on L. Scott Johnson's House Rules compilation. >Retainers: When the vampire attacks, the retainer must take their >action unless the card states otherwise. But "can strike" apparently doesn't allow not striking. What WOULD the card have to say? >Rotschreck: This card affects the vampire doing the damage. Would you talk to White Wolf about this? Being targeted by sunlight or flame does not protect a vampire from Rotschreck - indeed, that causes it. >Q: Who do you bleed? And if I have a card with the D in the >circle, who then? And wasn't bleeding a direct action anyway? >A: Usually the only one you bleed is your prey. That action is >direct, that is, it can only be blocked by your prey. If, >however, a card allows you to bleed as a directed action, then you >can bleed any Methuselah you like. It's still a direct action, so >only the target of the bleed can attempt to block. So the (D) on the card overrides the text of the action? Just asking for clarification, and setting a trap. >Q: How do I get out of torpor? >A: If your vampire went into torpor with counters still on it (by >paralyzation or by aggravated damage), then it can, as an action, >rescue itself at the cost of two blood. If it doesn't have enough, >then it can be rescued by another minion. The rescuing minion taps >to visit the vampire in torpor and must spend two of its blood, or >both the rescuing vampire and the rescued vampire spend one blood >each. The vampire so rescued is then active again, but if it has >no blood, it must hunt the next turn. The rulebook specifically allows the rescuee to spend both the blood. Why do you want to change this? >Q: When does my vampire heal itself with stolen blood? The example >in the book I got in my card pack is confusing. >A: The example in the rules prior to the "Duelist Companion" rules >release refers to an early conception of the rules. The example is >in error. Stolen blood can immediately heal a vampire. This may >prevent a vampire's going into torpor on the strike phase during >which it stole the blood, as long as the vampire striking it does >not do enough "first strike" damage to send it into torpor. In >that case, the vampire attempting to steal blood is considered to >have not even gotten the opportunity to steal blood before being >sent to torpor. The earlier rules avert certain timing issues that arise under these rules. >Q: In Section 7.2.2 Minion Cards, it says the same action modifier >or reaction card cannot be used twice in the same action by the >same MINION, but in Sections 13.2 and 14 it says the same card >cannot be used twice in the same action by the same PLAYER. Which >is correct? >A: Minion is correct. The same action modifier or reaction card >may not be played by the same Minion in the same action. This causes a slew of problems with the Mask. "Once per minion" is not incompatible with "once per Methuseleh", just an additional restriction. Cloak won't need any fixing if you stick to the rulebook. >Q: Sabine Lafitte: Can you transfer blood onto an uncontrolled >Tremere, or does "in the game" mean "in play"? >A: Not to an uncontrolled vampire, but you can to a vampire in >torpor. It should read "in play." "Controlled vampire" would be more precise. >Q: Chainsaw and Talbot's Chainsaw aren't ranged but don't say >Melee Weapon. Are they a special class of non-ranged non-melee >weapon, or should they have errata adding "Melee"? >A: The Chainsaw and Talbot's Chainsaw are not considered melee >weapons, because cards that add to melee damage (such as Growing >Fury) do not add to the damage done by chainsaws. Why don't you just say "they're not melee weapons because they're not melee weapons"? :-) We all know they don't say "melee" but would work better if they did. You change other cards, why not these? >Q: My opponent gains control of one of my vampires with Blood Doll >played upon it. Do I get the blood, or does my opponent? >A: Your opponent now gets the blood from the Blood Doll. This isn't a big deal, but the card does say "you" and not "the controller". Was there a problem with Blood Dolled Uriah Winters? >Q: If I have one blood left in my pool and I am blocked by a >vampire with Aching Beauty, do I go into combat? >A: No you are ousted before combat. Please proof these before posting. Should be "I block", not "am blocked by". >Q: In the FAQ, it says that if one contested unique location is >burned, then all cards contesting the location are burned. Why? >A: This is a mistake. Contested cards may not be affected by any >card that does not specifically do so. So I can prevent the Rowan Ring from being stolen by whipping out another with Disquised Weapon? I can make the Elysium fireproof by contesting my own? "Sorry, you can't steal the Rowan Ring because I'm not sure whether I should have it, or whether it should be given to me" At least one of the clans prone to do this is the Malkavians :-) >Q: Is using the Chantry optional? >A: Yes >Q: Is the Ghoul retainer that same as the Wolf companion? That is, >if I attack do I have to use its ability? >A: Yes. How does one determine which card are mandatory and which aren't? Why are ones phrased to be mandatory (like Chantry) optional and ones phrased to be optional (like Ghoul Retainer) not? Is there some compelling reason for playing around with the cards like this? >Q: (Sec 17.1, "Voting") The rule book implies that you cannot play >additional political vote cards if you used a vote card to call a >vote. "Additional political cards can also be used by any of the >other Methusulahs for votes". Can you play additional political >vote cards? >A: Yes, all Methusulahs can use political vote cards. Question here (no offense intended). How do you folks playtest the rules changes you make? Changes like this can have major repercussions, and I am not convinced they've all been considered. >Q: Cloak the Gathering: The rules, in section 7.2.2., say "The >same action modifier card type cannot be used twice by a minion >during the same action." >Cloak the Gathering is an odd action modifier which can be used >either by the acting minion on itself, or (with superior >Obfuscate) can be used by a non-acting minion on the acting >minion. I believe that it is legal for two different minions to >use Cloak the Gathering during the same action, but not for the >same minion to use it twice. Is this correct? >A: Two different minions can use Cloak of the Gathering to modify >the same action. Is this the reason for the bizarre Cloak errata later? >Q: When can I play a reaction card? >A: A reaction card can only be played in response to the actions >of another Methuselah's minion. So then I CAN react to a Madness Networked Malkavian, right? >Q: Suppose the blocked vampire was trying to rescue a vampire from >torpor. I assume the actual action here was "encounter a vampire >in torpor", not "rescue a vampire from torpor" or "rescue Ricki >from torpor", and thus it couldn't try to rescue or diablerize >anything else that turn? >A: You can try to rescue a different vampire. Each action is very >specific: ie, rescue "Ricki" from torpor. Hey, my rulebook only mentions the "encounter" action. No such thing as a "rescue" action. I assume this also means that Bum's Rushing Gilbert is a different action from Bum's Rushing Anson. >Card Errata: >Anarch Troublemaker: Should say "During Untap..." Are you sure about this? You realize it can still zip around the table during untap, since you don't specify WHOSE untap. >Cat Burglary: This card reads incorrectly. It will be fixed in the >next version. While you "fix" this, have you considered having at least one bleed card work like a cardless bleed? If you change the definition of "directed" you have to change all "directed" cards that will be affected by the new definition, not just a few that are outrageously at odds with your new definition. Redefining your terms does not excuse (or test) altering every bleed card in the game. >Cloak the Gathering: "+1 stealth" should be bolded and the >explanation of the card should not. Are you converting this to an action card? Look at all the trouble from removing the original restriction of "one of each action modifier, per Methuseleh, per action". >Fame: This should be considered a unique master. Much better than restricting it. >The Blood Doll Edition is accurate as of August 31, 1994. Since you negate some of the rulings in the Blood Doll Edition, shouldn't you mention, rather, that it is inaccurate as of April 1995? :-) Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

gomi no sensei <pech...@nunki.usc.edu> wrote: >> Out-of-Turn >could we get a ruling on the out-of-turn cards? can you play them on >your turn? the argument's driving the group bugfuck. You cannot use Out of Turn cards during your turn. I'll try to make sure this gets into the next version of the FAQ. >>Q: Chainsaw and Talbot's Chainsaw aren't ranged but don't say >>Melee Weapon. Are they a special class of non-ranged non-melee >>weapon, or should they have errata adding "Melee"? >>A: The Chainsaw and Talbot's Chainsaw are not considered melee >>weapons, because cards that add to melee damage (such as Growing >>Fury) do not add to the damage done by chainsaws. >um, tom? that's a bogus answer. 'strike: use hand or melee weapon at +n >damage' cards do not apply to chainsaw and tc _because_ they're not melee >weapons, not the other way around... Replace "because" with "so". >is the design team aware >of the chainsaw's vast inferiority on a pool-for-pool and damage-for-damage >basis when compared to the sawed-off shotgun?... Yes, but this is the sort of thing one fixes in future editions, not that one issues errata for. >>Master Cards: Skills >>Q: If I have a superior Discipline, can I use both the bold type >>and the normal type on my card? >>A: No. The superior Discipline gives you a choice between the two >>options. >shouldn't this go under 'general rules,' since it's not a question about >master: skill cards at all? Probably a good idea. >>Q: Vampire "Astrid Thomas": Is "abstain" a vote? i.e. must all >>Tremere vote with her, or can they abstain? >>A: You can abstain from the vote, but if they do vote, they must >>vote in her favor, and if they already voted against, they must >>change their vote. >but if astrid abstains, must all tremere abstain with her? No. "If Astrid votes..." >>Cloak the Gathering: "+1 stealth" should be bolded and the >>explanation of the card should not. Ignore this entry. It's a mistake. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Shane Hamish William Travis <sht...@duke.usask.ca> wrote: >: Fame: Fame is considered unique. Multiple Fames are not >: cumulative. >Interesting. So by 'unique', does this mean that there can only ever be >one famous vampire, or that one vampire can only ever be singly famous? >Does it follow the regular rules for unique cards, i.e. contesting? It follows the normal rules for unique cards, yes. >: Malkavian Madness Network: If a Malkavian takes an action on your >: turn using Madness Network, you may not use reaction cards, since >: the rules state that reaction cards may not be used on your turn. >Would have been nice to see the clarification about 'no action cards may >be played' here as well - it _is_sort of buried deep within the rulebook. Something else I'll get added. >: Q: When can I play a reaction card? >: A: A reaction card can only be played in response to the actions >: of another Methuselah's minion. >BZZZT! Contradiction alert. This looks suspiciously like the ruling that >was in place _before_ the 'clarification' of Malk.Madness Network... I'll see about getting it cleared up. >: Q: How does aggravated damage work? >: A: Aggravated damage automatically sends your vampire to torpor. >: The first point of Aggravated Damage doesn't cause the vampire to >: spend a point of blood to heal, but every point after that does. >: If Aggravated Damage totals more than your vampire has blood to >: heal, your vampire is destroyed. This does not count as Diablerie. >Well, Scott - looks like the 1 agg + Pulled Fangs will burn a 0-blood >vamp after all, under this ruling... Blah. The "if... destroyed" sentence is wrong. Will get that fixed. >: Cat Burglary: This card reads incorrectly. It will be fixed in the >: next version. >If you know, care to give us a hint as to what it's going to say so that >all the ones out there right now aren't just so much expensive wallpaper? Not my place to decide whether it should be included. >: Fame: This should be considered a unique master. >Well, I guess this clarifies the questions I had above. This'd make it >_really_ hard for it to be cumulative, now wouldn't it? :-) Yup :) >: The Blood Doll Edition is accurate as of August 31, 1994. >Might wanna change this date now... Doh! [ quoted text not captured ]

SCALAR NORSE <wa...@nevada.edu> wrote: >: Rotschreck: This card affects the vampire doing the damage. > WRONG what if an Ally (Minion) as the card says is dealing the > the damage to the "Vampire" as the card says, are you gonna send youre >ivory bow wielding street gang to torpor??? It cannot be played on a non-vampire. >: Q: If I have one blood left in my pool and I am blocked by a >: vampire with Aching Beauty, do I go into combat? >: A: No you are ousted before combat. >WRONG not if you are blocked by Ach Bt, but if your minion blocks a Ach >Bt vamp when you have 1 pool then your ousted. Meth's don't lose pool >for being blocked by Ached vamps. Aching Beauty specifically says the blocking Methuselah loses 1 pool. Perhaps you're thinking of Camarilla Exemplary. >: Q: If I have a superior Discipline, can I use both the bold type >: and the normal type on my card? >: A: No. The superior Discipline gives you a choice between the two >: options. > HUH?? I guess he meant yes The question is asking whether you can use both at once. Will get that clarified. >: p. 21, Section12.3.1. Encounter vampire in torpor: This is a >: directed action. > What about encountering your own torpor that's not directed towards > yourself is it? because then no one could stop you from rescuing > your own vamps Hm. Encountering your own vampires should be non-directed. >: Fame: This should be considered a unique master. >Does this mean only one vamp in the entire game can be famous?? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>Minor Boon: If a vampire is going to torpor due to combat and a >>minor boon is played, thus saving it, combat is still over. >Can you Minor Boon, then pull fangs (thus sending him to torpor again?). No. Minor Boon would be played after effects like Pulled Fangs would be. >>Q: Who do you bleed? And if I have a card with the D in the >>circle, who then? And wasn't bleeding a direct action anyway? >>A: Usually the only one you bleed is your prey. That action is >>direct, that is, it can only be blocked by your prey. If, >>however, a card allows you to bleed as a directed action, then you >>can bleed any Methuselah you like. It's still a direct action, so >>only the target of the bleed can attempt to block. >Now it's a "direct action" eh? Where did that come from? >Creating new terminology won't fool all of the people, you know. >A bleed is always "directed", and always has been. Screwing up the definition >of directed doesn't even warrant changing the bleed to a "direct" action. >[13.3.1]: >"The only *directed* actions that do not require a card are bleeding and..." What's the question? Using the default bleed action is a directed action, usable only against your prey. Using a bleed card is (typically/always) a directed action, usable against any player you feel like, except yourself. >>Q: How do I get out of torpor? ... >Or by spending two blood from the vampire being rescued, right? Right. >>Master Cards: Locations >>Q: I have a unique location master card, and someone else just >>played one. How does this work? >>A: (Sec. 8, "Contested Cards") Just like contested vampires: they >>go face down and each owner loses one blood each untap until he >>yields his card, or until his card is the only one remaining, at >>which point it is put into play on his side. If someone wants to >>burn a contested unique location as a direct action, he or she is >>automatically successful. >She puts the card into play on her side at the *point* (instant) hers >is the only one remaining? The rules clearly state that you do not >bring the card back into play until the start of your turn. Sigh. This is entry from the original, original FAQ, which crept back in somehow. The location ought to come back at the normal time (I don't know why it would be otherwise), and you can't burn a contested location as an action. >>Q: OK, so it's been established that I could use Govern the >>Unaligned, or a similar action, to put blood on someone else' >>uncontrolled vampire. Would that vampire pop out at the end of my >>influence phase, or at the end of the other player's influence >>phase? >How would you know that the vampire is younger? The other player should tell you whether it's a legal play or not. >>Q: If the acting minion plays a Combat Ends strike card, does the >>combat end instantly, or does it end in the "resolve strike" step? >>A: Combat ends instantly, so you cannot play a strike card >>afterward. >Note that this is the only example of a strike card taking effect when >announced rather than when resolved - for no good reason. Combat ends works that way because it was designed that way. The reason is "just because". >>Q: How does aggravated damage work? >>A: Aggravated damage automatically sends your vampire to torpor. >>The first point of Aggravated Damage doesn't cause the vampire to >>spend a point of blood to heal, but every point after that does. >>If Aggravated Damage totals more than your vampire has blood to >>heal, your vampire is destroyed. This does not count as Diablerie. >you mean "Every point after that *from the same source*" right? Yes. >>p. 20, Section12.3.1. Bleed: Bleeding is a directed action. >So you can always bleed anyone on the table (since directed actions can be >directed at any Methuselah) No. Mentioning that it is directed does not remove the restriction that you can only bleed your prey (by default). [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: : >>Q: OK, so it's been established that I could use Govern the : >>Unaligned, or a similar action, to put blood on someone else' : >>uncontrolled vampire. Would that vampire pop out at the end of my : >>influence phase, or at the end of the other player's influence : >>phase? : >How would you know that the vampire is younger? : The other player should tell you whether it's a legal play or not. Clarify please: Should I choose to play a GtU on another Meth's vampires, and he tells me that the vampire is not a legal target, what happens? a) GtU is burned, pay the cost. b) GtU us burned, pay nothing. c) Choose another target until you hit a legal one. Personal guess - a); makes the most sense to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >This isn't a big deal, but the card does say "you" and not "the >controller". Was there a problem with Blood Dolled Uriah Winters? "You" typically refers to the controller (I can think of no exceptions at this point).

