I just read the new "no repeat actions" rule in the DCI Tournament
Rules. I thin there may be a better way to say that.
Does anyone have a problem with a vampire Equipping, playing Freak Drive
and Equipping something else? Under the current DCI rules, a vamp can't
do that.
I've never heard of problems with equipment-pushing, ally-pushing, or
hunt-pushing.
There is also a second--and more pressing--problem. There is no clear
definition of what is meant by the same "type" of action. Is hiring an
ally "hiring" or "hiring an ally"? Can I hire an ally, untap and hire a
retainer? Can a vampire take the first action needed to burn Pulled
Fangs, untap with Rutor's Hand and take the second such action?
I have a fairly simple answer to both problems. Reword the DCI rules to
specify that a minion cannot call more than one vote or attempt more than
one bleed action in a single turn.
Thoughts?
Mr. Pynk
---
http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/~tvbarnha/mr_pynk/
"Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk]" <tvba...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu> writes:
>I just read the new "no repeat actions" rule in the DCI Tournament
>Rules. I thin there may be a better way to say that.>Does anyone have a problem with a vampire Equipping, playing Freak Drive
>and Equipping something else? Under the current DCI rules, a vamp can't
>do that.>I've never heard of problems with equipment-pushing, ally-pushing, or
>hunt-pushing.
But it is also not a ball(oon)-breaker to disallow such repetion, and
it's cleaner to simply disallow all repeating, rather than disallowing
only the "Broken" instances.
>There is also a second--and more pressing--problem. There is no clear
>definition of what is meant by the same "type" of action. Is hiring an
>ally "hiring" or "hiring an ally"? Can I hire an ally, untap and hire a
>retainer? Can a vampire take the first action needed to burn Pulled
>Fangs, untap with Rutor's Hand and take the second such action?
No. You can't hire an ally nor a retainer. You recruit allies and employ
retainers. "Recruit" is an action type. "Employ" is an action type.
"Hire" is english, which is a poor second to rulebook terminology.
And No. Each action to burn pulled fangs is an action provided by
<the same> card in play, and thus counts as the same action (and the
same action type, by extrapolation).
>I have a fairly simple answer to both problems. Reword the DCI rules to
>specify that a minion cannot call more than one vote or attempt more than
>one bleed action in a single turn.>Thoughts?
This allows multiple untap-Bum's Rush and/or multiple untap-Haven Uncovered
attacks. And what's wrong with untap-voting that makes it worse than
untap-attacking?
"Cannot attempt more than one action of a given type" is cleaner and
easier, especially since the rules governing "same action" (for Change
of Target) already exist to hand qeustions like the Pulled Fangs example.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Clap on! <clap> <clap>
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Clap off! <clap> <cla+W."
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | ^Ejq#xe>4NO CARRIER
In article <Pine.BSF.3.91.960918...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu>,
"Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk]" <tvba...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu> wrote:
> I just read the new "no repeat actions" rule in the DCI Tournament
> Rules. I thin there may be a better way to say that.
<<<<<SNIP!>>>>>>
> I've never heard of problems with equipment-pushing, ally-pushing, or
> hunt-pushing.
got a question for the folks round here related to this issue. What about using
Freak Drive to untap and bleed someone twice in one turn with the same vampire?
Greg Zuvich wrote:
> got a question for the folks round here related to this issue. What about
> using Freak Drive to untap and bleed someone twice in one turn with the
> same vampire?
That is forbidden under the new rules.
James
--
| James Hamblin | "It's not Magic, kid. It's evil." |
| je...@cornell.edu | -- Tom Servo, "MST3K: Pod People" |
>ally "hiring" or "hiring an ally"? Can I hire an ally, untap and hire a
>retainer? Can a vampire take the first action needed to burn Pulled
>Fangs, untap with Rutor's Hand and take the second such action?
Unfortunatly, no.
>I have a fairly simple answer to both problems. Reword the DCI rules to
>specify that a minion cannot call more than one vote or attempt more than
>one bleed action in a single turn.
I like this one *alot* better
Sorrow
On 18 Sep 1996, Greg Zuvich wrote:
> got a question for the folks round here related to this issue. What
> about using Freak Drive to untap and bleed someone twice in one turn
> with the same vampire?
Now fits with the first of the Golden Tenets: Illegal (no minion may
attempt the same action type twice in a turn).
[Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu]
@ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++
# Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+*
@#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++)
@#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?
>I have a fairly simple answer to both problems. Reword the DCI rules to
>specify that a minion cannot call more than one vote or attempt more than
>one bleed action in a single turn.
>>Thoughts?
I have a thought. In the example on the WotC web site it says the vampire SUCCESFULLY bleeds,
and is then disallowed from bleeding again this turn.
If your first action is blocked, could you then untap and attempt the same type of action?
On 18 Sep 1996, Sorrow wrote:
[Re: Repeat actions variant]
> >I have a fairly simple answer to both problems. Reword the DCI rules to
> >specify that a minion cannot call more than one vote or attempt more than
> >one bleed action in a single turn.> I like this one *alot* better
This is, however, an inconsistent ruling. The current ruling is much more
consistent.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Card wrote:
> I have a thought. In the example on the WotC web site it says the
> vampire SUCCESFULLY bleeds, and is then disallowed from bleeding again
> this turn. If your first action is blocked, could you then untap and
> attempt the same type of action?
No. You already attempted.
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> "Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk]" <tvba...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu> writes:
> >I just read the new "no repeat actions" rule in the DCI Tournament
> >Rules. I thin there may be a better way to say that.
>> >Does anyone have a problem with a vampire Equipping, playing Freak Drive
> >and Equipping something else? Under the current DCI rules, a vamp can't
> >do that.