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>>Minor Boon: If a vampire is going to torpor due to combat and a >>>minor boon is played, thus saving it, combat is still over. >>Can you Minor Boon, then pull fangs (thus sending him to torpor again?). >No. Minor Boon would be played after effects like Pulled Fangs would be. I meant, can you send the vamp to torpor, play Minor Boon, then play Pulled Fangs? >>>Q: OK, so it's been established that I could use Govern the >>>Unaligned, or a similar action, to put blood on someone else' >>>uncontrolled vampire. Would that vampire pop out at the end of my >>>influence phase, or at the end of the other player's influence >>>phase? >>How would you know that the vampire is younger? >The other player should tell you whether it's a legal play or not. And if it is not - do you tap the acting minion with no effect, burn the Govern, what? >>>p. 20, Section12.3.1. Bleed: Bleeding is a directed action. >>So you can always bleed anyone on the table (since directed actions can be >>directed at any Methuselah) >No. Mentioning that it is directed does not remove the restriction that >you can only bleed your prey (by default). But your silly rules say that being Directed means being able to target any Methuselah. This is errata. (Bogus, but official) Therefore it supercedes the original rules.

Subject: Re: *NEW* Official FAQ for Jyhad, April 95 version From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes >CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>I agree with most of the rulings here, and some of them address important >>issued omitted from the rules (most notably simultaneous cards). Those >>ruling have been omitted from the list to spare everybody lots of >>quotations and OK's. >simultaneous cards? "Slap" conditions, as you refer to them. Elysium vs. Lady Mariel, that sort of thing. >>>Q: Who do you bleed? And if I have a card with the D in the >>>circle, who then? And wasn't bleeding a direct action anyway? >>>A: Usually the only one you bleed is your prey. That action is >>>direct, that is, it can only be blocked by your prey. If, >>>however, a card allows you to bleed as a directed action, then you >>>can bleed any Methuselah you like. It's still a direct action, so >>>only the target of the bleed can attempt to block. >>So the (D) on the card overrides the text of the action? Just asking for >>clarification, and setting a trap. >If you have an objection to the ruling, go ahead and state it. I have stated it on this group, repeatedly (although I can't really blame anybody for not reading those long discussions of (D) bleeds). Is there a formal procedure for objecting to rulings? I will make another posting on this group, addressed to you, or email, as you request. However, the credibility of DT rulings will be greatly enhanced if you can give clear responses to simple questions like that, and have them be responses that stand up to knowledgeable questions. >>>Q: In Section 7.2.2 Minion Cards, it says the same action modifier >>>or reaction card cannot be used twice in the same action by the >>>same MINION, but in Sections 13.2 and 14 it says the same card >>>cannot be used twice in the same action by the same PLAYER. Which >>>is correct? >>>A: Minion is correct. The same action modifier or reaction card >>>may not be played by the same Minion in the same action. >>This causes a slew of problems with the Mask. "Once per minion" is not >>incompatible with "once per Methuseleh", just an additional restriction. >Mathematically speaking, it's not a contradiction. Semantically, it is. Not necessarily. Although not possible with the current card set, it is possible that a minion could change control in the middle of an action. >In any event, it is "once per minion". Mask is a rules breaker, that's all. At present the Mask is the only card affected by this ruling. Why choose the ruling that makes the Mask a problem? The Mask is a useful and interesting card even if you can't use it to raise your stealth, or other things, to high heaven. >>We all know they don't say "melee" but would work better if they did. You >>change other cards, why not these? >Because they're not sufficiently broken. We don't issue errata willy nilly >to deal with minor problems. We issue it to fix cards that break the game, >or are seriously broken from their original conception (and thus cause >serious problems in the game). Then why did you issue errata for spacing problems on Eco Terrorists and rephrasing of the use restriction on hunting grounds? I would consider the misdisciplining of Blood Rage and Concealed Weapon to make them seriously broken from their original conception. It's OK if your rule is "don't fix wallpaper." It's still a loss, though. >>>Q: If I have one blood left in my pool and I am blocked by a >>>vampire with Aching Beauty, do I go into combat? >>>A: No you are ousted before combat. >>Please proof these before posting. Should be "I block", not "am blocked by". >We do proof them, several times, and just don't catch certain things. There were an awful lot of errors in that FAQ. >>>Q: Is using the Chantry optional? >>>A: Yes >>>Q: Is the Ghoul retainer that same as the Wolf companion? That is, >>>if I attack do I have to use its ability? >>>A: Yes. >>How does one determine which card are mandatory and which aren't? Why are >>ones phrased to be mandatory (like Chantry) optional and ones phrased to >>be optional (like Ghoul Retainer) not? Is there some compelling reason >>for playing around with the cards like this? >The wordings are not exactly scientific, true. They're precise. >But in this case there's >a general rule behind the distinction: minions are required to use any >retainers they have, but you are not required to make use of master cards. I thought wording on cards overuled general rules. >>>Q: (Sec 17.1, "Voting") The rule book implies that you cannot play >>>additional political vote cards if you used a vote card to call a >>>vote. "Additional political cards can also be used by any of the >>>other Methusulahs for votes". Can you play additional political >>>vote cards? >>>A: Yes, all Methusulahs can use political vote cards. >>Question here (no offense intended). How do you folks playtest the rules >>changes you make? Changes like this can have major repercussions, and I >>am not convinced they've all been considered. >This rule was introduced/clarified in August. Yes, I imagine it went >through some playtesting before being released. And as far as I know, >it is not being changed for V:TES, either. You IMAGINE it went through some playtesting? >>>Q: Suppose the blocked vampire was trying to rescue a vampire from >>>torpor. I assume the actual action here was "encounter a vampire >>>in torpor", not "rescue a vampire from torpor" or "rescue Ricki >>>from torpor", and thus it couldn't try to rescue or diablerize >>>anything else that turn? >>>A: You can try to rescue a different vampire. Each action is very >>>specific: ie, rescue "Ricki" from torpor. >>Hey, my rulebook only mentions the "encounter" action. No such thing as a >>"rescue" action. I assume this also means that Bum's Rushing Gilbert is a >>different action from Bum's Rushing Anson. >I'm pretty sure using the same action card repeatedly counts as the >same action, but will check. If "encounter Ricki" is different from "encounter Basilia", then "Bum's Rush Gilbert" is different from "Bum's Rush Anson". Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>>issued omitted from the rules (most notably simultaneous cards). Those >>>ruling have been omitted from the list to spare everybody lots of >>>quotations and OK's. >>simultaneous cards? >"Slap" conditions, as you refer to them. Elysium vs. Lady Mariel, that >sort of thing. Ah, got it. That's probably Frequent enough that it should be added, yes. (Remember this is just a FAQ, not a canonical list of rulings.) >I have stated it on this group, repeatedly (although I can't really blame >anybody for not reading those long discussions of (D) bleeds). Is there a >formal procedure for objecting to rulings? I will make another posting >on this group, addressed to you, or email, as you request. I have read many of the discussions on whether D bleeds are a good or bad idea, though I have chosen not to respond to them. I believe at least one of the people responsible for the game is reading those posts, but if anyone wants to summarize their objections and send them to me, I will forward them, to make sure they are received. >However, the credibility of DT rulings will be greatly enhanced if you can >give clear responses to simple questions like that, and have them be >responses that stand up to knowledgeable questions. The credibility of the customers would be greatly enhanced if they just asked the question they had in mind, rather than say "I have this one question, and I'll spring a trap on you based on the answer", which is exactly what the original question was. If you ask the question, I'll answer it. If you try to be sneaky about it, I'll ask you for the full question. >Not necessarily. Although not possible with the current card set, it is >possible that a minion could change control in the middle of an action. Bluch. Yes, such an action modifier or reaction is theoretically possible, but I can't see such a card actually being written. >At present the Mask is the only card affected by this ruling. Why choose >the ruling that makes the Mask a problem?... The usual reluctance to change a card, I would imagine. Cards break the rules. If a card breaks them too much, we do not necessarily issue a fix for it midstream, but sometimes wait to fix it in the future. I'm fairly sure Mask does not fall under "we need to fix it now", though it may well fall under "we should fix it later". I fully understand the temptation to fix cards on the fly. But the policy in Magic has always been to fix cards, without reprinting, only if necessary. The same policy applies to Jyhad/VTES. Obviously there will be disagreements between the customers and the design team over which cards need emergency fixes. Hopefully, as long as everyone keeps in mind that the design teams are reluctant to label cards as needing emergency fixes, we should get along ok. This relationship between the design team and the customers has worked reasonably well in Magic, I don't see why it shouldn't work in Jyhad/VTES. >Then why did you issue errata for spacing problems on Eco Terrorists and >rephrasing of the use restriction on hunting grounds? Stricly speaking there is no errata for Eco Terrorists. Occasionally there will be combined lists of card errata and printing differences, which can blur the lines between errata and non-errata, and I think this is one of those cases. The Hunting Grounds are ambiguous as written, with no clear way for the customer to decide which reading was correct, so we issued errata. >I would consider the misdisciplining of Blood Rage and Concealed Weapon to >make them seriously broken from their original conception. It's certainly arguable that Concealed Weapon should have "lose the discipline symbol" errata. I'm not so sure about Blood Rage, though. >It's OK if your rule is "don't fix wallpaper." It's still a loss, though. It's basically a question of which is worse, having wallpaper, or having long lists of errata? The policy in Magic has always been to grit our teeth and let the wallpaper slide, and then fixing or eliminating the wallpaper in future printings. This policy is probably going to extend to all Deckmaster games, as with the other errata policies. >>We do proof them, several times, and just don't catch certain things. >There were an awful lot of errors in that FAQ. Yeah, I know :-\ >>But in this case there's >>a general rule behind the distinction: minions are required to use any >>retainers they have... >I thought wording on cards overuled general rules. Yes, but I don't think the Ghoul's text is meant to override the "must use retainers" rule, and is simply trying to say that the Ghoul has the option of using hands, or an unused weapon. >>>>A: Yes, all Methusulahs can use political vote cards. >>This rule was introduced/clarified in August. Yes, I imagine it went >>through some playtesting before being released. And as far as I know, >>it is not being changed for V:TES, either. >You IMAGINE it went through some playtesting? OK, "I'm assuming it went through the same playtesting that the rest of the game went through", if that phrasing will help. But I wasn't there so can't swear to it having been playtested, is all I was trying to say. >>>"rescue" action. I assume this also means that Bum's Rushing Gilbert is a >>>different action from Bum's Rushing Anson. >>I'm pretty sure using the same action card repeatedly counts as the >>same action, but will check. >If "encounter Ricki" is different from "encounter Basilia", then "Bum's >Rush Gilbert" is different from "Bum's Rush Anson". I'm fairly certain the ruling is that built-in actions are always distinguished in this way (so "get equipment from Smudge" is different from "get equipment from Helena Casimir"), but that action cards are not distinguished in this way. But I'm checking on this. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>No. Minor Boon would be played after effects like Pulled Fangs would be. >I meant, can you send the vamp to torpor, play Minor Boon, then >play Pulled Fangs? I understood the question. How does the answer not address the question? [ quoted text not captured ]

>I would consider the misdisciplining of Blood Rage and Concealed Weapon to >make them seriously broken from their original conception. Tom Wylie says: >It's certainly arguable that Concealed Weapon should have "lose the >discipline symbol" errata. I'm not so sure about Blood Rage, though. Oh, come on now... Exactly what is it about the fortitude discipline that makes you think it deserves a card like Blood Rage? And from a strictly design perspective, why does every discipline have exactly the same number of common, uncommon, and rare cards EXCEPT that Obfuscate has an extra common [Concealed Weapon], and Fortitude has an extra common [which we say is Blood Rage], and Thaumaturgy is short one common [which we say is Blood Rage]? Anvil [=- Go Steelers! -=] [=- Do some Calculus -=] [=- Democritus rules! -=] [=- And Pirates! -=] [=- Ride a Century -=] [=- But only the Ventrue! -=]

Ray Mulford <rmu...@cello.gina.calstate.edu> wrote: >And from a strictly design perspective, why does every discipline have >exactly the same number of common, uncommon, and rare cards EXCEPT that >Obfuscate has an extra common [Concealed Weapon], and Fortitude has an >extra common [which we say is Blood Rage], and Thaumaturgy is short one >common [which we say is Blood Rage]? Well, in Revised Magic there were 16 red uncommons and 14 green uncommons (instead of 15 of each), so Blood Rage was not necessarily misfiled. And my point was not "obviously Concealed Weapon was a misprint and Blood Rage wasn't." My point was "Concealed Weapon certainly needs a fix in order to be worthwile, whereas Blood Rage works perfectly fine on its own, so it's harder to argue that there *should* be errata for it" [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Ray Mulford <rmu...@cello.gina.calstate.edu> wrote: >>And from a strictly design perspective, why does every discipline have >>exactly the same number of common, uncommon, and rare cards EXCEPT that >>Obfuscate has an extra common [Concealed Weapon], and Fortitude has an >>extra common [which we say is Blood Rage], and Thaumaturgy is short one >>common [which we say is Blood Rage]? >Well, in Revised Magic there were 16 red uncommons and 14 green uncommons >(instead of 15 of each), so Blood Rage was not necessarily misfiled. >And my point was not "obviously Concealed Weapon was a misprint and >Blood Rage wasn't." My point was "Concealed Weapon certainly needs a fix >in order to be worthwile, whereas Blood Rage works perfectly fine on its >own, so it's harder to argue that there *should* be errata for it" So you need to fix Chainsaw and Concealed Weapon (to be worthwhile). or you need to fix Blood Rage and Concealed Weapon (to be correct). L. Scott

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>>>>Minor Boon: If a vampire is going to torpor due to combat and a >>>>>minor boon is played, thus saving it, combat is still over. >>>>Can you Minor Boon, then pull fangs (thus sending him to torpor again?). >>>No. Minor Boon would be played after effects like Pulled Fangs would be. >>I meant, can you send the vamp to torpor, play Minor Boon, then >>play Pulled Fangs? >I understood the question. How does the answer not address the question? It sounded like you were saying that Minor Boon has to be played after aggravated damage occurs. I was clarifying that my question involved agg then boon then pulled fangs. Pulled Fangs is either a post-strikes (pre-press) card, or possibly a post-damage-resolution (mid-strikes) card. Pulled Fangs should be post-strikes, since it can tally effects of additional strikes. (Like Taste of Vitae). Minor Boon is definitely a post-damage-resolution (mid-strikes) card. So, at best, this leads to a slap situation. At worst, the leads to always playing the Minor Boon first, not "after effects like Pulled Fangs". Playing Minor Boon could conceivably end the combat before Pulled Fangs could be played, however. Ex: A and B have 10 blood each A: hands B: lucky blow (hands +1) damage resolution: B: my hand damage is aggravated A: I'm going to torpor. B: I'll save you with Minor Boon Post-strikes: A: nothing B: Since i did more damage at close, I'll pull fangs. A: I'm going to torpor.

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: Peace Thomas and Curt, > >Rotschreck: This card affects the vampire doing the damage. > > Would you talk to White Wolf about this? Being targeted by sunlight or > flame does not protect a vampire from Rotschreck - indeed, that causes it. Normally Curt and I don't agree, but on this one, I have to side with Curt. Roetschreck should affect the target of aggr dam. > >Q: Who do you bleed? And if I have a card with the D in the > >circle, who then? And wasn't bleeding a direct action anyway? > >A: Usually the only one you bleed is your prey. That action is > >direct, that is, it can only be blocked by your prey. If, > >however, a card allows you to bleed as a directed action, then you > >can bleed any Methuselah you like. It's still a direct action, so > >only the target of the bleed can attempt to block. > > So the (D) on the card overrides the text of the action? Just asking for > clarification, and setting a trap. In defense of (D) bleeds, Thomas, there _are_ players who think that (D) bleeds are OK and that is how the game was always intended to be played. I'll not be sending you any gripes about how (D) bleed are correct, so I'll have to post my support here (just to cancel out any griping that Curt may do). > >Q: How do I get out of torpor? > >A: If your vampire went into torpor with counters still on it (by > >paralyzation or by aggravated damage), then it can, as an action, > >rescue itself at the cost of two blood. If it doesn't have enough, > >then it can be rescued by another minion. The rescuing minion taps > >to visit the vampire in torpor and must spend two of its blood, or > >both the rescuing vampire and the rescued vampire spend one blood > >each. The vampire so rescued is then active again, but if it has > >no blood, it must hunt the next turn. > > The rulebook specifically allows the rescuee to spend both the blood. Why > do you want to change this? I'm confused too. > >Q: When does my vampire heal itself with stolen blood? The example > >in the book I got in my card pack is confusing. > >A: The example in the rules prior to the "Duelist Companion" rules > >release refers to an early conception of the rules. The example is > >in error. Stolen blood can immediately heal a vampire. This may > >prevent a vampire's going into torpor on the strike phase during > >which it stole the blood, as long as the vampire striking it does > >not do enough "first strike" damage to send it into torpor. In > >that case, the vampire attempting to steal blood is considered to > >have not even gotten the opportunity to steal blood before being > >sent to torpor. > > The earlier rules avert certain timing issues that arise under these > rules. I don't see any timing problems, Curt. > >Q: (Sec 17.1, "Voting") The rule book implies that you cannot play > >additional political vote cards if you used a vote card to call a > >vote. "Additional political cards can also be used by any of the > >other Methusulahs for votes". Can you play additional political > >vote cards? > >A: Yes, all Methusulahs can use political vote cards. > > Question here (no offense intended). How do you folks playtest the rules > changes you make? Changes like this can have major repercussions, and I > am not convinced they've all been considered. I'm not here to rag on your playtesting, but I do believe that leaving the voting rules _as they are currently written_ would make the "ultra-selfish wienie vote decks" a thing of the past. I realize that the acting Meth not being able to play any additional political action cards would make vote decks less powerful, but (even though I originally argued against it) I believe that this would remove the threat of "silly" decks that are 10 Cloak the Gathering, 20 Kine Resources Contested and 20 Conservative Agitation (sp). No, I don't currently play that way, but I can see why things might be played that way. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes > > >CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: > >>I agree with most of the rulings here, and some of them address > important > >>issued omitted from the rules (most notably simultaneous cards). Those > >>ruling have been omitted from the list to spare everybody lots of > >>quotations and OK's. > > >simultaneous cards? > > "Slap" conditions, as you refer to them. Elysium vs. Lady Mariel, that > sort of thing. Peace Curt, It has already been clarified that if more than one player wants to use effects and those effects are contradictory, that the order of option (who has the option to utilize an effect first) is: acting player, blocking player, player to the left of acting player and so on around the table.

Pulled Fangs is normally played during the press step. If combat ends before then, for example if one combatant is sent to torpor, then Pulled Fangs may be used as the combat is ending. (It may not be used after a Combat Ends strike.) Minor Boon is played after the combat actually ends, so after Pulled Fangs would be used. I'm not sure how Minor Boon would interact with Psyche, i.e. whether it would be possible to force someone to decide not to play Psyche, and then play Minor Boon without fear of a renewed combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3mt8tv$2...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >Ray Mulford <rmu...@cello.gina.calstate.edu> wrote: >>And from a strictly design perspective, why does every discipline have >>exactly the same number of common, uncommon, and rare cards EXCEPT that >>Obfuscate has an extra common [Concealed Weapon], and Fortitude has an >>extra common [which we say is Blood Rage], and Thaumaturgy is short one >>common [which we say is Blood Rage]? > >Well, in Revised Magic there were 16 red uncommons and 14 green uncommons >(instead of 15 of each), so Blood Rage was not necessarily misfiled. > >And my point was not "obviously Concealed Weapon was a misprint and >Blood Rage wasn't." My point was "Concealed Weapon certainly needs a fix >in order to be worthwile, whereas Blood Rage works perfectly fine on its >own, so it's harder to argue that there *should* be errata for it" > > >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. > Whatever... I would like to hear from the mouth of the person who designed the Blood Rage card why on Earth they thought it had anything to do with the Fortitude discipline instead of the Thaumaturgy. Using your argument, there is no reason why ANY card could not be assign totally at RANDOM to ANY discipline. After all the card will still work the same, it will just have a different requirement for use. Let's make Govern the Unaligned an Obfuscate card and Dread Gaze a Protean Card. The cards will still work, won't they? We could extend your analogy to MTG... let's make Fireballs require White mana to start up. The card will still work. Let's make Lord of the Pit require Green mana to cast. It will still work... of course, it will make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. But, apparently, that's not the point. You dance divinely, btw. :) Ray ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: This is a test .SIG ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: If this were an actual .SIG, it would be filled with gratuitous ASCII :: :: art, a list of my 73 internet addresses, and a pointless quote on a :: :: topic you care nothing about from an author you've never heard of :: ::::::::: We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming ::::::::

:In article <3mjn68$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: :>>: Q: (Sec 17.1, "Voting") The rule book implies that you cannot play :>>: additional political vote cards if you used a vote card to call a :>>: vote. "Additional political cards can also be used by any of the :>>: other Methusulahs for votes". Can you play additional political :>>: vote cards? :>>: A: Yes, all Methusulahs can use political vote cards. :> :>>Well, at least this has been officially answered now. Sorry to :>>disappoint you, Curt... :-) :> :> Oh, I was aware of this. My comment was that this permits an apparently :> problem degenerate deck (weenies and nothing but votes) whereas the rules :> seem to have been carefully written to bar it. Very dangerous to change :> rules if they've been put in from playtesting. :> :> I have no problem with this ruling per se if people can show that the :> above mentioned deck is controlled in fairly ordinary play situations. At :> present there has been only argumentation. :> :> Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) The only way I have ever come up with to even survive against the KRC decks as I call them, are to chuck in unreasonable numbers of Delaying Tactics, which would probably not help you actually win the game all that much.

>>However, the credibility of DT rulings will be greatly enhanced if you can >>give clear responses to simple questions like that, and have them be >>responses that stand up to knowledgeable questions. >The credibility of the customers would be greatly enhanced if they just >asked the question they had in mind, rather than say "I have this one question, >and I'll spring a trap on you based on the answer", which is exactly what the >original question was. If you ask the question, I'll answer it. If you >try to be sneaky about it, I'll ask you for the full question. The credibility of the customers? Well, then, I'm home free, because the customer is always right :-) Actually, I have no credibility, in this sense, as it is. Were I to pop out a "Curt's official rulings", with neither persuasive argumentation, proof of thorough testing, nor the support of any of the many intelligent and knowledgeble posters on this group, I'd be ignored (properly). My suggestions make it, or fail, on their own merits, assisted somewhat by my skills of persuasion, and not on any reputation or credibility of mine. However the Design Team IS issuing official rulings without support via either argumentation or proven playtesting. They also appear to be issued without regard for the views of posters on this newsgroup, or any other similar group. For that, you need credibility, and lots of it. Now in our society there are several methods for establishing credibility. The most common methods are the scientific (via testing claims), the legal (via questioning for consistency and accuracy), and the social (via references). I can't check your references (don't know Garfield), and I have limited ability to test your claims. Hence my method for checking the credibility you need, is legal - by examining your statements for accuracy and consistency. If the position the Design Team holds is well-thought-out and consistent, then it will stand up to any attempt by me to poke holes in it. >>Not necessarily. Although not possible with the current card set, it is >>possible that a minion could change control in the middle of an action. >Bluch. Yes, such an action modifier or reaction is theoretically possible, >but I can't see such a card actually being written. But my point is that neither of "one per minion" nor "one per Methuseleh" subsumes the other. They are two separate rules that simply coincide in the overwhelming majority of situations. >>At present the Mask is the only card affected by this ruling. Why choose >>the ruling that makes the Mask a problem?... >The usual reluctance to change a card, I would imagine. Cards break the >rules. If a card breaks them too much, we do not necessarily issue a fix >for it midstream, but sometimes wait to fix it in the future. I'm fairly >sure Mask does not fall under "we need to fix it now", though it may well >fall under "we should fix it later". Actually nobody's suggesting changes to the Mask card. I'm just saying that a literal reading of the rules solves the "indefinite bonus" problem of the Mask, and that there are no logical problems associated with a literal reading of the rules. That seems to me the ideal situation - a literal reading of the rules combined with a literal reading of the card leading to a positive game situation with no loss of plausibility. Cool! >>>But in this case there's >>>a general rule behind the distinction: minions are required to use any >>>retainers they have... >>I thought wording on cards overuled general rules. >Yes, but I don't think the Ghoul's text is meant to override the "must >use retainers" rule, and is simply trying to say that the Ghoul has the >option of using hands, or an unused weapon. In this case, the general rule is not written as part of the game. The fact that some retainers are written as optional (Ghoul Retainer, Ghoul Escort) while others are written as mandatory (Wolf Companion, Murder of Crows) certainly indicates no general rule. BTW, is use of the Resplendent Protector mandatory? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