>> >I've never heard of problems with equipment-pushing, ally-pushing, or
> >hunt-pushing.
>> >I have a fairly simple answer to both problems. Reword the DCI rules to
> >specify that a minion cannot call more than one vote or attempt more than
> >one bleed action in a single turn.
>> >Thoughts?
>
> This allows multiple untap-Bum's Rush and/or multiple untap-Haven Uncovered
> attacks. And what's wrong with untap-voting that makes it worse than
> untap-attacking?
I agree, though, not the way you mean. I can't see a problem with
anything other than bleeding, where you get the major degenerecy.
Untapping is a part of the game. There are several ways to untap
(Alexandra, Rutor's Hand, Freak drive, Majesty, Earth Control, Change of
Target) during your turn, but even more ways to untap (or block without
actually untapping) during someone else's turn. The balance is towards
the defense and does not rest with a single clan or discipline. If you
can explain to me how Bum's Rushing someone twenty times is more
effective than doing it once (either you're a fighter or you ain't),
I'll probably change my mind.
Untap/vote is OK by me. Anything that isn't unblockable, unstoppable,
and unimaginativly formulaic is fine. Even new players can come up with
enough cats, rats, and bikes to even the odds. And there's no guarantee
the vote will pass.
> "Cannot attempt more than one action of a given type" is cleaner and
> easier, especially since the rules governing "same action" (for Change
> of Target) already exist to hand qeustions like the Pulled Fangs example.
I was not aware of this. It seems to me, unnecessary. Getting a second
chance at removing one half of a Pulled Fangs seems legitimate.
Especially since it would be impossible/useless to build a deck around
such a concept. I admit, that ruling is in line with the new tourney
rules. Hopefully, if another change was made, it would be discarded as
well.
If clarity is the most important consideration (and this is already a
complex game for beginners), then the six card restriction list seems
simpler than any other solution. There is a banned list anyway, a
restricted list was an obvious extension.
BTW, speaking of the banned list, what are the most useful questions to
ask with the monocle? Or was it banned because it made play overly
complex (too much lawyering)?
Zach
On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, Zach Dennis wrote:
> L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> > "Chris Barnhart [Mr. Pynk]" <tvba...@server.wulaw.wustl.edu> writes:> > >I have a fairly simple answer to both problems. Reword the DCI rules to
> > >specify that a minion cannot call more than one vote or attempt more than
> > >one bleed action in a single turn.> > This allows multiple untap-Bum's Rush and/or multiple untap-Haven Uncovered
> > attacks. And what's wrong with untap-voting that makes it worse than
> > untap-attacking?> I agree, though, not the way you mean. I can't see a problem with
> anything other than bleeding, where you get the major degenerecy.
> Untapping is a part of the game. There are several ways to untap
> (Alexandra, Rutor's Hand, Freak drive, Majesty, Earth Control, Change of
> Target) during your turn, but even more ways to untap (or block without
> actually untapping) during someone else's turn. The balance is towards
> the defense and does not rest with a single clan or discipline. If you
> can explain to me how Bum's Rushing someone twenty times is more
> effective than doing it once (either you're a fighter or you ain't),
> I'll probably change my mind.
Bum's Rush. Freak Drive. Bum's Rush someone else.
Haven Uncovered They S:CE. With Owl Companion,you see the have no more.
Freak Drice...
> Untap/vote is OK by me. Anything that isn't unblockable, unstoppable,
> and unimaginativly formulaic is fine. Even new players can come up with
> enough cats, rats, and bikes to even the odds. And there's no guarantee
> the vote will pass.
True. But decks that get the advantage in votes can do just as degenerate
things as bleeders with repeat actions. (I Misdirect your vampires. You
have no Wake or 2nd Tradition. With my 3 minions, I vote 6 times KRC each
time)
> > "Cannot attempt more than one action of a given type" is cleaner and
> > easier, especially since the rules governing "same action" (for Change
> > of Target) already exist to hand qeustions like the Pulled Fangs example.> I was not aware of this. It seems to me, unnecessary. Getting a second
> chance at removing one half of a Pulled Fangs seems legitimate.
You can have other minions do it too. That particular minion can't try
again.
> Especially since it would be impossible/useless to build a deck around
> such a concept. I admit, that ruling is in line with the new tourney
> rules. Hopefully, if another change was made, it would be discarded as
> well.> If clarity is the most important consideration (and this is already a
> complex game for beginners), then the six card restriction list seems
> simpler than any other solution. There is a banned list anyway, a
> restricted list was an obvious extension.
That destroyed far more legitimate strategies than the two Special Floor
Rules did. People have talked about the restriction on repeat actions as
ending certain deck types (notably Tap'n'Bleed), but in practice this is
not the case (See Jyhad On Line 4 for a counterexample). All that the two
house rules end are the (only!!!) two degeneracies in NL Jyhad.
> BTW, speaking of the banned list, what are the most useful questions to
> ask with the monocle? Or was it banned because it made play overly
> complex (too much lawyering)?
Bit of both.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <Pine.GUL.3.95.96092...@yar.cs.wisc.edu>,
theCorrupter <adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Card wrote:
>>> I have a thought. In the example on the WotC web site it says the
>> vampire SUCCESFULLY bleeds, and is then disallowed from bleeding again
>> this turn. If your first action is blocked, could you then untap and
>> attempt the same type of action?>
>No. You already attempted.
>
Correct for the SPTR, but the DCI rules only appear to refer to successful
actions (you could use Majestic Bleed as a strategy, for example).
--
-----
L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text