740926...@omega.ntu.ac.sg (Damian Chang) writes: :In article <3mjn68$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: :>>: Q: (Sec 17.1, "Voting") The rule book implies that you cannot play :>>: additional political vote cards if you used a vote card to call a :>>: vote. "Additional political cards can also be used by any of the :>>: other Methusulahs for votes". Can you play additional political :>>: vote cards? :>>: A: Yes, all Methusulahs can use political vote cards. :> :> :> I have no problem with this ruling per se if people can show that the :> above mentioned deck is controlled in fairly ordinary play situations. At :> present there has been only argumentation. >The only way I have ever come up with to even survive against the KRC decks as >I call them, are to chuck in unreasonable numbers of Delaying Tactics, which >would probably not help you actually win the game all that much. (Quick explaination: KRC deck = 1&2 blood vampire, some Effective Managements, and otherwise only Kine Resources Contested) Hmm. Actual evidence. How weird. The ideas for dealing with KRC decks focused mostly on intercept combat and rush combat. What happened with those? Also, was this in 2-player or multiplayer situation, and was it real play or just deck testing? Has anybody else tried playing with or against KRC decks? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3mnf7r$m...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >>: Q: If I have one blood left in my pool and I am blocked by a >>: vampire with Aching Beauty, do I go into combat? >>: A: No you are ousted before combat. >>WRONG not if you are blocked by Ach Bt, but if your minion blocks a Ach >>Bt vamp when you have 1 pool then your ousted. Meth's don't lose pool >>for being blocked by Ached vamps. > >Aching Beauty specifically says the blocking Methuselah loses 1 pool. >Perhaps you're thinking of Camarilla Exemplary. Note: the question is misworded. It should say "and I block a vampire with Aching Beauty," not "am blocked by." Aching Beauty requires the blocking Methuselah to spend one pool. Camarilla Exemplary requires the blocking vampire to spend one blood. The statement "Methuselahs don't lose pool for being blocked by Ached vampires" is correct. The vampire with Aching Beauty must be the *acting* minion, not the blocking minion. Camarilla Exemplary doesn't enter into the equation. As far as I know there's no card that requires you to pay blood if you're blocked (the only card that has bad side effects for an acting minion if blocked is Millicent Smith as far as I know). | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

In article <3mnhl7$p...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>Now it's a "direct action" eh? Where did that come from? >>Creating new terminology won't fool all of the people, you know. >>A bleed is always "directed", and always has been. Screwing up the definition >>of directed doesn't even warrant changing the bleed to a "direct" action. >>[13.3.1]: >>"The only *directed* actions that do not require a card are bleeding and..." > >What's the question? Using the default bleed action is a directed action, >usable only against your prey. Using a bleed card is (typically/always) >a directed action, usable against any player you feel like, except yourself. There has been a long-raging debate on this group about whether or not "(D) bleed" vs. "bleed" on a card represents a contradiction in terms regarding the rules. That's kinda where this came from. [Note to others: it looks like the FAQ uses "direct action" and "directed action" interchangably. Keep that in mind for future references.] >Sigh. This is entry from the original, original FAQ, which crept back >in somehow. The location ought to come back at the normal time (I don't This is a sad indictment of the process through which this FAQ was proofed. You've said that several people proofed this FAQ. It's truly disappointing that this glaring error got through. If several people at the company missed it, who at the company is knowledgable enough about the game to realize this mistake? >>>Q: If the acting minion plays a Combat Ends strike card, does the >>>combat end instantly, or does it end in the "resolve strike" step? >>>A: Combat ends instantly, so you cannot play a strike card >>>afterward. >>Note that this is the only example of a strike card taking effect when >>announced rather than when resolved - for no good reason. > >Combat ends works that way because it was designed that way. >The reason is "just because". The phrase in the rulebook is "Considered a strike, this ends combat immediately (before any damage is dealt or any strike's effects take place)." It goes on to specifically cancel dodge and first strike from there. In this snippet of the rules it seems like there is a basic assumption that there is another strike out there that can deal damage or have effects. This could be because the designed effect of combat ends was to happen in the Resolve Strike phase rather than the Choose Strike phase. It is a strike. There is no specific indication that it resolves out of order in the rules. In fact, specifically stating that it is a strike seems to indicate that it should be treated like any other strike with regard to timing. Therefore it all works fine if Combat ends resolves during strike resolution. Any other interpretation is based on changing the rules. I will buy that the DT made a ruling based on their interpretation of the rules. I will also live by that interpretation in all official games I play. However, it will be much harder to convince me that it's "by design." This sounds a lot like the Madness Network debate, and I don't buy the DT trying to bluff its way out by saying "um, yeah, it was designed that way." [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>Sigh. This is entry from the original, original FAQ, which crept back >>in somehow. The location ought to come back at the normal time (I don't > This is a sad indictment of the process through which this FAQ >was proofed. You've said that several people proofed this FAQ. It's >truly disappointing that this glaring error got through. If several >people at the company missed it, who at the company is knowledgable >enough about the game to realize this mistake? Speaking for myself, I recognized the bloc of questions this was contained in as being from old FAQs, so just skimmed through it, assuming others had proofed it properly. So it's partially my fault, since had I been reading the FAQ thoroughly, I would have thought of it. But I was mostly skimming for new information, not quintuple checking the content. > The phrase in the rulebook is "Considered a strike, this ends >combat immediately (before any damage is dealt or any strike's effects >take place)." It goes on to specifically cancel dodge and first strike >from there. In this snippet of the rules it seems like there is a basic >assumption that there is another strike out there that can deal damage >or have effects... Such as the strike that the acting minion declared, if the blocking minion is the one playing the Combat Ends. >In fact, specifically stating that >it is a strike seems to indicate that it should be treated like any >other strike with regard to timing... I believe that making it a strike is to avoid people burning combat cards if they're planning to end combat anyway, from using a gun to maneuver and then ending combat if things get too hazy, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >However the Design Team IS issuing official rulings without support via >either argumentation or proven playtesting. They also appear to be issued >without regard for the views of posters on this newsgroup, or any other >similar group. For that, you need credibility, and lots of it. It is absolutely ridiculous to require that we provide extensive documentation of playtesting in order to issue a ruling before adopting a ruling. This is simply not going to happen. Whether we should be providing both sides of an argument when issuing a ruling is also open to debate. Better explanation of ruling is certainly something we're working on, though, just as we're working on it in Magic. >If the position the Design Team holds is well-thought-out and consistent, >then it will stand up to any attempt by me to poke holes in it. Nothing personal, but this is a pipe dream. There are several rulings in both games that are well thought out, but that some people refuse to accept as correct. If your standard is to accept every ruling that comes down, then we are doomed to failure. >But my point is that neither of "one per minion" nor "one per Methuseleh" >subsumes the other. They are two separate rules that simply coincide in >the overwhelming majority of situations. But given that it is not clear from the rulebook whether these statements are contradictory or complementary, one has to go to the design team to find out the situation, and the answer is that they're contradictory, and the "one per minion" wins. >Actually nobody's suggesting changes to the Mask card. I'm just saying >that a literal reading of the rules solves the "indefinite bonus" problem >of the Mask, and that there are no logical problems associated with a >literal reading of the rules... Exactly how does a literal reading of the card clearly prohibit repeating action modifiers? It's not at all obvious. >In this case, the general rule is not written as part of the game. The >fact that some retainers are written as optional (Ghoul Retainer, Ghoul >Escort) while others are written as mandatory (Wolf Companion, Murder of >Crows) certainly indicates no general rule. There is definitely a general rule that retainers are mandatory. If a retainer is written to be optional, then it breaks the rules. Cards do break the rules, and we shouldn't have to put a red flag on every card that does so. >BTW, is use of the Resplendent Protector mandatory? Yes, but since she prevents "up to 1" damage each combat, you can keep choosing to prevent 0 damage with her until you actually want to prevent a point of damage. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3ms2fj$2...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >I fully understand the temptation to fix cards on the fly. But the policy >in Magic has always been to fix cards, without reprinting, only if necessary. >The same policy applies to Jyhad/VTES. Obviously there will be disagreements >between the customers and the design team over which cards need emergency >fixes. Hopefully, as long as everyone keeps in mind that the design teams >are reluctant to label cards as needing emergency fixes, we should get along >ok. This relationship between the design team and the customers has worked >reasonably well in Magic, I don't see why it shouldn't work in Jyhad/VTES. Because there are fundamental differences between Magic and Jyhad. They are games targetted at different audiences. There are some Magic players who pay $50 for an o-o-p. Magic players also put up with two different versions of "Fog". There are many Jyhad players who won't do the same. In rec. ... magic, when someone posts that the Grey Ogre is wallpaper, some people may even tend to disagree with him, saying that the wallpaper is fine as it is. I have hardly seen any posts that substantially disagree with any expressions of disgust with the Chainsaw wallpaper in this group; indeed most postings support a house rule of some sort for the Chainsaw. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <3mnhl7$p...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >>>Q: OK, so it's been established that I could use Govern the >>>Unaligned, or a similar action, to put blood on someone else' >>>uncontrolled vampire. Would that vampire pop out at the end of my >>>influence phase, or at the end of the other player's influence >>>phase? >>How would you know that the vampire is younger? >The other player should tell you whether it's a legal play or not. Hummm... this opens a question. Someone can use Enchant Kindred + Change of Target to gain information about the age of someone's uncontrolled vampires, then Brainwash them or the like. I'm not sure if it is good to allow this. >>>A: Combat ends instantly, so you cannot play a strike card >>>afterward. >>Note that this is the only example of a strike card taking effect when >>announced rather than when resolved - for no good reason. >Combat ends works that way because it was designed that way. >The reason is "just because". Off topic: there is a story about an ancient Chinese patriot. Some evil government official wanted to accuse him. He couldn't find a valid accusation, so he used the accusation "don't need one". [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3mv5j5$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] [Note: before anyone accuses me of munchkinism (which, frankly, is what this deck is) I don't like playing it. I'd much rather play a combat deck or, even better, something goofy like a Nosferatu Hidden Lurker deck. This deck was originally intended as a joke, it just didn't turn out to be something to laugh at.] I've played some with a "KRC deck" -- it has done quite well. (We've always played as the latest FAQ has ruled.) Even if opposing votes come out, it can do 15 damage by turn 4, although you will likely run out of library once some unfriendly votes hit the table. But by this time you should have voted your first 2 victims out of existance. One thing I think that would stop it is a 5 or 6 vamp with permanent intercept and a deck of ~15% WwEF. Or Justine, the death knell for all this weenies-in-the-Camarilla tomfoolery. This deck has been played mostly in 4 and 5 player games and has done very well. Also, in a 2-player game it absolutely trounced my best Malkavian S&B deck. I don't know if our caliber of decks are up to your standards. I have about 4 display boxes worth (which I paid $45 each for - gotta love speculators when they choose wrong) and my friends and I just make decks out of my collection, although I've played with some other people (Paul, are you listening?) and I think we're doing all right. However, there just aren't enough of some cards (especially uncommons like Info Highway) to spread amongst the 10 or so different decks that we keep assembled. Crypt: every 1 and 2 that I know of; should Tremere and Ventrue only have one each? Angel Lupo Hasina Igo Navar Nik Smudge Uriah Giuliano Vliam Brazil Normal Dimple Koko Delilah Dieter Roreca Rufina Library: this could be bigger, but I just didn't have any more of the KRC's and CA's. Likewise, I didn't have more than 1 Infobahn and 3 Effective Managements. The other votes sounded good, but usually get discarded to punch through KRCs. If I were to remake it now, I'd definately add more EMs, maybe a Rumours of Gehenna (to play 2 EMs a turn). 12 x CA 16 x KRC 3 x Autarkis Persecution (have gained 7 pool from one of these) 4 x Computer Hacking 3 x Disputed Territory 3 x Dramatic Upheaval 4 x Dodge 2 x Political Flux 4 x Ascendance 3 x Effective Management Elysium Information Highway Praxis Seizure (Atlanta Chicago Dallas Washington DC) Note: I added these 4, and nobody has let me play this deck since then, so I can't say how well they work... It doesn't look like much, but try it out and see if it works for you... it has happened that the deck will run out of cards, and still manages to oust one more player just by burying them in an avalanche of weenies. -- "I find that most philosophical discussions are psycho- // Bill Gilliland logically useful but, in the end, when you look back // historically at what was being said, and being said // "Semprini?" OY! OUT! with such vigour, it's almost always - to a degree - // nonsense!" (Richard Feynman) // ska...@u.washington.edu

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Well, in Revised Magic there were 16 red uncommons and 14 green uncommons >(instead of 15 of each), so Blood Rage was not necessarily misfiled. Aha! Now which red uncommon was supposed to be green... :) -- Aaron Mandelbaum

In article <3ms2k7$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>>No. Minor Boon would be played after effects like Pulled Fangs would be. >>I meant, can you send the vamp to torpor, play Minor Boon, then >>play Pulled Fangs? > >I understood the question. How does the answer not address the question? You would play minor boon during damage resolution, and the vampire would not go to torpor. Then there is the opportunity for press cards. Then we hit the end of the round, and Scott wants to play Pulled Fangs. The opportunity to play Minor Boon is long since past, and is in fact already done. I think Scott doesn't understand why you say that Minor Boon would be played after Pulled Fangs if it were to be played on the *first* damage that would send the poor vampire to torpor. [ quoted text not captured ]

>>The only way I have ever come up with to even survive against the KRC >decks as >>I call them, are to chuck in unreasonable numbers of Delaying Tactics, >which >>would probably not help you actually win the game all that much. I really don't see how this is much of a threat. After all, that player has no princes, justicars, or primogen out (all 1 and 2 capacity vamps) and since the rules say vote cards are not replaced until after the vote is finished, the most votes that this player can come up with is 7. How hard is it for other players, who may have primogen, princes, or justicars, plus any vote cards, dread gazes, and surprise influences to come up with 7 counter votes. Granted, the player may get someone across the table to vote on his side, but you can count on the people whom the vote is directed against, plus the predator of the player with the KRC deck to vote against, plus any allies they may have wheeled and dealed into their corner. Also, why not block the votes and hose his vampires? There are no 2 capacity vampires with superior obf. so the most a vampire can muster up is +1 stealth, in addition to the stealth inherent in calling a vote. (Each vamp can only play one cloak on itself, and they don't have sup. obf. to throw cloaks on each other) Probably if you built a deck to get you through a multi-player game intact, you remembered to include enough intercept to muster up +2 intercept every so often. Finally, this player has no workable defense. It will not take long for him to succumb to his predator, and even if he did last long, burning 7 vote cards per turn would bring his deck to the end leaving him with no resources to play with later in the game. I can see a player with this kind of deck spoiling the game for 1 player, maybe 2 if he's really lucky, but he's not going to win. Considering that everyone is getting pissed at his degenerate deck, plus the fact that he never wins, how long do you think it will be until this player tears down this deck in favor of a more flexible one? I'm sorry for rambling on, but what I enjoy about this game is the variety of ways players can go about attaining victory. Nobody will play political decks if they can't throw in a few extra votes themselves -- they just won't have a chance. Taking away from the variety of the game in fear of the possibility of one degenerate combination would really detract from the game's value. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Andrews S2...@nmu.edu

In article <3n17b8$k...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>In fact, specifically stating that >>it is a strike seems to indicate that it should be treated like any >>other strike with regard to timing... > >I believe that making it a strike is to avoid people burning combat >cards if they're planning to end combat anyway, from using a gun to maneuver >and then ending combat if things get too hazy, etc. But that still doesn't address why Combat Ends has to be treated specially wrt timing. If it's a strike like any other, then it should resolve with other strikes. There's nothing to indicate that it should resolve before any other strike. All this ruling does is deprive the blocker of the chance to play a card, making a powerful strike evern more powerful, for no apparent reason. Where does the idea that this particular strike resolves before strike resolution come from? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <s291.10....@nmu.edu>, Dave Andrews <s2...@nmu.edu> wrote: > >I really don't see how this is much of a threat. After all, that player has >no princes, justicars, or primogen out (all 1 and 2 capacity vamps) and since >the rules say vote cards are not replaced until after the vote is finished, >the most votes that this player can come up with is 7. If you're referring to my deck that I posted above, it may sound like not much of a threat, and when I first built this deck I thought it would be just a joke. In practice, however, your princes, justicars and primogens will not hit the table for several turns, by which time this deck (with at least 5 vamps on turn 4 -- WITHOUT the Infobahn or any Eff. Manges) will have done crippling damage. Also remember that in the first few turns that I'm calling votes, there probably won't be more than one prince on the table. Unless you're burning vote cards as fast as I am, I only ever need 3 or 4 votes, tops. And after it passes I just draw more votes. >How hard is it for >other players, who may have primogen, princes, or justicars, plus any vote >cards, dread gazes, and surprise influences to come up with 7 counter votes. >Granted, the player may get someone across the table to vote on his side, but >you can count on the people whom the vote is directed against, plus the >predator of the player with the KRC deck to vote against, plus any allies they >may have wheeled and dealed into their corner. It sounds easy, but remember that speed kills. The cheapest natural prince is 6; praxis seizures will be nigh-impossible to get through unless you have as many votes as I do. And for the same transfer costs as your 1 prince, I can bring in 3 or more weenies. And all of them can call KRCs. If I go fourth, I get 2 or 3 vampires (2 caitiff and a 2-cap, or 2 2-cap) on turn 1. Like I said, it doesn't sound like much, but it actual practise it's very hard to stop. >Also, why not block the votes and hose his vampires? There are no 2 capacity >vampires with superior obf. so the most a vampire can muster up is +1 stealth, >in addition to the stealth inherent in calling a vote. (Each vamp can only >play one cloak on itself, and they don't have sup. obf. to throw cloaks on >each other) Probably if you built a deck to get you through a multi-player >game intact, you remembered to include enough intercept to muster up +2 >intercept every so often. The problem is the resource differential. By the time your blocker has his sport bike, I've got 5 vampires calling votes. You can hose one off, what about his 4 friends? (This is why I said that a deck with many Wakes could probably stop it. They let one blocker do the work of many.) >Finally, this player has no workable defense. It will not take long for him >to succumb to his predator, and even if he did last long, burning 7 vote cards >per turn would bring his deck to the end leaving him with no resources to play >with later in the game. 'The best defence is a good offence...' Also, keep in mind that I am spending *very little* pool on controlling minions. I can get 7 or 8 minions for around 12 pool. That means my predator has to do 18 damage to oust me, by which time I've gained 6 from ousting my prey. It is true, once opposing decks get votes on the table I run out of cards. But by this time it's usually too late. >I can see a player with this kind of deck spoiling >the game for 1 player, maybe 2 if he's really lucky, but he's not going to >win. Considering that everyone is getting pissed at his degenerate deck, plus >the fact that he never wins, how long do you think it will be until this >player tears down this deck in favor of a more flexible one? I agree completely with the statement about people getting pissed at a degenerate deck -- I don't like playing with or against it. I also agree that it spoils the game for (at least) one player -- I've let other people play it as my predator, and it sucks having one or two vamps and 5 pool at the start of my fifth turn. But don't say it can't win if you haven't seen it in action. It will usually oust its first two prey. In a 5 player game, that's at least second place, isn't it? I don't want to promote munchkinism, and I don't want to gut political decks -- being able to discard votes is quite important for passing anything, especially if your opponents can discard votes to oppose. But it does lead to this sort of silliness. How to fix it? I don't know. A 1-blood minion cost to call a vote would be far too drastic, although a master card that caused the same thing might be a good card for an expansion (Camarilla Taxation? I know very little about V:tM) [ quoted text not captured ]

ska...@u.washington.edu (Semprini) writes: >I don't want to promote munchkinism, and I don't want to gut political decks >-- being able to discard votes is quite important for passing anything, >especially if your opponents can discard votes to oppose. But it does >lead to this sort of silliness. How to fix it? I don't know. A 1-blood >minion cost to call a vote would be far too drastic, although a master card >that caused the same thing might be a good card for an expansion (Camarilla >Taxation? I know very little about V:tM) Discarding votes is not essential to getting votes through. If you play by the literal rules (when only opponents can push votes) you can still get votes through. The trick is that in order to do so, you must use Bewitching Oration and the vote manipulators (Telepathic Vote Counting, Bribes, Scorn of Adonis, Disarming Presence, and Charming Lobby). I don't find it a problem that in order to do "selfish vote" strategies you must aggressively use vote-manipulating cards and disciplines. From a simulation standpoint, I actually prefer the situation in which you can bend the Camarilla only by skilled and talented political machinations, rather than by just burning vote cards, which seems to me the equivalent of shouting down the opposition. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

s2...@nmu.edu (Dave Andrews) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 14:55:33 +1000 Message-ID: <s291.10....@nmu.edu> >>The only way I have ever come up with to even survive against the KRC decks as >>I call them, are to chuck in unreasonable numbers of Delaying Tactics, which >>would probably not help you actually win the game all that much. >I really don't see how this is much of a threat. Build a KRC deck and play it. I've played weenie vote that didn't go nearly as far as a KRC deck and it did quite well. If the deck does unreasonably well, you may change your mind. If it doesn't, come back and tell us why. I like to hear as much as possible from different people and groups, with different preferences and styles of play. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Hi Y'all! I was just wondering if someone could mail me the original posting of the FAQ -- I missed it. Thanks. ________ _ _ _ __ |^| __ __ __ __ Napoleon Benito | | | ' | ',\/ \| |/ ,\/ \| ' \ McMaster University Hamilton,ON Canada | | |( | _/ ) | | _/ ) | | | "You've got WAY too much free time!" |_|__|__,_|_| \__/|_|\__)\__/|_,|_| -Chandler Bing, FRIENDS email: u900...@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca

OK, it seems that there is either a) confusion over exactly when Minor Boon is used, or b) a contradiction in the Minor Boon rulings. I'll try to get it sorted out. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3mum6n$1...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Pulled Fangs is normally played during the press step. If combat ends >before then, for example if one combatant is sent to torpor, then Pulled >Fangs may be used as the combat is ending. (It may not be used after >a Combat Ends strike.) Minor Boon is played after the combat actually >ends, so after Pulled Fangs would be used. I'm not sure how Minor Boon would The combat ends when one of the vampires goes to torpor. Minor Boon prevents this, so we never get to the stage where the combat is over. If you have to wait for the combat to be over to play MB, then you're too late, as the vampire is already in torpor. If going to torpor isn't the event that triggers the end of combat, then what is? And how do other cards that prevent effects that would cause torpor work if MB cannot be used in combat? [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>However the Design Team IS issuing official rulings without support via >>either argumentation or proven playtesting. They also appear to be issued >>without regard for the views of posters on this newsgroup, or any other >>similar group. For that, you need credibility, and lots of it. >It is absolutely ridiculous to require that we provide extensive documentation >of playtesting in order to issue a ruling before adopting a ruling. This >is simply not going to happen. And the result is near unanimous dissent with several rulings, and extensive dissent with many more. Did that ever happen in the Magic groups? I'm not asking for "extensive documentation of playtesting". Just comments like "weenie vote decks were controlled by intercept in playtesting". >>If the position the Design Team holds is well-thought-out and consistent, >>then it will stand up to any attempt by me to poke holes in it. >Nothing personal, but this is a pipe dream. There are several rulings in >both games that are well thought out, but that some people refuse to >accept as correct. If your standard is to accept every ruling that comes >down, then we are doomed to failure. That last sentence probably didn't come out the way you want, but I'd agree with it wholeheartedly. Of course, you'll find some who disagree. But good clear rulings rapidly rally support. Watch the dynamics around here sometime. >>But my point is that neither of "one per minion" nor "one per Methuseleh" >>subsumes the other. They are two separate rules that simply coincide in >>the overwhelming majority of situations. >But given that it is not clear from the rulebook whether these statements >are contradictory or complementary, one has to go to the design team to >find out the situation, and the answer is that they're contradictory, >and the "one per minion" wins. They are not contradictory, from logic. The design team can't change that. >>Actually nobody's suggesting changes to the Mask card. I'm just saying >>that a literal reading of the rules solves the "indefinite bonus" problem >>of the Mask, and that there are no logical problems associated with a >l>iteral reading of the rules... >Exactly how does a literal reading of the card clearly prohibit repeating >action modifiers? It's not at all obvious. It comes from a literal reading of the rules, which say "once per Methuseleh". >>In this case, the general rule is not written as part of the game. The >>fact that some retainers are written as optional (Ghoul Retainer, Ghoul >>Escort) while others are written as mandatory (Wolf Companion, Murder of >>Crows) certainly indicates no general rule. >There is definitely a general rule that retainers are mandatory. It's not in the rules, nor clearly indicated by the cards. >If a >retainer is written to be optional, then it breaks the rules. Cards dobreak >the rules, and we shouldn't have to put a red flag on every card that doesso. No, but there is a red flag on the ghoul retainer (can use), and you're choosing to ignore it. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > But that still doesn't address why Combat Ends has to be treated >specially wrt timing. If it's a strike like any other, then it should >resolve with other strikes... It is not a strike like any other. It is a "game over" card first, and a strike only to prevent hazy things like maneuvering with a gun and then using Majesty if things don't go as planned. It is not a normal strike and should not be treated as such. [ quoted text not captured ]

Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >Because there are fundamental differences between Magic and Jyhad. >They are games targetted at different audiences. That does not necessarily mean that the two design teams should take different approaches to dealing with problems that come up once a card is released. >There are some Magic players who pay $50 for an o-o-p. Magic players >also put up with two different versions of "Fog". There are many >Jyhad players who won't do the same. It has been my experience that there are many more Magic players who would prefer to use updated cards than to keep playing them differently, but for whatever reason do play them differently. I suspect that once it becomes practical for WotC to adopt the policy of playing cards with the updated texts, many many people will actually start doing that as well. >In rec. ... magic, when someone posts that the Grey Ogre is wallpaper, >some people may even tend to disagree with him, saying that the >wallpaper is fine as it is. I have hardly seen any posts that >substantially disagree with any expressions of disgust with >the Chainsaw wallpaper in this group; indeed most postings >support a house rule of some sort for the Chainsaw. I believe that that is an artifact of the "tournament environment" vs. the "league environment" distinction that Magic has, but Jyhad does not. In a tournament, there's no reason to play Grey Ogre. In a league, where card access is restricted, the 2/2 ogre is just fine when there are no Uthden Trolls to be had, and not a bad card to play with at all. The Chainsaw situation is different because a) there is no league/tournament distinction in Jyhad, and b) the Chainsaw is outdated by a card of the same commonality. [ quoted text not captured ]

[all weenie KRC deck discussion deleted] >I don't want to promote munchkinism, and I don't want to gut political decks >-- being able to discard votes is quite important for passing anything, >especially if your opponents can discard votes to oppose. But it does >lead to this sort of silliness. How to fix it? I don't know. A 1-blood >minion cost to call a vote would be far too drastic, although a master card >that caused the same thing might be a good card for an expansion (Camarilla >Taxation? I know very little about V:tM) There's really no such thing as a vote in the role-playing game. My suggestion, which I am completely unable to test and have made before, is to allow only 1 of any political card to gain you votes. This way, a KRC/Agitation deck is going to have at most 2 votes for anything. You can toss in "waste" political cards for extra votes, but then you've got less of the cards you actually want, so might provide a balance (so 15 KRC, 15 ConAgitation, 30 misc votes you never plan on calling will leave you with some votes you can't push very well, and some times you can't call a vote.) Possibly add the rule that you may only push a vote with cards if all of your titled minions have voted and it still won't carry/fail. You'd have to be a more precise. In practice, all of a Meth's votes are always for or against, so it isn't that bad. Both of these ideas are "stolen" from stealth/interecept: only 1 of each card and no tossing cards. Hopefully they do the same thing-- forcing you to include a mix of cards and sometimes get a jam.

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >voting rules _as they are currently written_ would make the "ultra-selfish >wienie vote decks" a thing of the past. I realize that the acting Meth not >being able to play any additional political action cards would make vote >decks less powerful, but (even though I originally argued against it) I Rauhaa, James "less powerful"??? If political deck was even less powerful I would quit trying to use one. I think I could get one work if I had 20-30 Majesties but I don't. So I have to load to the deck some other stuff and survive until I can get the princes and Justicars to work. And still I have to try to dodge well aimed cars and sewer lids, and avoid torpor. And because there is different kinds of votes in my deck I wouldnt want to give up any cool votes just to win one. Because there is only one modifier that can get you additional votes (and you can only use one) I think it's fair that the caller can also use vote cards. Otherwise you could also suggest that the caller can not give up the edge but others can. You must see that in a multiplayer it's not very easy to win votes even now. >believe that this would remove the threat of "silly" decks that are 10 Cloak >the Gathering, 20 Kine Resources Contested and 20 Conservative Agitation (sp). >No, I don't currently play that way, but I can see why things might be played >that way. I don't. You can not possibly win with a deck like that if the others have given any thoughts at all to their decks. Not in a multiplayer game anyway. ))marko -- I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

:>>The only way I have ever come up with to even survive against the KRC :> decks as :>>I call them, are to chuck in unreasonable numbers of Delaying Tactics, :> which :>>would probably not help you actually win the game all that much. :> :> (Quick explaination: KRC deck = 1&2 blood vampire, some Effective :> Managements, and otherwise only Kine Resources Contested) :> :> Hmm. Actual evidence. How weird. Yes, well, people don't seem to want to play much with me after one game... hence the difficulty. also, I've so far had to proxy about half my deck, which also causes problems with some. > The ideas for dealing with KRC decks focused mostly on intercept combat > and rush combat. What happened with those? Also, was this in 2-player or > multiplayer situation, and was it real play or just deck testing? It was real play, and the point was that these decks can do up to an average of 30 pool by the 4th or 5th turn... this is enough to kill two meths. In any game of 4 players or less, there was no stopping the deck. In a large game (which I HAVEN'T played), the deck may not win, but it would kill at least one or two guys. In an ante situation, where you stand to lose only commons... > Has anybody else tried playing with or against KRC decks? > > Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) I wonder if I've set the world record for winning a Jyhad game in 2 minutes or so :) Fine, fine, so it was a two player that time. Personally, I agree with the interpretation that the vote caller may not push the vote.

In article <3n6v10$8...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >> But that still doesn't address why Combat Ends has to be treated >>specially wrt timing. If it's a strike like any other, then it should >>resolve with other strikes... > >It is not a strike like any other. It is a "game over" card first, and >a strike only to prevent hazy things like maneuvering with a gun and then >using Majesty if things don't go as planned. It is not a normal strike and >should not be treated as such. So the design team has overruled the portion of the rules which says "considered a strike" and the card texts which say "Strike: Combat Ends". I guess what I'm getting at is what rationale allows this? I mean, if it's a strike like any other, you STILL can't do the maneuver w/gun -- Majesty bit, because that's specifically forbidden. Do you know why the DT decided to override the rules and cards on this, or is it "just because"? [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : The Chainsaw : situation is different because a) there is no league/tournament distinction : in Jyhad, and b) the Chainsaw is outdated by a card of the same commonality. Ummm... Chainsaw is Uncommon Shotgun (the card I assume you were referring to) is common. This makes it even worse than in Magic, because at least there the stronger card is the rarer one. In Jyhad, it is the rarer card that is worse. Perhaps this was all 'intentionally' done to favour the non-suitcase players, but somehow I doubt it. :-) Shane Travis | Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits sht...@duke.usask.ca | are objects of scorn to Americans who blow horns Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | to break up traffic jams. | -- Mary Ellen Kelly

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: > My suggestion, which I am completely unable to test and have made > before, is to allow only 1 of any political card to gain you votes. > This way, a KRC/Agitation deck is going to have at most 2 votes for > anything. You can toss in "waste" political cards for extra votes, but > then you've got less of the cards you actually want, so might provide > a balance (so 15 KRC, 15 ConAgitation, 30 misc votes you never plan on > calling will leave you with some votes you can't push very well, and some > times you can't call a vote.) Peace Owen, I really like this idea. It just an extention of the "only one of each" stealth/intercept cards. It will slow the KRC munchkin deck down somewhat. It should promote diversification in vote decks. What do you think, Tom W.? Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

In article <3n6v10$8...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >> But that still doesn't address why Combat Ends has to be treated >>specially wrt timing. If it's a strike like any other, then it should >>resolve with other strikes... > >It is not a strike like any other. It is a "game over" card first, and >a strike only to prevent hazy things like maneuvering with a gun and then >using Majesty if things don't go as planned. It is not a normal strike and >should not be treated as such. The problem is that the rules say: "The *strike* ends combat immediately" instead of: "The declaration of the strike ends combat immediately" And, since the DT has not addressed this issue, but merely made a too-hasty interpretation of the word immediately, we are inclined to distrust the protestations of the DT as they try to hold on to that ill-formed conclusion. L. Scott -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rules' Monger

In article <3n6vbo$9...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: :> I believe that that is an artifact of the "tournament environment" vs. :> the "league environment" distinction that Magic has, but Jyhad does not. :> In a tournament, there's no reason to play Grey Ogre. In a league, where :> card access is restricted, the 2/2 ogre is just fine when there are no :> Uthden Trolls to be had, and not a bad card to play with at all. The Chainsaw :> situation is different because a) there is no league/tournament distinction :> in Jyhad, and b) the Chainsaw is outdated by a card of the same commonality. I believe that the Shotgun is a common, while the Chainsaw is a *gasp* uncommon!

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>> But that still doesn't address why Combat Ends has to be treated >>>specially wrt timing. If it's a strike like any other, then it should >>>resolve with other strikes... >>It is not a strike like any other. It is a "game over" card first, and >>a strike only to prevent hazy things like maneuvering with a gun and then >>using Majesty if things don't go as planned. It is not a normal strike and >>should not be treated as such. > So the design team has overruled the portion of the rules which >says "considered a strike" and the card texts which say "Strike: Combat >Ends". I guess what I'm getting at is what rationale allows this? I >mean, if it's a strike like any other, you STILL can't do the maneuver >w/gun -- Majesty bit, because that's specifically forbidden. I think there is confusion on what is meant by "a strike like any other". Combat Ends "is not a strike like any other" in that it does its thing immediately, rather than waiting until the Resolve Strikes step. It is a normal strike in that you must have a strike available to play Combat Ends. If you maneuvered with a gun, then you have allocated your first strike of the round towards that gun, and cannot play Combat Ends as that strike. [ quoted text not captured ]

The rulebook mentions that Combat Ends beats strikes such as dodge to cover those cases when it is used by the blocking minion. If Combat Ends is used by the attacking minion, the blocking minion never gets a chance to play a strike. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > The combat ends when one of the vampires goes to torpor. Minor >Boon prevents this, so we never get to the stage where the combat is >over. If you have to wait for the combat to be over to play MB, then >you're too late, as the vampire is already in torpor. No, the vampire is sent to torpor, so the combat ends. Minor Boon is played after the combat is over, just before the vampire would be put into torpor. > If going to torpor isn't the event that triggers the end of >combat, then what is? And how do other cards that prevent effects that >would cause torpor work if MB cannot be used in combat? The going to torpor is what ends the combat; Minor Boon is used after combat. Undead Persistence is used during the combat since it's used when the vampire "should go to torpor". [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>Exactly how does a literal reading of the card clearly prohibit repeating >>action modifiers? It's not at all obvious. >It comes from a literal reading of the rules, which say "once per >Methuseleh". The corrected rules clearly say "cannot be used twice by a minion" in section 7.2.2. If there is another statement in the rules that conflicts with this, the statement in 7.2.2 should be considered to win, just as with the reaction card conflict. >No, but there is a red flag on the ghoul retainer (can use), and you're >choosing to ignore it. Ghoul Retainer is giving you a choice as to whether to strike with hands or use a weapon. it is not giving you the choice of not striking. [ quoted text not captured ]

James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >> My suggestion, which I am completely unable to test and have made >> before, is to allow only 1 of any political card to gain you votes. >I really like this idea. It just an extention of the "only one of each" >stealth/intercept cards. It will slow the KRC munchkin deck down somewhat. >It should promote diversification in vote decks. What do you think, Tom W.? I have no idea what the design team thinks about being able to burn the same vote card repeatedly for votes, but will pass the suggestion on. I also don't know whether there would be time to change this for V:TES. [ quoted text not captured ]

Damian Chang <740926...@omega.ntu.ac.sg> wrote: >I believe that the Shotgun is a common, while the Chainsaw is a *gasp* >uncommon! Blech, you're right; I forgot to check the rarity lists. Still, the point is that I don't expect the policy on "wallpaper" to be any different in Jyhad than in Magic. Specifically that the approach is going to be to avoid having wallpaper in the first place, or to fix it in future printings if it turns up, not to issue errata midstream. [ quoted text not captured ]

ma...@beta.hut.fi (Marko Puumalainen) wrote: > > "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: > > >voting rules _as they are currently written_ would make the "ultra-selfish > >wienie vote decks" a thing of the past. I realize that the acting Meth not > >being able to play any additional political action cards would make vote > >decks less powerful, but (even though I originally argued against it) I > > Rauhaa, James Peace Marko, What is "Rauhaa?" > "less powerful"??? If political deck was even less powerful I would > quit trying to use one. I think I could get one work if I had 20-30 > Majesties but I don't. So I have to load to the deck some other stuff > and survive until I can get the princes and Justicars to work. And > still I have to try to dodge well aimed cars and sewer lids, and avoid > torpor. I've done very well with Ventrue vote decks that didn't double up on any votes and was less than 10% Majesties. > And because there is different kinds of votes in my deck I wouldnt > want to give up any cool votes just to win one. Because there is only > one modifier that can get you additional votes (and you can only use > one) I think it's fair that the caller can also use vote cards. > Otherwise you could also suggest that the caller can not give up the > edge but others can. You must see that in a multiplayer it's not very > easy to win votes even now. I wasn't trying to argue that I didn't believe that it was/n't fair that the acting Meth should be able to play Pol Actn cards, I was saying that it would solve the problem of munchkin decks like the one below. > >believe that this would remove the threat of "silly" decks that are 10 Cloak > >the Gathering, 20 Kine Resources Contested and 20 Conservative Agitation (sp). > >No, I don't currently play that way, but I can see why things might be played > >that way. > > I don't. You can not possibly win with a deck like that if the others > have given any thoughts at all to their decks. Not in a multiplayer > game anyway. I don't know about 'winning', but that deck could easily get two victory points. If it gets a third VP, it could easily win. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >In my copy of the rules (original), it says (14.4) "Players cannot play >the same action modifier card more than once per action." This doesn't >conflict with 7.2.2, as following this rule does not permit the same >minion to play the same action modifier more than once. Aha, there it is. OK, I will point this out with regards to the Mask of 1000 Faces ruling. >The phrasing for that would be "GR strikes with hands or with a weapon the >controlling minion is not currently using." This would be analogous with >the Wolf and the Crows, which are clearly obligatory. The current phrasing on >GR of "can use" indicates an option, both by conventional use, and by >contrast with the animals. Well, the fact that similar cards are worded differently doesn't necessarily mean they function differently. Obviously cards should follow standardized wordings, but this doesn't always happen. Ghoul Retainer is one case where a card that should have had a standardized wording didn't. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <marko.7...@snakemail.hut.fi>, ma...@beta.hut.fi (Marko Puumalainen) writes: >>believe that this would remove the threat of "silly" decks that are 10 Cloak >>the Gathering, 20 Kine Resources Contested and 20 Conservative Agitation (sp). >>No, I don't currently play that way, but I can see why things might be played >>that way. > > I don't. You can not possibly win with a deck like that if the others > have given any thoughts at all to their decks. Not in a multiplayer > game anyway. Maybe you should try it. I've never lost with that deck. Remember that you have to use weenies. The main reason I keep that "sick" deck is to prove that somehow, this problem must be fixed, by card limits or other means. Of course if they don't, then I'll keep it for tournaments! For players of KRC decks, here are a few more tidbits. It never hurts to have a couple Autarkis Persecutions and Disputed territories. Freak drives used with Giuliano and Rufina speed you up even more. You can even use Uriah to FD if you need the speed. You may only have one Ventrue in your crypt (Rufina) but a Ventrue HQ is still useful, just in case there isn't one for you to dispute. If you're feeling bored, call a Rumors of Gehenna for everyone and play those Effective Managements. With Giuliano inside already, you may want to put in Vliam and a Backways. Dimple and KoKo along with a Labyrinth help as well. Damian.

Damian Chang (740926...@omega.ntu.ac.sg) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] You still have to get the votes passed and will most likelay fail in most due to players having some voting power. You also could get hammered by a Celerity/Auspex deck. If you only have 'weenie' vamps, +2 intercept will stop ANY vote you may have since you can only play 1 Cloak the Gathering on a vamp unless it's played at superior in which case it would be played by another untapped vamp for the acting vamp. Obviously, your opponents have not tried or sucessfully built an intercept deck. I have. Most people I play against hate it b/c they can never get equip or allies. The flaw to my deck is that it is vulnerable to being intercepted on my equipment or attacked by Thaumaturgy presses...

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>>Exactly how does a literal reading of the card clearly prohibit repeating >>action modifiers? It's not at all obvious. >>It comes from a literal reading of the rules, which say "once per >>Methuseleh". >The corrected rules clearly say "cannot be used twice by a minion" >in section 7.2.2. If there is another statement in the rules that conflicts >with this, the statement in 7.2.2 should be considered to win, just as >with the reaction card conflict. In my copy of the rules (original), it says (14.4) "Players cannot play the same action modifier card more than once per action." This doesn't conflict with 7.2.2, as following this rule does not permit the same minion to play the same action modifier more than once. >>No, but there is a red flag on the ghoul retainer (can use), and you're >>choosing to ignore it. >Ghoul Retainer is giving you a choice as to whether to strike with hands >or use a weapon. it is not giving you the choice of not striking. The phrasing for that would be "GR strikes with hands or with a weapon the controlling minion is not currently using." This would be analogous with the Wolf and the Crows, which are clearly obligatory. The current phrasing on GR of "can use" indicates an option, both by conventional use, and by contrast with the animals. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

> You still have to get the votes passed and will most likelay fail in most > due to players having some voting power. You also could get hammered by a > > Celerity/Auspex deck. If you only have 'weenie' vamps, +2 intercept will > stop ANY vote you may have since you can only play 1 Cloak the Gathering > on a vamp unless it's played at superior in which case it would be played by > another untapped vamp for the acting vamp. Obviously, your opponents have not > tried or sucessfully built an intercept deck. I have. Most people I play > against hate it b/c they can never get equip or allies. The flaw to my deck is > that it is vulnerable to being intercepted on my equipment or attacked > by Thaumaturgy presses... You are overlooking the obvious. I will have 4-6 vamps out by the third turn. How many can you intercept? Intercept 1 or 2 by the 4th turn and they'll still do 8-16 damage in the 4th turn. Votes shmotes. Having 7 vote cards in hand tends to help vote passing. Don't talk to me about intercept decks. I build them too. It is my belief that every deck should have intercept capabilities, and that's why traditional vote decks have a hard time in my group. The problem with the KRC decks is their speed and initial hitting power. They may not be the last survivor in a large game, but they sure as hell will take out 2 or 3 guys. You can stop this deck, but not consistently, and not without sacrificing a lot of kill power, which would somewhat diminish your chances against the rest of your opponents.

In article <3neifd$9...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >> The combat ends when one of the vampires goes to torpor. Minor >>Boon prevents this, so we never get to the stage where the combat is >>over. If you have to wait for the combat to be over to play MB, then >>you're too late, as the vampire is already in torpor. > >No, the vampire is sent to torpor, so the combat ends. Minor Boon is >played after the combat is over, just before the vampire would be >put into torpor. But the vampire is prevented from going to torpor, so the combat shouldn't have ended. Why can MB *not* be played in combat. Why do you have to wait until the combat is over to play the card? Do you see what I'm asking? >combat. Undead Persistence is used during the combat since it's used >when the vampire "should go to torpor". And MB is used during combat because it prevents the vampire from going to torpor. I can't see any reason why you should wait until after combat to play MB. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1995Apr2...@omega.ntu.ac.sg>, Damian Chang <740926...@omega.ntu.ac.sg> wrote: >and that's why traditional vote decks have a hard time in my group. The problem >with the KRC decks is their speed and initial hitting power. They may not be >the last survivor in a large game, but they sure as hell will take out 2 or 3 >guys. You can stop this deck, but not consistently, and not without sacrificing >a lot of kill power, which would somewhat diminish your chances against the >rest of your opponents. Gee, where have I heard comments like this before? S&B anyone? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3njljl$8...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>In my copy of the rules (original), it says (14.4) "Players cannot play >>the same action modifier card more than once per action." This doesn't >>conflict with 7.2.2, as following this rule does not permit the same >>minion to play the same action modifier more than once. > >Aha, there it is. OK, I will point this out with regards to the Mask of >1000 Faces ruling. But don't forget that any ruling you make will also impact Cloak the Gathering. Personally, I think that the once per minion is fine, and Mask is freaky but okay, and it's bonding/conditioning/threats that needs to be clarified. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3nejah$b...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >I think there is confusion on what is meant by "a strike like any other". >Combat Ends "is not a strike like any other" in that it does its thing >immediately, rather than waiting until the Resolve Strikes step. It is a >normal strike in that you must have a strike available to play Combat Ends. >If you maneuvered with a gun, then you have allocated your first strike of the >round towards that gun, and cannot play Combat Ends as that strike. But there is no reason in the rules to support you. The DT has said this, but the rules do not say "consider it a strike for the purposes of having a strike this combat", they say "considered a strike." There is NONE of the special provision that the DT has added about when it resolves in the rules. BY THE RULES, it is a strike. Anything else is DT addenda. I'm not arguing against that, in fact I'll play in any official game with this addendum. What I'm now asking is why the DT flew in the face of the rules and logic. Was it for a reason, or "just because"? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3nolda$n...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >In article <3nejah$b...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, >Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >>I think there is confusion on what is meant by "a strike like any other". >>Combat Ends "is not a strike like any other" in that it does its thing >>immediately, rather than waiting until the Resolve Strikes step. It is a >>normal strike in that you must have a strike available to play Combat Ends. >>If you maneuvered with a gun, then you have allocated your first strike of the >>round towards that gun, and cannot play Combat Ends as that strike. > > But there is no reason in the rules to support you. The DT has >said this, but the rules do not say "consider it a strike for the >purposes of having a strike this combat", they say "considered a >strike." There is NONE of the special provision that the DT has added >about when it resolves in the rules. BY THE RULES, it is a strike. >Anything else is DT addenda. I'm not arguing against that, in fact I'll >play in any official game with this addendum. Not to mention that the card works just fine without making an exception out of it. Everything works better when you don't rely on exceptions: Reaction cards *except* on your turn. (Reaction cards in response to an action) Directed actions are directable at any minion *except* cardless bleeds. (Directed actions may be directed only as described by the action). Master Out-of-Turn *except* on your own turn. (Master Out-of-Turn at any time appropriate). You can't interfere in a combat you're not involved in *except* with Elysium. (You can't interfere in a combat you're not involved in) All strikes resolve during strike resolution *except* Combat Ends (and, recently, Dodge). (All strikes resolve during strike resolution (clever name for the phase, eh?)) > What I'm now asking is why the DT flew in the face of the rules >and logic. Was it for a reason, or "just because"? You already know the answer. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3nqa5u$b...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Combat ends is not "just like any other strike". It ends the combat >as soon as it is played, not during strike resolution. That is the >way it has always been ruled. I'm sorry if people hadn't clued into >that sooner. It is omnipotent; it beats all other strikes. Nobody's arguing that it's omnipotent. It does beat all other strikes. But you and the DT seem to have created this new order of precedence out of whole cloth. The rules say "considered a strike..." about combat ends. From some dark region, you have brought out some interpretation that says "considered a strike for the purposes of whether or not you can have a strike, but not for strike resolution, because it resolves immediately, not during strike resolution..." It has always been ruled to take place first. This idea that it gains some special power is nowhere in the rules, and is completely unnecessary. If you feel that it is necessary to have this immediacy of effect, please show me why it is better than leaving combat ends in strike resolution. All your rulings were consistent with the assumption that it was a normal strike. We didn't clue in to the fact that you thought it was funky until you made the ruling that the opponent was deprived of the chance to play a strike card. Everyone except the DT seems to think that the rules as written are perfectly fine. And we have a *lot* of playtesting experience. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <adm4.1736...@po.cwru.edu>, Aaron Mandelbaum <ad...@po.cwru.edu> wrote: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: > >>* A bleed is a directed action, against your prey. > >This part is WRONG. A bleed is just an action that results in the target >losing some amount of pool. 13.3.1 says that a cardless bleed is a directed action. [More rules-mishandling deleted] -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger

In article <adm4.1736...@po.cwru.edu>, Aaron Mandelbaum <ad...@po.cwru.edu> wrote: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: > >>* A bleed is a directed action, against your prey. > >This part is WRONG. A bleed is just an action that results in the target >losing some amount of pool. Subject: *NEW* Official FAQ for Jyhad, April 95 version Date: 13 Apr 1995 01:16:26 GMT Rules Errata: p. 20, Section12.3.1. Bleed: Bleeding is a directed action. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3nqt2m$b...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > >Peace Scott, > >> * Computer hacking is a bleed, and is directed. It can be taken only against >> your Prey (definition of bleed). The bleed is at +1 (card text). > >It is directable at anyone (card text [the (D)]). The (D) doesn't make it directable at everyone. The (D) makes it a directed action. The DT makes it directable: Corrected rules: 13.3.1 "Directed Actions are noted on action cards with a (D) in the card text" "Directed Actions ... allow you to direct the action against any Methuselah." <A cardless bleed is a directed action> <paraphrase of 13.3.1> However, the (D) didn't change anything - the Bleed is a directed action anyhow (13.3.1 and the errata to 12.3.1) The (D) does *not* make it directable, as far as the rules go. The DT has said that the (D) makes it directable, but has offered no reason as to why this screw up should be true. (D) means directed. A Bleed is directed. A (D) bleed is directed. Big deal. A bleed is restricted to your Prey. That's WHY the superior version of Cat Burglary has "Any Methuselah" on it - it needs it to overcome the restriction placed on all bleeds (since all bleeds are directed actions in the first place. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >>Directed actions are directable at any minion *except* cardless bleeds. >>(Directed actions may be directed only as described by the action). >Why do people think it's so strange that cardless bleeds are directed, >but can only ever be used on one player? If there was a card that explicitly Again, I don't. It's strange that the rulings resemble so much confetti rather than a book. >let you control one of your prey's vampires, that would clearly be written as >a D-action usable only against one person, right? Just treat the built-in >bleed as such a card. And all other bleeds. Jeez. * (D) means directed action. * That means only the target can block. * A bleed is a directed action, against your prey. * A cardless bleed is a bleed, and is directed. It can be taken only against your Prey (definition of bleed). * Computer hacking is a bleed, and is directed. It can be taken only against your Prey (definition of bleed). The bleed is at +1 (card text). * Night Moves is a bleed, and is directed. It can be taken against your Predator or Prey (card text). The bleed is at +3/6 stealth (card text). * Cat Burglary (inferior) is a bleed, and is directed. It can be taken only against your Prey (definition of a bleed). * Cat Burglary (superior) is a bleed, and is directed. It can be taken against any Methuselah (card text). If you take Bleed to be difined as "Prey only", then *every* *single* instance of a directed action states exactly who may be targetted with the action. If you go and staple the "(D) symbol allows to to override the restriction on who may be bled" rather than let the card text do that (which it does in some cases), then you break Cat Burglary (further bandages notwithstanding). And, you are left with no + bleed action cards that are Prey-only. Obviously, this was not the way the cards were designed to be played. >Each class of cards works a little differently than the others. It could >be argued that this systematic variation is not something that should be >written into a game, but it was clearly written into Magic, and it is also >written into Jyhad/V:TES. Combat ends is a variation on the normal strike, >just like dodge; they each have a game effect as soon as they are played, >rather than when strikes would resolve. The variation is taken care of with card text (cf Cat Burglary). Breaking the meaning of (D) only bogs down the rules. And please stop with the dodge-shovel. Both dodge and Combat Ends work just perfectly if you allow them to resolve during resolution, as written in the rules. >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rules' Monger.

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: Peace Scott, > * Computer hacking is a bleed, and is directed. It can be taken only against > your Prey (definition of bleed). The bleed is at +1 (card text). It is directable at anyone (card text [the (D)]). > If you go and staple the "(D) symbol allows to to override the restriction > on who may be bled" rather than let the card text do that (which it does > in some cases), then you break Cat Burglary (further bandages notwithstanding). > And, you are left with no + bleed action cards that are Prey-only. > Obviously, this was not the way the cards were designed to be played. Obvious to you, not to some others (me for example). > And please stop with the dodge-shovel. Relax. > Both dodge and Combat Ends work just perfectly if you allow them to > resolve during resolution, as written in the rules. I agree. [see I don't always disagree, Scott] [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >>No. Mentioning that it is directed does not remove the restriction that >>you can only bleed your prey (by default). >But your silly rules say that being Directed means being able to target any >Methuselah. >This is errata. (Bogus, but official) >Therefore it supercedes the original rules. Puh-lease. The errata just said that the 'only your play' restriction on bleeding only applied to the default (no-card) bleed. Or do you want the no-card required part to apply as well? (I'll govern the unaligned at you. But you don't have the card! So, it's a bleed, and it says in the rules that bleeding doesn't require a card) (two can play at the faulty-logic game, hee hee hee) And thus, a consequence is that (D) bleeds can hit anyone. -- Aaron Mandelbaum (sheesh!)

Combat ends is not "just like any other strike". It ends the combat as soon as it is played, not during strike resolution. That is the way it has always been ruled. I'm sorry if people hadn't clued into that sooner. It is omnipotent; it beats all other strikes. [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >* A bleed is a directed action, against your prey. This part is WRONG. A bleed is just an action that results in the target losing some amount of pool. The default bleed is a *directed* *bleed*, *only against your prey*. (specifically says each of these in the description) A card that gives an action is only directed if it says so, and only only useable against your prey if it says so, and only a bleed if it says so. Simple 'nuff. >* Computer hacking is a bleed, and is directed. It can be taken only against > your Prey (definition of bleed). The bleed is at +1 (card text). Computer hacking says (D) bleed. Which means it's directed, and a bleed. Since it doesn't say so, it *isn't* only useable against your prey. This is (at least to me) the obvious interpretation of the rules, and it's what everybody I know plays with. And it also happens to be the official ruling. As for cat burglary, it sounds broken. But that'd hardly be a first. :) -- Aaron Mandelbaum

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <3njljl$8...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, >Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>>In my copy of the rules (original), it says (14.4) "Players cannot play >>>the same action modifier card more than once per action." This doesn't >>>conflict with 7.2.2, as following this rule does not permit the same >>>minion to play the same action modifier more than once. > >>Aha, there it is. OK, I will point this out with regards to the Mask of >>1000 Faces ruling. > But don't forget that any ruling you make will also impact Cloak >the Gathering. Personally, I think that the once per minion is fine, >and Mask is freaky but okay, and it's bonding/conditioning/threats that >needs to be clarified. It doesn't bother me to restrict CtG to 1 per action. It's still quite useful. I've gotten some very hostile responses when I tell people that every Sup. Obfuscated vampire can pitch a Cloak on every action without even needing to be untapped. The proposed change (not much of a change; actually just following the literal original rules) gets all 3 problems at once. Does anybody think any of the above cards are too weak if modifiers can only be played once per action? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > But the vampire is prevented from going to torpor, so the combat >shouldn't have ended. Why can MB *not* be played in combat. Why do you >have to wait until the combat is over to play the card? Do you see what >I'm asking? I see what you're asking, but the design team ruled that the very fact of sending a vampire to torpor ends the combat, and that Minor Boon is not played during the combat, but after. I'm sorry if this doesn't match up with peoples' understanding of how combat worked, but that is the ruling. Yes, Minor Boon prevents the vampire from going to torpor, but that does not entail being used *during* the combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson <lsc...@crl.com> wrote: >Directed actions are directable at any minion *except* cardless bleeds. >(Directed actions may be directed only as described by the action). Why do people think it's so strange that cardless bleeds are directed, but can only ever be used on one player? If there was a card that explicitly let you control one of your prey's vampires, that would clearly be written as a D-action usable only against one person, right? Just treat the built-in bleed as such a card. Each class of cards works a little differently than the others. It could be argued that this systematic variation is not something that should be written into a game, but it was clearly written into Magic, and it is also written into Jyhad/V:TES. Combat ends is a variation on the normal strike, just like dodge; they each have a game effect as soon as they are played, rather than when strikes would resolve. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3nokau$n...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: :> In article <1995Apr2...@omega.ntu.ac.sg>, :> Damian Chang <740926...@omega.ntu.ac.sg> wrote: :>>and that's why traditional vote decks have a hard time in my group. The problem :>>with the KRC decks is their speed and initial hitting power. They may not be :>>the last survivor in a large game, but they sure as hell will take out 2 or 3 :>>guys. You can stop this deck, but not consistently, and not without sacrificing :>>a lot of kill power, which would somewhat diminish your chances against the :>>rest of your opponents. :> :> Gee, where have I heard comments like this before? S&B anyone? S&B has lost a lot of it's intimidation value where I play due to the proliferation of the Bleed Bounce strategy... :) Damian. Arrrrgh!!! You mean I helped you oust your prey AGAIN???

lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >Aaron Mandelbaum <ad...@po.cwru.edu> wrote: >>sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>>* A bleed is a directed action, against your prey. >>This part is WRONG. A bleed is just an action that results in the target >>losing some amount of pool. >13.3.1 says that a cardless bleed is a directed action. Exactly. A *cardless* bleed. The *default* bleed. As I explained lower down. Which of course you deleted so that you could 'correct' me. Why don't you just admit that the way you've been looking at the rules is wrong? Very few people I know would look at what's written, and how the game is played, and come up with an interpretation in any way resembling yours. The Earth isn't flat! Admit it! -- Aaron Mandelbaum

In article <3ns13p$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >The proposed change (not much of a change; actually just following the >literal original rules) gets all 3 problems at once. Does anybody think >any of the above cards are too weak if modifiers can only be played once >per action? Not me, Curt. For the 3 types of cards you mentioned. If I had been involved with the design of the game, I'd have made the playing condition of Mask of 1000 Faces even stricter. Something like, "Cannot be played if the acting minion has already used an ability (Discipline, ect.) not possessed by this minion during this action." In general, you can only use 1 of each type of Stealth card in an action. There is no compelling reason why Cloak the Gathering has to be an exception. However, I do have to raise a question about Surprise Influence. Is the card intended to allow any non-voting deck have a decent vote defense? >js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: > >>In article <3njljl$8...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, >>Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >>>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>In my copy of the rules (original), it says (14.4) "Players cannot play >>>>the same action modifier card more than once per action." This doesn't >>>>conflict with 7.2.2, as following this rule does not permit the same >>>>minion to play the same action modifier more than once. >> >>>Aha, there it is. OK, I will point this out with regards to the Mask of >>>1000 Faces ruling. > >> But don't forget that any ruling you make will also impact Cloak >>the Gathering. Personally, I think that the once per minion is fine, >>and Mask is freaky but okay, and it's bonding/conditioning/threats that >>needs to be clarified. >It doesn't bother me to restrict CtG to 1 per action. It's still quite >useful. I've gotten some very hostile responses when I tell people that >every Sup. Obfuscated vampire can pitch a Cloak on every action without >even needing to be untapped. > -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

[ quoted text not captured ] Let me throw my 2 cents here. The reason is because the DT tried to draw the literal interpretation from the rules, which had not been properly written in the first place (and therefore is not a good source to draw literal interpretations from). This is evident from the Strike: Combat Ends ruling. Problems always occur when people try to do that (drawing literal interpretations from an ambiguously written source), whether that source is game rules or the Bible. [ quoted text not captured ]

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > The proposed change (not much of a change; actually just following the > literal original rules) gets all 3 problems at once. Does anybody think > any of the above cards are too weak if modifiers can only be played once > per action? Peace Curt, Surprise! We agree. I don't see any reason why Stealth should be more powerful than Intercept (which it is if you may play an 'unlimited' number of CtGs). I've seen Toreador intercept combat decks fail to stop actions because three or four CtGs were tossed in for good measure. Once per Meth is a good idea. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <adm4.1751...@po.cwru.edu>, Aaron Mandelbaum <ad...@po.cwru.edu> wrote: >lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>Aaron Mandelbaum <ad...@po.cwru.edu> wrote: >>>sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: > >>>>* A bleed is a directed action, against your prey. >>>This part is WRONG. A bleed is just an action that results in the target >>>losing some amount of pool. >>13.3.1 says that a cardless bleed is a directed action. > >Exactly. A *cardless* bleed. The *default* bleed. As I explained lower down. >Which of course you deleted so that you could 'correct' me. I deleted nothing that would save your shouted word. If you think I did, then I do not understand your (original) point. Section[10]: card text has precedence. Any statement I make that doesn't invoke a card will be describing the default state of things. If I said: Bleed is at zero stealth, I would be right, even though a card exists (Cat Burglary) which is a blled at +1 stealth. If I say: a bleed is a directed action, against your prey, I am right, even though a card exists (most) which override this (thanks to the DT). > >Why don't you just admit that the way you've been looking at the rules is >wrong? Very few people I know would look at what's written, and how the game >is played, and come up with an interpretation in any way resembling yours. > >The Earth isn't flat! Admit it! Clever. [ quoted text not captured ]

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) wrote: > > In article <3o2sef$1...@hermes.louisville.edu>, > James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: > >Surprise! We agree. I don't see any reason why Stealth should be more > >powerful than Intercept (which it is if you may play an 'unlimited' number > >of CtGs). I've seen Toreador intercept combat decks fail to stop actions > >because three or four CtGs were tossed in for good measure. Once per Meth > >is a good idea. > > In general, stealth should be more common and usable than > intercept because stealth tends to move the game toward conclusion while > intercept tends to stall the game and stop forward progress. > You want the game to finish, not to stall. Peace Joe, Sorry, I didn't choose my words better. Change Stealth [capitalized] to Obfuscate and Intercept [capitalized] to Auspex. I believe that allowing "unlimited" CtGs unbalances things in favor of Obfuscate. There, is that clearer. [it is to me] [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o3hv4$5...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >> I guess this leads to an extension to the question I'm asking in >>the other thread. I know that in the minion card department, only >>combat cards can be used, and only on a combat you are in (with the >>obvious exception of Nos. Putresence), but which *master* cards can be >>used in combat, and which of those can be used in a combat which you >>have no minions involved in? > >This is basically covered in the next design team rulings, so I'll just >leave it for those. > Well, my own personal list (not mine, just my observation of what the DT will put in it): Elysium (!) Frenzy (not on your turn, but sure, you cn use it when you aren't involved) Minor Boon (played after combat anyhow) Sudden Reversal (to undo Frenzy or Minor Boon) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o347m$q...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: > In general, stealth should be more common and usable than >intercept because stealth tends to move the game toward conclusion while >intercept tends to stall the game and stop forward progress. This is very dependent on what the stealth and the intercept is being used for. If the stealth is being used for hunting, for example, it helps to make the game longer. Taking a good intercept-combat deck for example, a successful intercept can torporize the acting minion, moving the game towards conclusion. - remainder of quoted article - >In article <3o2sef$1...@hermes.louisville.edu>, >James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >>Surprise! We agree. I don't see any reason why Stealth should be more >>powerful than Intercept (which it is if you may play an 'unlimited' number >>of CtGs). I've seen Toreador intercept combat decks fail to stop actions >>because three or four CtGs were tossed in for good measure. Once per Meth >>is a good idea. > You want the game to finish, not to stall. > (BTW, please note that I'm not addressing specific examples, nor >am I saying that the way the game has implemented things is good or bad, >I'm just giving the theoretical argument for stealth.) -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >In general, you can only use 1 of each type of Stealth card in an >action. There is no compelling reason why Cloak the Gathering has >to be an exception. If you're going to take that approach, then there's almost never a compelling reason to have an exception at all, so why make exceptions? "Compelling" reasons come into play more under the "The rule is basically this, and it would have such and such a consequence for this card over here, is that consequence a compelling reason to fix the rule, or to fix the card?" >However, I do have to raise a question about Surprise Influence. >Is the card intended to allow any non-voting deck have a decent >vote defense? Yes, basically. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > I guess this leads to an extension to the question I'm asking in >the other thread. I know that in the minion card department, only >combat cards can be used, and only on a combat you are in (with the >obvious exception of Nos. Putresence), but which *master* cards can be >used in combat, and which of those can be used in a combat which you >have no minions involved in? This is basically covered in the next design team rulings, so I'll just leave it for those. [ quoted text not captured ]

From: ad...@po.cwru.edu (Aaron Mandelbaum) writes: >lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>Aaron Mandelbaum <ad...@po.cwru.edu> wrote: >>>sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>>>* A bleed is a directed action, against your prey. >>>This part is WRONG. A bleed is just an action that results in the target >>>losing some amount of pool. >>13.3.1 says that a cardless bleed is a directed action. >Exactly. A *cardless* bleed. The *default* bleed. As I explained lower down. >Which of course you deleted so that you could 'correct' me. >Why don't you just admit that the way you've been looking at the rules is >wrong? Very few people I know would look at what's written, and how the game >is played, and come up with an interpretation in any way resembling yours. >The Earth isn't flat! Admit it! Ok, there was a truce called on this one some time back, but I had to jump in after that. First, if you'll check Mr. Johnson's house rules list, you will find more people signed on to (D) bleed only goes against prey than opposed to it. Many people agree with Mr. Johnson's interpretation. Second, bleeds are defined as affecting the prey of the bleeder. This is quite separate from the directedness of bleeds. Third, do you really think all bleed cards are supposed to be fundamentally different from a cardless bleed? In what other game aspect do you see that? Fourth, Cat Burglary is NOT broken if you follow Mr. Johnson's interpretation. Do you believe the person who wrote the Cat Burglary card thought straight (D) bleeds were directed? There is also a consistency in the non-prey bleed cards - both are limited to one pool. All these problems occur from running together two separate concepts - whether any Methuseleh can be a legal target, and whether only the target can block. There is no necessary connection between the two concepts. In the original rules, (D) covered ONLY who may block. Target is covered, in all cases, by the text of the card. For some reason, the Design Team said later that a (D) action could ALSO be directed against any Methuseleh - thereby excising the previous elegant way for describing actions NOT targetting any Methuseleh but still blockable only by the target (and in the process requiring unnatural language for a bleed card to do the natural thing - bleed only prey). In the process of this (unnecessary) change they neglected to change any affected cards. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

The news feed to my site is flaky and I have yet to see the Official FAQ posted. . Could you send me a copy or suggest where I can get a copy. Thanks Roger Milton rg...@trpo7.tredydev.unisys.com 998 Blue Rock Lane Blue Bell, PA 19422-2002 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Roger Milton at Unisys , Tredyffrin, PA : rg...@trpo7.tredydev.unisys.com "I don't speak for Unisys" %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

In article <3o42pp$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >First, if you'll check Mr. Johnson's house rules list, you will find more >people signed on to (D) bleed only goes against prey than opposed to it. >Many people agree with Mr. Johnson's interpretation. The way it's worded in the house rules list is strange, and while I don't oppose people playing with those house rules, I don't agree with them either. The house rules list can't be taken to be a concensus, only a poll of what we play. So you don't see a -JC- on that rule, but I don't agree with it. I list opposition in the list only when I feel that the proposed rule will hurt the game. This is not to address your argument at any other point, just to say that I don't agree with this reason as one to justify your point. As you've said, we've come to a truce on the matter, and I'll happily stay on my side of the camp... :-) | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

In article <D7wty...@ecdcsvr.tredydev.unisys.com>, Roger G Milton <rg...@trpo7.tredydev.unisys.com> wrote: >The news feed to my site is flaky and I have yet to see the Official FAQ >posted. . >Could you send me a copy or suggest where I can get a copy. The collected Jyhad Design Team Rulings and the 4/18/95 Jyhad FAQ can be downloaded from my ftp site. Anon ftp to discus.ise.vt.edu, and look in pub/outgoing/jsciv. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o3lbq$q...@ask.cs.cornell.edu>, Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >In article <3o347m$q...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >> In general, stealth should be more common and usable than >>intercept because stealth tends to move the game toward conclusion while >>intercept tends to stall the game and stop forward progress. > >This is very dependent on what the stealth and the intercept is >being used for. >If the stealth is being used for hunting, for example, it helps to >make the game longer. That was a general statement, not meant to apply to each and every case. Hunting is one of the few cases where the opposite may be true. But the large majority of actions tend to move the game toward conclusion (bleeding, attacking, about half of the voting, bleed action cards, etc), and stealth will tend to help move the game when applied to those actions. [ quoted text not captured ]